Notes

First Drafts, Conversations, Stories in Progress

The Daily Trump: Filling a Time Capsule
Show Description +

People will look back on this era in our history to see what was known about Donald Trump while Americans were deciding whether to choose him as president. Here’s a running chronicle from James Fallows on the evidence available to voters as they make their choice, and of how Trump has broken the norms that applied to previous major-party candidates. (For a Fallows-led, ongoing reader discussion on Trump’s rise to the presidency, see “Trump Nation.”)

Show 15 Newer Notes

Trump Time Capsule #139: Unshackled

Donald Trump early this morning

The standard throughout this Time Capsule series has been: what is happening in this Age of Trump that has not happened before in our politics.

Without further elaboration, the outbreak of full-on war between the Republican nominee and the Republican establishment is unlike anything anyone has previously seen. The only possible comparisons illustrate the extremity of what is underway. Those would be the onset of the Civil War, which of course exceeds all other strains in America’s long history, and the idiosyncratic politics that led to a temporary Republican/Bull Moose split in 1912.

Donald Trump’s war on the party that nominated him is a reminder of the institutional nihilism that is at the heart of everything he stands for and does. He believes in himself: “I alone can save you.” He believes in his immediate family. He appears to believe in the greater Trump organization. As for the rest—courts, treaties, tax codes, norms, any idea of the civic or the public—it’s tabula rasa.

Early today

Every inaugural speech, by every one of the first 44 U.S. presidents, has struck the theme of peaceful transfer of power, and a regard for institutions whose health and integrity transcend even the deepest political disagreements. The gravest challenge to U.S. institutions obviously occurred as the 16th president, greatest of them all, was being sworn in. Donald Trump now seems very unlikely to become the 45th occupant of the office. He is making it clearer by the moment why he would be so dangerous in command.

Six a.m. today

***

More to come on the institutional theme as time permits. The main challenge is keeping up with the flow of material. And I leave you to reflect on the implications of Trump’s word “shackles” in the tweet at the top of this post—rather than “limits,” “constraints,” “gloves,” or even “hobbles.”

I may have to adjust the standard sign-off line for the hallowed Time Capsule series.

The usual approach is to note how many days are left until the election—as I write, it’s just 28 days and a few hours—and offer two reminders. The first is that Donald Trump still has not released his tax forms, although he effectively conceded last night that he has paid no federal income tax for years. The second is that the Republican establishment, from Speaker of the House Paul Ryan on down, has not budged from its endorsement of Trump. He’s fine! Let’s make him the most powerful man in the world!

We now get this refinement from the speaker:

NYT headline at noon on October 10

The Ryanesque elegance here is that the party’s senior elected official in the country will no longer “defend” its nominee for president—but he still endorses him. As noted earlier: Trump is a monster! Vote for Trump!

At the debate. Rick Wilking / Reuters

In my current cover story on the debates, I quote noted primate expert and anthropologist Jane Goodall:

“In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”

In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of “Mike,” a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.

During the first debate, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stayed at their assigned lecterns, we didn’t see this as much. Last night, the scenes that Goodall was imagining played out before our eyes: Trump looming up behind Clinton, walking very close into what we’d normally consider her “personal space,” emphasizing the fact that he is physically so much larger than she is. Here is a short GIF of him moving in on her.

But you don’t have to believe me, or her. No less an authority than Nigel Farage, Brexit-campaign leader in the U.K. and now enthusiastic Trump backer, gave an interview in the spin room in which he said that Trump “looked like a big silverback gorilla”—and meant it as a compliment. “He is that big alpha male. The leader of the pack!”

See for yourself, in this incredible on-scene video via Ben Smith of BuzzFeed.

***

While this behavior presumably made Trump feel more dominant and also pleased people like Farage who already supported him, will this help him win the election?

The debate tonight. Shannon Stapleton / Reuters

I think I have taken off half my remaining life expectancy in the process, but I watched the second debate this evening and did a million-item tweetstorm in real time. Actually, only 97 items, which you can see in numbered sequence starting here.

