Week 7: March 3-9

Week 7 began with Trump tweeting an unprecedented and unfounded accusation against his predecessor: that Obama wire tapped Trump Tower during the campaign. Here is how the Washington Post and the New York Times covered the story the day of the tweets.

The accusation motivated FBI Director Comey to ask the DOJ to refute the claim. These statements were not public. We only know about them because of reporting from the NYTimes, later independently confirmed by CNN. The Justice Department has declined to comment one way or the other, despite Comey’s request. However, Republicans in Congress have declined to support Trump’s wiretap claim. Suffice to say, Sean Spicer has had a tough week answering questions about all this.

Also this week, for the first time the House and Senate congressional committees investigating the 2016 election began to receive classified evidence of Russia’s involvement.

Paul Ryan rolled out his health care bill. It did not go over well. Here are some good explainers: Conservative, Obamacare critic Avik Roy offers a balanced critique; an exploration of whether Ryan’s bill is Obamacare lite; here is Vox’s Mathew Yglesias on why Republicans just aren’t very good at health care legislation; and here is Ross Douthat on Trump’s role in all of this.

 

Week 6: February 24-March 2

This week was a good week to have read some newspapers. Here’s what happened:

Week 6 began with commentary on the similarity of worldview in Stephen Bannon and Trump’s CPAC addresses; and more White House’s attacks on journalists and intelligence community leakers.

Promoting his book of portraits, George W. Bush leveled some criticism a Trump’s bashing of the media, among other things.

Politico gave an illuminating profile of Trump’s management style of his businesses going back to the 1980s. It is full of interviews with people who used to work with him. Their verdict is that Trump is now managing his administration the same way he did his businesses.

Washington Post reporters spoke with Trump voters in Iowa. Their verdict is that Trump needs to start focusing on “us, on our country, on our issues here.”

CBS News released a poll that divides the country into four groups: Trump believers (22%), conditionals (22%), curious (21%), and Trump resisters (35%). (Commentary: which camp do you think I belong to?)

CNN reports that the Trump Administration was going to introduce its new travel ban the day after his address to Congress. But they delayed it so not to distract from all the positive press the speech had caused. (Commentary: maybe any admin. would have done that, but it strikes me as odd to hold back on one of your central policies for fear it would step on good press. Are they getting gun shy?)

Speaking of the congressional address, here is an interview with conservative thinker Yuval Levin on Trump’s presidential performance. Levin makes a philosophical distinction between the presidency as an institutional mold that shapes an individual to it versus an individual’s platform: Trump uses the presidency as a platform, but sometimes tries to fit into the mold. Also, David Brooks gives his review of the speech.

The Russia connection got a lot smokier this week (still no fire):

  • WaPo reports that the FBI was going to pay a salary to the spy who was digging up intel on Trump’s ties to Russia. The money was to go to Christopher Steele after his election season contract was up with some private companies. However, the FBI never made these payments. And Steele is now in hiding.
  • The New York Times reports that Obama officials purposefully, strategically scattered and archived intelligence about Trump-Russia connections throughout the federal government so that this intel could not be easily destroyed and would be accessible by future investigations.
  • Here is the WaPo story about Sessions’s meetings with the Russian Ambassador that lead to Sessions recusing himself from said investigations.

Finally, the GOP Congress is still trying to legislate. Paul Ryan has a draft Obamacare replacement bill but has sequestered it in a private reading room in the basement, presumably so that details will not be leaked and used to attack this bill. People eager to get leaked details so they can attack the bill are most Democrats and some Republicans, like Rand Paul.

Week 5: February 17-23

Week 5 began with the media commenting on Trump’s first press conference as president. Apparently the 77 chaotic minutes were a sight to behold.

The Russia story of the week revolved around White House aids circulating a peace plan being pushed by a pro-Russian politician in Ukraine that would allow for the U.S. to drop Russian sanctions. The Kremlin had to deny any knowledge of the plan. This is a good Who’s Who of the Russia connections in Trump’s orbit.

By week’s end, CNN reported that Reince Priebus had asked the FBI to publicly deny reports that the Trump campaign was in regular contact with senior Russian officials before the election. The FBI refused.

And David Leonhardt of the New York Times opines on five possible explanations for Trump’s Russophilia.

Trump named his new National Security Advisor, Lt General McMaster.

This bizarre story about Trump and Sweden shows how cavalier Trump is about foreign relations, as well as how he uses friendly cable news clips as facts to support his assertions, no matter how baseless those new clips are.

