Tabs/Takes
- Via the Insider: Sen. JD Vance says Republicans have to ‘recognize how much voters mistrust us’ on abortion. I gotta admit that my main reaction is the notion that J.D. Vance is talking about trust.
- Via WaPo: Where’s Melania? In the grand scheme of things, the lack of presence of the former First Lady does not matter much. There are bigger concerns on the table. Still, I am struck by how this is just another example of how Trump is treated differently by both his supporters and the press than others in the past. The fact that his wife is not standing by him in a visible way during his legal troubles is the kind of thing that the press/public would have reacted negatively to for almost anyone else. And, of course, it is noteworthy that the party of “family values” doesn’t seem to care. I would further note that despite ongoing cried about the “liberal MSM” that the WaPo piece strikes me as ultimately sympathetic to Melania Trump’s invisibility.
- Speaking of the liberal MSM, this story is trying hard to make a horserace narrative (also via WaPo): Biden faces expanding list of potential challengers in reelection bid. The expanding list is: Jill Stein, Dean Phillips, RFK, Jr., and hypothetical Joe Manchin as a No Labels candidate. In regards to Phillips, the piece hilariously (IMHO) describes him thusly (emphasis mine), “Biden also faces nettlesome campaign opponents in Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.)”. This piece is thirsty for a horserace. And I understand that given the potential closeness of Trump-Biden that third-party votes could matter, but please. Sidenote: Stein, Kennedy, and a hypothetical Manchin are challengers to both Biden and Trump, which undercuts the headline.
- Speaking of more important stories (yet again from WaPo): Trump and allies plot revenge, Justice Department control in a second term.
In private, Trump has told advisers and friends in recent months that he wants the Justice Department to investigate onetime officials and allies who have become critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, as well as his ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley, according to people who have talked to him, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump has also talked of prosecuting officials at the FBI and Justice Department, a person familiar with the matter said.
In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family. The former president has frequently made corruption accusations against them that are not supported by available evidence.
That this continues to evoke not much more than a yawn in many quarters is disturbing in the extreme.
- To that point, Philip Bump (again, WaPo) notes that A lot of Americans embrace Trump’s authoritarianism. I hate to say it but a lot of the survey data in that piece reminds me of things I saw studying Latin American cases of democratic breakdown. For example, a plurality of conservatives in a recent survey endorsed the idea that we need a “strong leader” and then there are things like this:
With respect to authoritarianism, I’ve wondered for a long time if feudalism is the normal human condition, and that all societies all revert to it sooner or later.
Sure, but “Minor Parties Will Once Again Be On The Ballot In Some States” is a boring headline…
@CSK:
Feudalism, which is just one variant of “big man” governance, is absolutely the norm, and has always been the norm. Strong leaders gather power and wealth and dispense it in ways that will maintain or grow their wealth and power, either by rewarding supplicants who benefit them or punishing people diminishing their power or wealth. Chiefs, Kings, Village Leaders, Warlords, Emperors, there is no end to the this. Which makes the rule of law a truly miraculous thing…
I wonder if you’ve been following WAPO closely of late. I refer to all of them as the “supposedly liberal MSM.” WAPO seems to be drifting right.
@MarkedMan:
This yearning for a “big man” to look after us isn’t limited to the right. Remember that middle-aged, pony-tailed guy back in 1992 who said to Bill Clinton: “Think of us as your children”? I cringed at that and thought “not me, thanks.”
Bwa haha hahahaha hahahahahaha. No, really, stop it! You’re killing me!
ETA I definitely need a couple of keys of whatever these dudes are smoking. Way better than the stuff we had back in the day.
And the idea that JD Vance would recognize trust is beyond ludicrous
@MarkedMan:
I forget where I read that newsrooms now have tote boards showing clicks real-time on each story. The headline writers are expected to compete for clicks. Supposedly broadcast studios have similar arrangements, showing viewership while a show is on the air.
@CSK:
I do not remember that and am very glad that I do not remember that. Creepy!
Considering that JD Vance and company tried to quash the Ohio referendum on abortion, I would have to say that it is him and the GOP who do not trust voters on abortion. See also Santorum and his railings against “pure democracy”.
@gVOR10:
That would be from me, a few days ago, talking about my tour of the Baltimore Banner newsroom. I didn’t mean it as a slam. The paper has to generate enough revenue to pay for its staff and infrastructure and ultimately that is going to relate to how many people are engaging. There is a saying in manufacturing: “Choose what you measure carefully, because you will inevitably optimize around it.” But that inherently acknowledges that you do have to choose some things to measure. Readership seems like a good one for papers, although it shouldn’t be the only one.
FWIW, when we toured we learned that the Banner now has the largest news staff in Maryland. One year after it started! And they are ahead of every goal they set for themselves. My wife and I aren’t the only ones starved for solid local news.
Some people are not disturbed because they think it is good that Trump will smite the unrighteous with the rod of Justice when he comes again. We are aware of the threat such people pose.
The ones that worry me are the ones who aren’t disturbed because they think this is normal routine; every president does it. And nothing Democrats can say, no evidence they can provide, will convince them otherwise. There is no information source available that is both credible to these people and willing to tell that story.
Well, everyone knows she’s a gold-digger and he just wanted a trophy wife, and the general understanding of the American public is that their marriage is a sham, so nobody really cares enough to react negatively (or at all, really).