But there is one item that genuinely has not occurred before in modern presidential politics, and that in my view deserves genuine outrage. That was Trump’s comment about 30 minutes in that if he were president, Hillary Clinton would be in jail. Here’s one of the YouTube clips I’ve found:

This is wrong. You cannot say this. This is the way tinhorn cult-of-the-personality despotisms work. The fact that this came out immediately and spontaneously from Trump, like his that makes me smart!” comment about paying no taxes and unlike his memorized “oh, that was locker room talk” responses about his sex tape, makes it more revealing.

That’s enough for now. 29 days to go.

Howard Stern, with sidekick Jackie Martling, in the late 1990s, when Donald Trump was a frequent guest on his raunchy show. Peter Morgan / Reuters

Some recordings of Donald Trump’s appearances on the Howard Stern show from the 1990s onward are already famous. That is where Trump said in 2002 “I guess so” when Stern asked if invading Iraq was a good idea. It’s also where Trump said that avoiding sexually transmitted diseases had been “my own personal Vietnam,” that Miss Universe Alicia Machado was “an eating machine,” and so on.

Now Andrew Kaczynski, who wrote about many of these recordings while at BuzzFeed, and colleagues Chris Massie and Nate McDermott at his new home of CNN, have put together a collection of additional Trump-Stern interviews. They’re quite something, starting with numerous lascivious Trump comments about his daughter Ivanka. (For instance: “Can I say this? A piece of ass,” Stern asks about Ivanka. “Yeah,” her father replies.)

Here’s the significant point about this collection—actually, two. The first is that concentrating them in one place has surprising power. Look through, and you’ll see what I mean. The second bears on Trump’s claim in his “apology” video last night that “these words [“grab by the pussy” etc] don’t reflect who I am.” In fact, the evidence suggests that they reflect exactly who he is.

***

Bonus reading:  Virginia Heffernan has a wonderful essay in Politico about how Howard Stern knew just what he was doing in these interviews with Trump, and how he lured, goaded, and especially flattered him into what Stern knew would be outrageous statements. When reading this, I could not help thinking of the way Vladimir Putin has also, through flattery, expertly played Trump.

Also, a reader points out a connection I missed. Trump’s initial excuse for “I can do anything I want” is that it was “locker-room” talk—something just between the guys. But the reader points out that as recently as installment #126, I had reported on a very public case of Trump behaving in almost as vulgar a way, to which I was an indirect witness myself. I’d already lost track of that, in the fog of war.

***

For the time-capsule record I need to point out: No, nothing like this has ever happened before. Also: still Paul Ryan is saying, even as other Republicans bail out: He’s fine! Vote for Trump!

Donald Trump, from his real (Android) personal Twitter account, in his only dispatch since the release of his “You can do anything you want” tape.

This is a day unlike any other I recall in many decades of watching and being involved in politics. The only possible comparison would be the tumult of the 1968 presidential campaign, and of the year 1968 in general. But the driving events back then were historically tragic (RFK, MLK, Tet and My Lai, and much more) rather than just squalid. Or perhaps the final stage of Richard Nixon’s Watergate downfall, though even in his failings Nixon was a vastly more serious figure than the showman Trump.  

So this stands on its own.

In fast-moving circumstances, it’s challenging to keep track of which prominent Republicans are in which groups:

  • (a) Those who have been against Trump for a while, a very small group notably including Gov. Kasich and Sen. Flake;

  • (b) Those who were fine with Trump through “Mexican judge” and “I’d like to hear her say something” and “Build the wall!” and the tax returns and the foundation fraud and all the rest, but now are against him, for instance Sen. Ayotte; and

  • (c) Those who say they’re sickened and offended and distraught and generally regusted by Trump’s latest comments, but still think he should become president. This position is known as “the full Ryan,” in honor of the senior Republican elected official, House Speaker Paul Ryan. It includes most GOP members of the Senate and House plus governors.

As a very useful guide, Daniel Nichanian, of the University of Chicago, has prepared an online spreadsheet showing currently serving GOP officials in each of these groups and some others. You can see the list, which he’s quickly updating, at this link, which I’m sharing with his permission.

Below is a sample screenshot as of 2 p.m. EDT today, October 8. The real thing is larger and more legible.

Daniel Nichanian’s GOP-support chart.