Trump’s Education and Justice Department reversed the Obama Administration’s policy that nondiscrimination laws allowed transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice in schools. What is interesting here is that Ed. Secretary Betsy DeVos was against the reversal but was overruled by Jeff Sessions. She was successful in adding language that says schools have an obligation to protect transgender students from bullying.

Finally, NASA announced the discover of seven exoplanets orbiting a red dwarf 40 light years away.

 

Week 4: February 10-16

Trump’s 4th week started with reporting on an uptick of deportations: New York Times story about an illegal immigrant who has been here since she was a teenager, has been checking in with immigration officials regularly for eight years, and was just deported; and this Washington Post story about increased ICE raids.

Michael Flynn resigned under a cloud, having been in contact with the Russian ambassador before Trump took office and lying about it. Here is conservative pundit Charles Krauthammer arguing that Flynn did nothing wrong other than lie, and he speculates why Flynn would lie if not to cover up for some larger scandal regarding Russia.

This New York Times story reports on growing concern in Congress about Trump’s Russia connections.

And here is the big New York Times story about the intelligence community leaking reports that there were repeated contacts between the Trump campaign and high Russian officials. Nate Silver says this is more smoke than fire at this point, but the fact that news organizations have dozens of reporters on this story, and the IC is leaking to them, shows that fire may eventually be uncovered.

More judges beyond the Ninth Circuit continued to find Trump’s immigration ban unconstitutional, in this Wall Street Journal report.

In this Wall Street Journal editorial, a good Who’s Who of the Trump White House, and a plea to centralize command (under Priebus) so that the administration can become more effective and less chaotic. And here is a Washington Post story about said chaos. And here is a good WaPo opinion piece by Michael Gerson about how no one is in charge in the White House.

Congressional Town Halls are in the news, with some Republicans holding contentious ones and others are refusing to even hold them. This National Review editorial urges Republicans to take the protests seriously, and compares the current protest movement to the Tea Party.

Finally, a disturbing report from the Wall Street Journal that spies in the Intelligence Community are withholding information from the Trump White House for fear that it will be leaked to Russia.

Why “Resist” might be the banner of the Trump opposition

Sometimes a writer comes along and explains a shift that is happening within you  that you were not fully conscious of until you read the piece. This happened to me last week.

From the election until last week, I was of the mindset that progressives and Democrats needed to tailor their Trump-era message and approach specifically to attract non-city voters, including the white working class that was drawn in by Trump’s message. I believed that we needed to emphasize an economic message over the usual liberal pieties that were nicely summed up by the Women’s March Unity Principles. I believed we needed to talk and campaign differently than the ways that just lost the last election–to go in a more Clintonian (Bill, not Hillary) political direction. To pitch a big tent. To reach out to people we disagree with. To tiptoe around sensitive cultural issues where we don’t see eye to eye with these “deplorables.”

While I still believe that to be necessary, the second week of the Trump presidency has made me realize that I was applying old thinking that no longer applies to the current political environment. Seeing the near-spontaneous protests erupt at the nation’s airports over Trump’s immigration ban from Muslim countries made me realize that there will be no tiptoeing around traditional Red-state/Blue-state issues because we are all–all of us–going to be sucked into a great maelstrom of Trump’s presidency. Pro-Trump and anti-Trump opposition will build, and alliances will be formed that will bear little resemblance to the old order. Also, I suspect that the anti-Trump opposition will have most of the country behind it before this is over.

Here are the key excerpts from the Ross Douthat column that made me realize this:

“So why the weekend frenzy, the screaming headlines, the surge of protest? Because of several features inherent to populism, which tend to undermine its attempts to govern no matter the on-paper popularity of its ideas.

First, populism finds its voice by pushing against the boundaries of acceptable opinion. But in the process it often embraces bigotries and extremisms that in turn color the reception of its policies….

Second, having campaigned against elites and experts and all their pomps and works, populists imagine that their zeal can carry all before it, that proceduralism and institutional knowledge are for losers and toadies and men with soft hands, and that a few guys in the White House can execute a major overhaul of a delicate system without bureaucratic patience or rhetorical finesse. … Then, finally, because populism thrives on its willingness to shatter norms, it tends to treat this chaos and blowback as a kind of vindication — a sign that it’s on the right track, that its boldness is meeting inevitable resistance from the failed orthodoxies of the past, and so on through a self-comforting litany. That makes it hard for populists to course correct, because they get stuck in a “the worse the better” loop, reassuring themselves that they’re making progress when actually they’re cratering.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the divide, the ascent of populism also creates an unusual level of solidarity among elites, who feel moved to resist on a scale that they wouldn’t if similar policies were pursued by normal political actors. Thus Trump, not even two weeks into his presidency, has already faced unusual pushback from the intelligence community, the Justice Department, the State Department and other regions of the bureaucracy, even as the media-entertainment complex unites against him on a scale unseen even in previous Republican administrations, and the Democratic Party is pressured into scorched-earth opposition before policy negotiations are even joined. These tensions ratcheted up over the weekend; it’s difficult to see how they ratchet down.

