March 6, 2019--Jack: T-PAC

It's that time of year when conservatives gather for the annual CPAC conference. 

The highlight this time was the appearance Sunday afternoon of Donald Trump who spoke for nearly two-and-a-half hours! Fidel-Castro, Mussolini-length, and surely a CPAC record for the longest expletive-larded speech ever. 

Trump had a lot on his mind. Most of it from agita. 

Just a few days earlier, while Michael Cohen was testifying before the House Oversight Committee, he was on Air Force One heading back to Washington from the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un. At about the same time the New York Times was reporting that he personally countermanded his senior intelligence advisers and granted his son-in-law top secret security clearance.

And so he seized the opportunity to get many grievances off his chest and the audience loved every minute of it. They were as one. So much so that they stood and cheered for more than a disgraceful minute when he proclaimed John McCain dead. Tearfully, it will be a moment they will share with their Republican grandchildren.

Slumped and weary-looking as if he were bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, Trump entered stage right where a lonely American flag stood, forlorn and limp on its pole. As if just happening to notice the flag, slowly he approached it, bending to embrace it. He coddled and rocked it in his arms as if he was comforting a loved one. With a sad smile, moving his lips dramatically so all could read them, he said, "My baby."

While streaming his remarks a day or two later to see if my eyes had deceived me on Sunday, the phone rang, and, as if he knew what I was up to, I was not surprised that it was Jack.


"I was watching your favorite show," he said, without even a greeting. "'Morning Joe.' All they could talk about was that speech. To tell you the truth I agreed with Joe and his guests that the slur about John McCain was way off base. Especially coming from someone who managed to dodge the draft."

"That was the lowest of many low points," I said.

Jack said, "But off that performance, if you guys are not careful you could be looking at six more years of our president." He chuckled at the prospect.

"Enlighten me."

"One of Joe Scarborough's quests, someone from the Washington Post, called Trump insane. He said if you had an old grandfather that crazy you'd lock him up in the attic. Another guest accused Trump of being 'unhinged.'"

"That was Eugene Robinson," I muttered.

"And then Mike Barnicle chimed is to say that the only thing missing was for Trump to show up wearing paper slippers."

"He's a regular," I said.

"I actually thought that was pretty funny. But he and the others totally missed the bigger point."

"Which is?"

"Look, who am I to tell you guys what to do, but if you want to win in 2020 you need to get your act together. Not only have you given Trump a perfect person to run against . . ."

"Spare me. It's a long time before we have a candidate. Now it's just a couple of dozen hopefuls looking to gain traction. It's premature to talk about running against Trump. We first have to sort things out."

"I mean,"Jack said, "We used to have Nancy Pelosi to run against--which I admit didn't work out so well in 2018--but now we have that girl from the Bronx. I can never remember her name . . ."

"Alexander Ocasio-Cortez."

"You have initials for her, right?"

"Some people refer to her as AOC. What's your problem with her?"

"Actually it's the opposite of a problem. She's a gift that keeps on giving. Isn't she the one who wants to ban hamburgers to reduce global warming?"

"Not really, but your guys are accusing her of that."

"She's perfect to run against. She's a socialist and her ego is so large that she can't get enough air time on TV. I know she turns a lot of your people on but she's too far out for the people I assume you are hoping will vote your way. If she's the new face of the Democrat Party, Trump will be a shoe in."

"Before we declare him the winner let's see what Mueller and the House committees come up with."

"You need to remember that the more dirt that came up about Clinton the more popular he became. And he won a second term. But OAC is not your major problem. The fact that after maybe the worst month of his presidency, Trump, like Clinton is seeing his favorables going up. Just this week by three points. To 46 percent or so."

"What then is our major problem?"

"You're doing it again."

"What again?"