We now have 30 days and a few hours to go.

Angela Lansbury and Laurence Harvey in The Manchurian Candidate, in 1962. That movie, and the Richard Condon novel it was drawn from, imagined foreign attempts to direct the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Yesterday the U.S. government said that Russian hackers have been deliberately trying to change the outcome of this year's race. Wikimedia commons

Here are some things that happened yesterday that in any other election year would have been major developments in themselves. But yesterday, October 7, the Day of the Tape, most didn’t even make news programs:

1. Russia trying to tamper with the election. That is what the U.S. government has come out and claimed, for instance via a WaPo story with the headline, “U.S. government officially accuses Russia of hacking campaign to interfere with elections.” Sample:

“The U.S. intelligence community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations,” said a joint statement from the two agencies. “These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.”...

“Today was just the first step,” said Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), a member of the homeland security committee. ... “Moscow orchestrated these hacks because [Russian President Vladimir]Putin believes Soviet-style aggression is worth it. The United States must upend Putin’s calculus with a strong diplomatic, political, cyber and economic response.”

The possible Russian interference would range from something that’s already happened (the hacks of DNC and other email accounts, with releases timed for political damage); to something that might be happening now (interference with registration rolls); to something really alarming (directly tampering with election-night results); to something even worse. That worst-of-all prospect is seeding long-term doubt about the legitimacy of the election itself. Of course this is ground that Trump himself has shamelessly prepared with his “It’s all rigged!” talk from early on (for instance, see installment #68).

Other countries have always had interests in the outcome of U.S. elections. For decades historians have suspected (and recently may have confirmed) that Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign secretly worked with the South Vietnamese government to torpedo peace talks to end the Vietnam war, in hopes of further damaging Hubert Humphrey’s campaign. The Manchurian Candidate, as a novel in the late 1950s and a movie in the early 1960s, was about Soviet/Chinese rigging of a U.S. election. And of course the U.S. has long interfered in other countries’ politics.

But nothing like this level of attempted interference in U.S. elections has been suggested before. This is new. If it were not for everything else, it would be major news, and it deserves real attention whenever the political version of the O.J. chase is over.  

Good God.

Via David Fahrenthold (of course) at The Washington Post:

That is all.

Except of course for Paul Ryan and his “respectable” comrades saying: He’s fine! Let’s put him in command! And now, via Politico, comes the news that Ryan plans to campaign alongside Trump tomorrow. Elegant timing!

And for this reminder: For a number of Trump’s supporters, even a video like this will bounce right off their backs. What about Benghazi? And what do you expect from the crooked lamestream media? But to win, Trump needs to attract support beyond his base—notably from women, non-whites, educated people, and young people. So each day’s news should be judged on whether it attracts any of those people to his side. Take your own guess about the effect of The Tape.

Thirty-one days and a few hours to go.

Update: Donald Trump, GOP nominee, has responded:

“This was locker room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago. Bill Clinton has said far worse to me on the golf course—not even close. I apologize if anyone was offended.”

For what it’s worth, I’ve been in locker rooms (though not on golf courses) and never had conversations like this.  

No, William Weld didn't become president. This appearance at the White House, in 1997, was after Bill Clinton nominated him as Ambassador to Mexico--and Senator Jesse Helms, like Weld a Republican, stonewalled until Weld withdrew. Now Weld is back in national politics and making an interesting move. Reuters

On the state of the race, with two days until the next Clinton-Trump debate and 31 days until the election:

1) Former Republican Senators and Representatives Oppose Trump. Over the weeks we’ve noted the announcements from Republican military and foreign-policy experts, reliably Republican editorial pages, business leaders, economists, and one of the two living Republican ex-presidents, that they can’t and won’t support Donald Trump.

Now 30 Republicans who had served in the U.S. Senate or House released an open letter to the same effect. You can read the letter and the list of names here.

I’m not aware of anything like this happening previously in elections of the modern era.