Before last week, I was uninterested in the calls to vote down Trump’s cabinet–because in normal politics a president should get to pick his team. Before last week, I was more interested in Democrats showing themselves willing to work with Trump–because in normal politics this is how you show yourself to be reasonable, and it is how you can get some of your party’s ideas into the other party’s legislation. But now it is clear that normal politics will be of little consequence no matter how carefully it is played–it will be overwhelmed by Trump’s actions. I now feel that “unusual level of solidarity” Douthat refers to, and I am ready to resist everything. Not because of policy, not because of political tactics. But because all that Trump stands for must be opposed on moral grounds. His vision of our country–its institutions and traditions and laws–is a hologram twisted through the lens of his narcissism. The policies of his administration, so far as we can now tell, will represent the anti-globalist, bigoted views of Steve Bannon. We can critique the policies and Bannon’s ideas as wrong and destructive in the same way we have always waged political arguments. But Trump’s mental state will take precedence over all–he will insist on it. And this is the smartest reason to resist him at every turn–because he will ultimately lose the entire country’s respect and support. Everyone, from the white working class to the transgender activist, will pile on. We might as well start now and get this over with. Resist. Reconciliation and cooperation can come later, after the boil is lanced from our politics and normal politics can resume. Let the message ring from every mountain top and every town hall: fuck this guy.

 

Week 3: February 3-9

After two weeks of stumbles, White House staff spoke to the New York Times about how they are adjusting their management structure to be more effective. This kind of behind-the-curtain, gossipy reporting–typically written about administrations in flux–does offer insights. The staff who go on record are tacitly admitting they have a mess to clean up, and promise changes. The staff who speak anonymously are usually trying to get their ideas and advice to the president through the papers, and sometimes trying to make rival staff look bad. This is true in this piece (poor Reince). Among many gems here, we learn that Trump watches cable news day and night and he is not happy about how he is seeing his administration depicted there. We also learn about the dynamic between chief advisors Bannon, Kushner and Priebus.

On Bill O’Reilly’s show, Trump once again made the argument that the US cannot criticize Putin’s Russia because we are not so innocent.

That comment, and the continuing fall out from the Immigration Executive Order spurred many conservative pro-Trump writers to explain why it is becoming harder and harder to defend the President. Even Joe Scarborough, who has regular private conversations with Trump, penned a mildly scolding history lesson about Soviet atrocities.

Finally, a federal appeals panel refused to allow Trump’s Immigration ban to continue. Here is a good analysis of the legal path forward for the ban. And here David French, who supports the ban, gives a scathing conservative critique of the Trump Administration’s roll out of the ban and its weak legal strategy to keep it alive.

Week 2: January 27-February 2

Trump signs an Executive Order that bars all refugees from Syria, and all people from 7 majority Muslim countries from entering the US. Because of the rushed nature of the order there is widespread confusion about who it affects, including people with duel citizenship, valid visas and green card holders: How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos

Breaking with all precedent that has separated domestic political calculations from foreign policy and national security, Trump’s chief political advisor and strategist Steve Bannon is given a permanent seat on the National Security Council: Bannon Is Given Security Role Usually Held for Generals

Here is a good Washington Post survey of Bannon’s anti-globalist and anti-Muslim world view, based on many hours of tape from his Breitbart radio show.

Trump opens a diplomatic rift with Australia-a key military ally-on a phone call with Prime Minister Turnbull where he says “This was the worst call by far.” He was apparently set off by Turnbull requesting that Trump honor an agreement to resettle some refugees from Iraq and Iran that Australia is holding in camps. The situation in these camps are dire and are becoming a domestic and geopolitical problem for Australia. You can read about the miserable conditions of these camps, including suicides and murders, in this Roger Cohen piece.