"Just like last time around when you thought Trump was just a joke. You couldn't imagine him beating Hillary. And guess what--he did. Mainly because she and the rest of you wouldn't take Trump seriously and looked down your noses at him and his supporters. And now you're doing a version of the same thing. Again take CPAC. Rather than trying to figure them out and especially Trump' appeal to them--they listened and cheered for him for two-and-a-half hours--you're busy making fun of him. How his speech was incoherent and that he's crazy. Things like that. By doing this you're motivating his people to stay loyal to him and are turning off a lot of people who are on the fence about him."

"I don't disagree with that," I conceded. "All during the last presidential campaign I thought Hillary and the liberal media were missing what was happening in the middle of the country and therefore we made a huge mistake by not showing respect for people who live and vote there. Rather, we too frequently mocked and disparaged Trump and those who turned out to be his voters."

Jack said, "And your reaction to CPAC shows me you're doing the same thing all over again. Which, for me is just fine. But to win you need to recognize that Trump, when it comes to politics and marketing himself, is crazy like a fox. He's totally brilliant at that. I know you think he's dumb and maybe about things you care about he is. But about appealing to his base and a lot of independents he's a version of a political genius. 

"If you want to win, first, you need to not nominate one of your crazies who Trump will mock 24/7. But you also need to get more comfortable with at least a segment of his followers. To see them as fellow Americans who have some legitimate issues, including some you share. Like worrying about how their children and grandchildren will fare as the economy changes and how the demographics of America are becoming more diverse than even some of your people are comfortable with. Don't fool yourself into believing all your liberal friends are so happy about these changes. 

"So you need to find a way to talk about this that's not bigoted and condemning. You need to have and show more understanding of the views and fears of people who you disagree with. You have to stop pointing fingers of contempt at them. Again, I'm talking about just some of Trump's people. From your perspective most are, to quote Hillary who was right about this, irredeemable. One of your problems is that you assume everyone is or should be as tolerant as you try to be. Well, you know what, in this regard you and your friends are far from perfect. You need to take a hard look at what's really in your heart." 

I finally said, "I've been attempting to make that argument for years. Liberals are more tolerant, every poll shows that, but there are a lot of closeted progressives who aren't happy about all the changes you mentioned. But in regard to immigrants and people of color Trump and the CPAC crowd are way out of line. There's no way to paper over that"

"I'll tell you what was really going on with the CPACers."

"I'm all ears."

"They were marking the end of the traditional Republican Party. It's now Trump's party. They could call themselves T-PAC. And his speech, if you can call it that, was like an inaugural address or a comedian's stand-up spritz to celebrate the victory of this new party. That explains the John McCain crack. They saw his death as if it signaled the end of the old Republican Party. A party that they saw him as representing. But again what they did was disgraceful. No two ways about that. 

"But here's the bottom line," Jack continued, "Trump and many of his people are really anarchists. You should call them out for that just as they accuse all of you of being socialists. But you should make a distinction between that part of T-PAC and the others who aren't so radical. As I've been saying, you need to find a way to reach out to and appeal to some of them. You also need to recognize that a large part of Trump's appeal is that he's entertaining. Which politically is not a bad thing. We are an entertainment-obsessed nation and you should look for someone to run against him who average people can enjoy listening to."

"I agree with that."

"Otherwise you're cooked."

January 3, 2019--Weakman Trump

Many on the left, even before he took office, concerned about his authoritarian inclinations, were fearful that Trump would intentionally morph into a Mussolini-style strongman. That he would become an American fascist.

That can still happen as panic sets in, as various investigations press in on him, as it becomes more and more apparent that he is totally corrupt, having committed serious felonies in both his personal and presidential life, a fully authoritarian Trump may emerge. 

But with impeachment and possible criminal indictments looming, instead of Trump the strongman we may see Weakman Trump. 

His signature initiatives, one domestic and two international are collapsing and to preserve them and himself he will be required to do more than compromise--he will need to capitulate.

As I write this he is in the early stages in the process of caving in to the new Democratic leaders of Congress. In the White House Situation Room of all places, they are witnessing Trump in the throughs of trying to wiggle out of the political responsibility for the unpopular government shutdown. 