2) Weld Wavers. Bill Weld is the former Republican governor of Massachusetts and the current Libertarian party vice-presidential nominee. He can’t be enjoying the serial self-embarrassments by his running mate, Republican former governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson. A story in the Boston Globe (following this very nice Atlantic profile by Molly Ball) says that Weld is deciding to spend the next 31 days doing something different from the standard third-party argument that Both Major Parties Are Flawed. Instead he’ll be saying, Donald Trump Must Be Stopped, which in the real world means support for Hillary Clinton.

To see how unusual this is, contrast it with Jill Stein’s tone this year; or Ralph Nader’s in his many runs, especially 2000; or George Wallace in 1968, when his trademarked phrase was that “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties.

The manager of a Chinese mask factory showing off his handiwork early this year. Donald Trump has said that the way to bring China to heel is to threaten a "cut off" in relations. Aly Song / Reuters

As you might have heard, Donald Trump visited Nevada yesterday. When not instructing the locals on how to say the state’s name, he gave a quick interview to Jim Snyder of News3 in Las Vegas, which included this observation:

International tourism is important to southern Nevada's infrastructure. In the past, Trump has suggested 'getting tough' with American trading partners.

"But what if China said no more visas to go to Las Vegas and stay at Trump Tower," pressed Snyder.

"If China ever did that, and we cut off relationship with China, China would go bust so fast," said Trump.

This is a really stupid thing to say. It would be stupid enough from some average person on a sidewalk who happened to be captured in one of Jay Leno’s old “Jaywalking” segments. From a presidential candidate, especially one whose strong suits are supposed to be economic policy and trade, it’s worse in its way than the same candidate’s assertion (way back in installment #6!) that “there is no California drought.”

Why?

1. On the merits, the idea that the U.S. would or could bring China to its knees if we “cut off relationship” is just ignorant. Mr. Trump, perhaps you’ve heard about China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds? Or in U.S. stock and real estate markets? Have any idea what would happen to them in a cutoff?

What about the countless U.S. businesses whose supply chains reach deep into China? Or the countless exporters, from Boeing to GE to most of America’s farmers, for whom China is a crucial market? Cavalierly saying you can “cut off [the] relationship” is like previous Trump speculation about breaking up NATO or using nukes. “China” might go bust, but it wouldn’t be the only one.

It’s also a misreading of the options China itself would have, in a scenario that would obviously be terrible for all parties. Here are some of the countries or blocs that already buy more from China than from the United States—that is, important markets other than the U.S. for Chinese products. They include: the European Union as a whole, which depending on how you measure is the first- or second-largest economic group in the world; Japan, next-largest after the U.S., Europe, and China; both Koreas; Australia; many countries in South America and Africa; nearly all countries in ASEAN. You get the idea: it’s most of the economic world. A U.S-Chinese “cut off” would hurt everyone, but it’s not as if China has nowhere else to go.

2. On the strategy, it’s equally foolish. Trump talks about U.S.-China relations as if they were just one more real-estate transaction. You’re always ready to walk; you bluster and play tough; and in the end, you get a great deal.

I resist family-based metaphors for public life. For instance, the federal budget is not like a household budget, despite obligatory assertions to the contrary in political speeches. Still, a far better parallel for U.S.-China relations than a real-estate deal is a long-term marriage. If a marriage is to survive, you don’t threaten to walk each day; you don’t talk about the other person “going bust so fast”; you do need to carefully hear some things and pretend not to hear others; you try to understand the world through your partner’s eyes; you recognize the interests of the extended family; and so down the long list. The metaphor obviously misses a lot, but it’s much closer to reality than the “make great deals!” view is.

Almost every American who has worked with, thought about, dealt with, worried about, or done business in China over the past 40-plus years has come to some version of this perspective. It’s tough for the U.S. to work with China, but the only thing tougher would be working against them as outright foes. Nothing in Trump’s comments about China suggests that he’s ever looked or thought beyond the “make a great deal!” real estate outlook.

Reno, the "biggest little city in the world," in a state whose name Donald Trump wrestled with yesterday D. Ramey Logan, via Wikimedia Commons

Before anyone writes in to point it out: of course a public figure mis-pronouncing a certain place’s name, when visiting that place, doesn’t “matter” in any real sense. It usually just reflects a lack of local spot-knowledge. For instance, I know firsthand that you can make people in Ohio laugh by mis-pronouncing the name of their city Lima. I had thought it was leema, like the capital of Peru. Turns out it’s lyma, like the bean. Oops! And let’s not even get into Louisville.