The rift with Australia was so sever that Republicans in Congress, including John McCain, had to reach out to Australian diplomats to reassure them of American support and affinity: Congressional leaders scramble to reassure Australia after testy Trump phone call

Since the election the GOP has built up a steady momentum toward pulling the plug on Obamacare, but this may be the week that the health care law was put back on life support. Republicans in Congress are beginning to openly express the idea that they will not repeal it: G.O.P. Campaign to Repeal Obamacare Stalls on the Details. And conservative writers are sounding less triumphal than they were a couple weeks ago and more pleadingly desperate about a way forward, like in this Ramesh Ponnuru piece for National Review.

Finally, several writers laid down their markers about what kind of president Trump will be now that we’ve seen him on the job for a week and half. Elliot Cohen writes that “Precisely because the problem is one of temperament and character, it will not get better.” David Brooks predicts that Congressional Republicans will eventually have to side against Trump, calling him “a danger to the party and the nation in its existential nature. And so sooner or later all will have to choose what side they are on, and live forever after with the choice.” David Frum paints a dark picture of America in 2021 after a Trump has succeeded in building an autocracy. And Ross Douthat explains why Trump’s incompetence and populism’ s blindspots means he will fail to build much of anything except a unified resistance movement.

 

 

Week 1: January 20-26

In his first few minutes as president, Trump gave a dark Inaugural Address about “American Carnage.” Some conservative writers were not impressed: A Most Dreadful Inaugural Address

The next day he delivers a “a campaign-style, stream-of-consciousness airing of grievances” to members of the CIA in front of the hallowed Memorial Wall. Watch the full speech here.  Some intelligence officials were deeply offended.

In the face of Trump’s false claims about his crowd sizes and millions of people who voted illegally, the news media struggles with Calling a Lie a Lie , as explained in this survey of Trump un-thruths by Dan Barry.

The “biggest diplomatic rift between the U.S. and Mexico in decades” erupts when the President of Mexico cancels a planned trip to meet Trump after Trump again insists that Mexico will be coerced through trade policy to pay for the boarder wall.

The Women’s March

Let me preface this by saying that I attended the Women’s March in NYC. I won’t say I marched–I stood in a crowd for three hours. All those people you saw on TV who actually marched devoted 8 – 12 hours of their Saturday if not more just to be able to move through the clogged streets. They were committed. Here I want to offer some perspective: David Brook’s column offers a wake up call for those of us who hope that the Women’s Marches will change our political situation. In short: though our bubble felt a lot bigger on Saturday, we are still inside of it. A few points:

1/5: Do not over interpret the crowd sizes (i.e. we must to spread impact outside of the cities). The fact that many hundreds of thousands of people showed up for a march against Trump in major cities should not be all that surprising. While it is true that Trump only just barely won the election (by 77,000 votes in three key electoral college states) he was still the preferred candidate in 84% of the nations 3,144 counties. Hillary only won 487 counties, compared to Obama’s 689 in 2012. Yes she got more total votes, but the votes she needed and did not get were outside of the big cities. A lot of people didn’t know that these marches were even happening last weekend. If people are going to travel an hour or more to attend one of these, maybe next time they should attend events in small to medium sized towns outside of the reach of a metro line. (By the way, it is also not surprising that Obama’s inauguration was larger than Trump’s considering that it was held in a city Obama won by 92% and Trump only got 4%.)

2/5: Look inside yourself and be sure that you can articulate your own sense of patriotism. If you can’t, then when you march you are just venting your own negative emotions. Stay home. We don’t need you. Yes, Im talking to you, my fellow Iowa City resident flag burner.

3/5: Take off the ‘pussy‘ hats. It is perfectly understandable and fitting that the first Trump protest is a spectral image of the first woman president Inauguration we all thought we would be attending. But if this movement is to grow, we will need a symbol that even Trump voters can get behind: the 42% of women (53% of white women), the 29% of Latino voters, and for that matter the 53% of male voters who all supported Trump. This symbol needs to be general–rooted in a larger national theme, not narrow identity. It should be catchy and a little silly. The tea bag is already taken, but it’s a good model. After all, within a couple years of its introduction, there were over 60 new members of congress who were legislating as members of the Tea Party.