The real reason for the shutdown has to do with Trump's highest-priority domestic campaign promise--not that the government needs to be slimmed down, but that he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. He is the one who linked the two with the shutdown as a bargaining chip that he gambled the Dems would trade away to fund their supposed favorite thing--more big government.

Two-thirds of Americans are unhappy with the shutdown and blame it on Trump while the same two thirds oppose Trump's "nonnegotiable" line drawn in the Rio Grande--his most conspicuous, base-pandering campaign promise--that he will build a "beautiful" wall and Mexico will pay for it.

If nothing else, Trump knows how to read polls and he sees that both the shutdown and the wall are losing political gambits. With the shellacking he took during the recent midterm elections and the current unpopularity of him and his policies, with 2020 looming, not to say a possible Mueller report, he is seeking a way to back down and save a little face. Usually it is the Democrats who cave. This time (thus far) they are hanging tough and enjoying the spectacle of Trump twisting in the proverbial wind.

Then there are the international messes Weakman Trump is desperate to get behind him. In at least two cases, both leading campaign promises--to withdraw from the Middle East, especially Syria, and to get North Korea to denuclearize--his impulsive decision to bring home all American troops from Syria is not working out. Some key Republicans have taken the lead in criticizing him and he has already agreed to allow the withdrawal timetable to swell from 30 days to four months. In fact expect those four months to stretch out further. 

And it is clear that the only deal Trump's real strongman friend, North Korea's Kim Jong-un, will agree to is not to destroy any of their nuclear weapons or delivery systems until the U.S. withdraws American soldiers from South Korea, ends joint military operations with our longtime allies, eliminates sanctions, and removes our nuclear weapons from the region.

A weakened Trump, if he wants to continue to take credit for making a deal with North Korea (and, politically, to feed his base he has to) he will need to do some fancy tap-dancing to cover up the caving that will be required to get out of this dilemma. 

My concern--often weak men are more dangerous than strong ones.

February 28, 2018--Jared Agonistes

The story-behind-the-story regarding last night's breaking news that White House senior advisor and son-in-law Jared Kushner had lost his top-secret security clearance is not primarily about the fact that he will no longer be privy to, for example, intelligence agencies' reports about the inner workings of the Israeli government--something it would presumably be important for Kushner to know as he strives day and night to "solve the Middle East," as his father-in-law puts it--but rather than the story primarily being about this most recent piece of juicy Oval Office gossip that chief-of-staff John Kelly gleefully cut Jared off from the nation's top secrets thus reducing his status to just-another-staffer in the snake pit that is the Trump administration; no, the story is not about what Kushner can and cannot know but rather the heart of the matter is that the feds that have been looking into Jared's background (the embattled FBI, the same FBI that is working hard on the Mueller investigation while daily being undercut by Fox News and the president) not only based their recommendation on the evidence that Kushner failed to report a meeting or two with the Russians or forgot to list a few of his hundreds of financial assets, but rather Jared is being cut off at the knees (including by Trump who threw him to the insider wolf John Kelly) because they, big time, have the goods on Jared Kushner.

The goods being the evidence the FBI uncovered of the fast-and-loose way Kushner has operated in his desperate efforts to lift his and his family's real estate empire for the mire of debt in which he has brought them as the result of his greed and arrogant overreach. 

This overreach luring him to turn to all sorts of bad guys as he scrambles to borrow money from the black economy where big money available to bottom-feeders such as Jared Kushner (and his felonious father before him in an almost biblical way) comes mainly from money laundries that as a consequence not only own your property but also own you.

And thus if you happen to work half a step behind the president in the White House owning you as you is worth a lot more than a billion or two. Putin already is the richest man ever with hidden assets conservatively estimated to total, give-or-take, $100 billion, making him twice as wealthy as Bill Gates. But to own Jared Kushner, now that's a story to behold. And fear.