@MarkedMan:
You probably deliberately blanked it. It made a fairly big splash at the time. It was an interesting, if frightening, look at how some people view the role of government.
I’m sympathetic with Melania Trump’s invisibility, too. She didn’t sign up for this. She married a rich guy who had enough money and influence to get her and her parents entry visas. She’s supposed to know that he’s the REIT version of AMWAY? WTF?
“For example, a plurality of conservatives in a recent survey endorsed the idea that we need a “strong leader”
Conservatives have always wanted a Daddy figure in charge. This isn’t new. Maybe it’s worse.
Steve
@Flat Earth Luddite: And don’t forget the “we need a ruler who is willing to break some rules” thing down at the bottom. Zeeb, our chance to become the despots we never wanted to be has arrived. A day late and a dollar short as usual, but still…
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
Yeah, but they really don’t want The Abyss Brothers™ running this show, because we’re equal opportunity oppressors.
@steve:
As I said earlier, right-wingers aren’t the only ones who want an authoritarian. An ultra-leftist I once knew said that the first duty of government was to protect people from themselves.
It may have more to do with personality type than ideology.
@MarkedMan:
Wouldn’t it be funny if No Labels managed to get Manchin on the ballot in a couple of the smaller Red states and then he wins enough of those states to stop Trump, regardless of what happens in the “swing” states. The writers aren’t talented enough to pull that one off though.
As Marcy Wheeler points out, the retribution plans are not new, they are a continuation
https://www.emptywheel.net/2023/11/07/why-trumps-retribution-promises-manage-to-persuade-his-mob/
@CSK:
I’m inclined to think not.
Feudalism usually emerged from circumstances of state collapse or capacity decay, from the imposition of tribal supremacy upon conquered territory, or from the usurpation of land control and military dominance by an emergent aristocracy.
Analogous patterns can be seen in many examples, the classical version being western Europe as the Roman Empire collapsed and the barbarians invaded.
Similar cases can be seen elsewhere when central authority declines and “aristocratic” landholders mount power-grabs.
Japan, China, Byzantium etc etc.
Feudalism seems to be generally the product of a post-crisis social model based on a prior developed state.
Clan or “tribal” chiefdoms may be more “normal”: but such tend to be far more constrained in authority, based on communal customary law and (often fictive) kinship concepts.
If a Norse or Scots clan chief, or for that matter an early Roman patrician, acted like a Norman baron, he’d be asking for an axe in the face.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
I think it depends largely on what the rules are broken for, and how one goes about it.
Examples of bad rule braking are legion. Exhibit A January 2017-2021. Good rule breaking is harder to find. I can’t think of any examples from history. One often finds them in fiction. Like the dockworkers strike in Babylonn 5’s “By Any Means Necessary,” where Sinclair shatters the rules by using his discretion.
This may be because rules are set up with the intention of making things fair or better for all involved. Many rules and norms in politics, for example, exist to restrain the use of power by the government. Breaking them for a good purpose presupposes badly crafted rules.
CSK- Good point, though I think it is a bit different. Those who want government to control everything dont necessarily want it to be one person. It’s an amorphous govt doing stuff. I think conservatives want that one special person that has to be male and has to project their image of strength, which granted is pretty malleable. It would the job of that one person to take control of government.
Steve
@steve:
Well, the MAGAs certainly would be happy to have Trump as the autocrat. On the other hand, the guy who said it was the first duty of governments to protect people from themselves also told me he wished Obama could be a dictator.
@Kathy:
The civil disobedience campaigns of Gandhi and MLK Jr. are generally regarded as “good rule breaking” by most.
The American Revolution is a bit more ambiguous.
Paxton recently pointed out to Bannon [on Bannon’s podcast] that he, Paxton, personally ensured multiple millions of votes were not counted for Trumpian reasons explicitly so that Texas’ EV count would go to Trump. Margin was 600k; 2.3+M ballots were intentionally declared invalid on day-of.
As always, Republican accusations are a confession — “because of course they’d do exactly what I’m already doing, it’s therefore perfectly OK because I’m just doing it first!”
@Gavin: Paxton is probably just being hyperbolic. There is nothing I can find that comes even within a fraction of that number. Texas had 11 million votes 2020, only a few thousand were rejected perhaps there are other databases that show a higher number but it is not going to come anywhere near the number stated.
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
@Kathy:
This is a thing in the UK: “absolute Parliamentary sovereignty”
That is: the empowered Cabinet government may do, more or less, whatever it damn well chooses, in a state of national emergency.
But god help it, if it is seen to overstep what is required.
The US constitutional legalistic approach is not universal.
In extremis “Crown-in-Parliament”is without limit upon what it may do for the public good.
As demonstrated during e.g. WW2: the UK was in many respects a far more absolute and efficient command economy than either Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
But that required a cross-party national consensus to be effective; which is why Churchill got to be PM in 1940.
See also France re. Presidential emergency authority.
@JohnSF:
Wouldn’t rule breaking by consensus mean new rules were set up, at least to deal with an emergency?
Kind of that the office of Dictator was in the early Roman Republic. One man was given sweeping powers, near absolute, to deal with a specific situation. But limited to six months, and then he had to step down. All as prescribed by law.
@DrDaveT:
I kind of was thinking about something with more immediate results, but yes, that counts as good rule breaking.
@Kathy:
The UK system, at the extreme, is: “the law is what we say it is”
That extremity is seldom reached.
But the foundation remains: Crown-in-Parliament has absolute sovereignty.