But Donald Trump’s wading into the Nevada morass does matter, because it’s a perfect small window into the mind and temperament of the man. The brief clip below is remarkable; explanation below, after you take a look.

What’s remarkable here? It’s this trifecta:

  1. Trump is totally wrong. If he had bothered to ask, he could have learned in one second that locals don’t say Ne-VAH-da, with a broad a in the middle. They say Ne-VA-da, with an a like the one in cat or hat. What’s the reason? It’s just how they say it, much as Willamette, Oregon, and Houston Street in New York are pronounced in ways different from what outsiders might assume.
                                                                                                                      
  2. Trump doesn’t know he’s wrong, or care that he might be. Most people understand the difference between what they know, and what they’re assuming or guessing or considering more-likely-than-not. The most sophisticated thinkers in any field, from finance to science to sports and any place in between, try always to wonder about what they don’t know, and about what questions they’re not asking. No less a figure than Donald Rumsfeld memorably summed up this concept when talking about the “Known Unknowns” and so on. By contrast Trump, as you’ll see, is absolutely certain in this thing he’s absolutely wrong about.
                                                                                                            
  3. And still he is a bully and jerk about it. Trump’s approach to this intrinsically trivial point is the same as his approach to everything else: He’s right, you’re wrong, and people who disagree with him are losers. His tone in the clip above is identical to his snap judgment, as reported back in June in installment #26, that a missing EgyptAir flight must have been brought down by terrorists. The weeks have gone on; no responsible official has said for sure what happened; but Trump immediately knew: “What just happened? A plane got blown out of the sky. And if anybody thinks it wasn’t blown out of the sky, you’re 100% wrong, folks, OK? You’re 100% wrong.”

Again, saying Ne-vah-da doesn’t matter. But the combination shown in this clip does: it’s the toxic mixture of ignorance, certitude, and bullying. This is just about the opposite of what you’d like to see in a Commander in Chief. Yet with less than 33 days to go, nearly all “responsible” Republicans from Paul Ryan on down still say, He’s fine! Please make him the most powerful man in the world.

Etching by J.A.J. Wilcox of James Russell Lowell, one of the Atlantic's founders. Five years after this portrait was made, he and the other editors made their first endorsement: of Abraham Lincoln for president. Today his successors have made another endorsement, only the third in the past 159 years. Wikimedia Commons

In previous installments I’ve mentioned editorial statements for Hillary Clinton, and against Donald Trump, from unexpected sources. For instance, the Cincinnati Enquirer, which had endorsed only Republicans for the past century. Or the Arizona Republic, which had never endorsed a Democrat. Or the Dallas Morning News, with nearly as long a pro-Republican history. Or USA Today, which said “don’t vote for Trump” after never before endorsing any candidate.

For the record, I should note the latest in this series. It is our own Atlantic magazine, which today for only the third time in its 159-year history has endorsed a presidential candidate. In 1860, three years after the magazine’s founding, its editors endorsed Abraham Lincoln. One hundred and four years later, in 1964, they made a statement against Barry Goldwater, which meant recommending Lyndon B. Johnson.

Now, with 33 days and a few hours before the election, the magazine has made another endorsement. Like most of the newspaper editorials mentioned above, it is forthright in recommending a vote for Hillary Clinton. But its motivating “this time, it’s different” spirit is deadset opposition to Donald Trump.

Since I had nothing to do with writing this editorial, I can freely recommend that you read the whole thing. To me, it’s a powerful and eloquent statement of what American public life is supposed to stand for, and why those values would be imperiled by a President Trump. I think the final two paragraphs deserve reading with special care.

First this next-to-last paragraph, about how Trump has exploited and perverted genuine economic discontent in the country:

Our endorsement of Clinton, and rejection of Trump, is not a blanket dismissal of the many Trump supporters who are motivated by legitimate anxieties about their future and their place in the American economy. But Trump has seized on these anxieties and inflamed and racialized them, without proposing realistic policies to address them.