4/5: The political activism of the Women’s Marches should begin to direct its energies toward a specific political party, probably the Democrats. As Brooks wrote in his advice to/critique of the marchers: “Sometimes social change happens through grass-roots movements — the civil rights movement. But most of the time change happens through political parties: The New Deal, the Great Society, the Reagan Revolution. Change happens when people run for office, amass coalitions of interest groups, engage in the messy practice of politics.” Maybe my political imagination needs expanded, but I just can’t think of another model for what we need than the Tea Party: A grassroots movement (which became heavily funded by the donor class) that galvanized opposition to a sitting president and his party’s control of congress. They were not agnostic about political party. They were GOP all the way, unless they were threatening to supplant the GOP with a new conservative party. This was so effective that even today, the Tea Party Caucus will likely be the deciding factor in how much Trump gets through congress. If anti-Trump activism doesn’t get new people elected to Congress in 2018 it will all have been for not.

Final Thought on the Women’s March: What is the cause all about? Were we all just venting our frustration and fear? Is there a political objective we can rally the country around? What will be the message? It’s not clear to me. And after reading the organization’s Unity Principles I’m more doubtful that the politics behind the Women’s March will gain traction or grow a movement. If you read the list you will see a greatest hits of the Hillary Clinton campaign themes, which just lost a national presidential and congressional election. Fresh thinking may be in order.

Some Inconvenient Obamacare Facts

This week, the Republican talking point is that Obamacare will collapse all on its own because it is not sustainable. Therefore it must be repealed. A second argument you are beginning to hear is that Obamacare is such a disaster that the aftershock of repealing it (market chaos, premium spikes for everyone) will be the fault of the law itself–and Democrats–not the fault of the repeal…. Hmm.

For now, let’s take them at their word that they actually want to replace the law so to mitigate the disruption of repealing it. If they really mean that, then we all need to be fully aware of the positive things the law actually accomplishes so we can measure whether GOP “repeal and replace” is worth the trouble. (The other option of simply fixing the current law appears to be off the table for now.)

Some facts to keep in mind during the debate:

  • 10.2% of Americans have insurance through Obamacare–over 20 Million people
  • Historic low number of uninsured: Only 10.9% of Americans are uninsured, down from 17.1% in 2013.
  • Only 5% of children are now uninsured, and the percent of Poor/Near Poor and Hispanic uninsured have both been cut in half since Obamacare went into effect. (See the graphs on this CDC report.) If Republicans want to repeal Obamacare, are they willing to put a program in place that will cover this amount of people? Or will they say it is not worth the cost?
  • Rate Increases: rate increases are coming for some people who get insurance through the Obamcare marketplace, but only 3% of Americans who receive unsubsidized insurance will be affected (see the chart further down in this link). If the main evidence of Obamacare’s imminent collapse is rate increases, how can hikes that only affect 3% of the country be considered a collapse?
  • Maybe you’ve heard Republicans blame ALL recent employer-based insurence rate hikes on Obamacare–as if insurance rates never increased before the law went into effect. Yes, rates are expected to go up over 6% this year, which is high but not as high as it was in the 90s and 2000s with double-digit increases. According to one survey, post-Obamacare increases have been 3.1% compared to 5.6% in the 10 years before the law. Repealing Obamacare will not stop insurance rates from rising, and doing so may make rates rise faster and higher.
  • 80% satisfaction rate of Obamacare recipients. Republicans seem to want to save people from a terrible service that users overwhelmingly approve of.
  • There were 300,000 sign ups for Obamacare in the week after Trump’s election, which is tens of thousands more people than in the same period last year. The enrollment period will continue until 11 days after Trump’s Inauguration. Many people are flocking to a program that Republicans argue nobody wants.
  • Bending the Cost Curve: Healthcare costs are rising much less steeply than they were before Obamacare:
  • screen-shot-2017-01-04-at-9-53-48-pm
  • Phasing out Fee-for-Serivce Care: Other than providing near-universal coverage, the other main goal of Obamacare was to replace the fee-for-service economic model with value-based care that incentivizes medical decisions that produce greater health over greater cost. The idea is to heal people in a way that requires fewer hospital visits, fewer tests and treatments, by being proactive, intentional and coordinated. The law created a two bodies–the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Innovation, and the Accountable Care Organization–that empower hospitals and doctor’s networks to develop local solutions. Basically people in the health care industry propose a value-based care program, get it funded, and test the results. For example in Dayton, simply by setting up a phone bank panel of nurses to answer phones calls from certain types of patients who called the hospital they were able to prevent 500 ER visits in 2016. Another Obamacare-funded program that was able to avoid 3,000 ER visits and 1,800 hospital admissions per year. Read about these here.                                                                                               More than a third of Medicare payments to providers are now are for value instead of volume. The entire industry is in the middle of a transition to a cheaper and healthier business model. Any reform of Obamacare should keep this momentum going, not reverse it.