Two more things. OK, three more--

First, within the federal bureaucracy it is no big deal to have a lowest-level security clearance. I know middle-level government workers who have little actual power but are excited that they have secret clearance. This places them in the top 40 percent of federal government workers because the 2.86 million of them who have such access to secret documents represent about 40 percent of the total 7.0 million workforce with that 7.0 million including postal workers. So think about Jared Kushner now having the status of the person who brings you your mail.

Second, note how casually Donald Trump abandoned his most trusted advisor. All right, his second most trusted family member. No one will ever displace Ivanka, though who knows what Trump will do next week to save his sagging skin.

And then last, isn't Jared's comeuppance evidence that the system is working? That not only is he being brought down by the little people as I am now feeling more certain his father-in-law will? Little people like those on various Mueller grand juries currently operating in Washington, DC and nearby Virginia? People Kushner has likely never noticed as he walks around with his nose aristocratically in the air.

Sorry, finally--do you think if Donald Trump was an American Mussolini Jared Kushner would have had his wings clipped?

January 16, 2018--Hitler

When I get an email from a friend who mentions Hitler in the subject line or makes reference to him in the first paragraph, I invoke Godwin's Law.

This is not classic Godwin's Law--an Internet adage that asserts that as a discussion grows longer the probability that someone will invoke Hitler becomes virtually certain--but a version of it: invoking it at the beginning of a hot interchange for the sake of preserving tender relationships.

The Law is not that evidence-based but still it has the ring of truth. 

In fact, nowadays, with autocratic Trump as president, in many encounters that involve him it is virtually certain that Hitler will be invoked by any or all parties early in the conversation. Or, more appropriately, since Trump resembles him in posture, behavior, and policies, he is compared to Benito Mussolini.

The latest example--

With a subject line--"Bring Him Down!"--a friend wrote just this to me:

"I think again--like Hitler he may be nearly indestructible until it is ALMOST too late."  

People most frequently invoke Hitler when backed into a corner and their argument begins to run out of gas. It's as if when evidence and logic fail, to have the last word they nuke the discussion, claiming Trump is just like Hitler or it's the same here as it was in Nazi Germany or fascist Italy.

In my view, when this occurs, since I do not see Trump (yet) to be our homegrown version of Hitler or Mussolini we are so irreconcilably not on the same page it's better to cite Godwin's Law and change the subject, log out, or ring off.

Tempted to say little in return, since this came from a close friend, I wrote back--

It will be about how self-correcting our system is. Trump's not quite Hitler (just a pathetic racist, which is bad enough) and conditions there and then versus here are not comparable.  

Among other things Germany had a collapsed economy and ours for most now is doing well for many. Then there are the critical differences between our histories and commitment to democracy as well as the structure of our traditions, institutions, and governing bodies. 

Our system of checks and balances should (hopefully) work to confine anyone with strong authoritarian tendencies or aspirations. 

On the other hand, there is also the thick centuries-long underlay of national racism and unfettered, predatory capitalism. And we have a disturbing history of know-nothingness, mass miseducation, and a saturated and banal popular culture that includes experiencing news as entertainment.

Halfway through I assume my friend nodded off but I thought, reprised here, he might like to read the whole thing.

May 19, 2017--Jack, Not In a Good Mood

"I'm not in a good mood."

"If true, I could take a pass on talking to you right now. I'm feeling good, the weather's perfect, I have a lot to get done, and to tell you the truth I don't want you to bring me down."

Jack said, "I only need 10 minutes. Start the timer."

"I'm OK but, really, just for 10 minutes. If you're calling about Trump I can imagine why you wouldn't be feeling very happy." I couldn't resist poking him.

"It's not what you think. With all this Comey business and now a special prosecutor or counsel you might be assuming that I want to talk about that. Suffice it to say, I agree with Trump--it's a witch hunt, plain and simple."

"The people involved with this now, Robert Mueller especially, do not engage in which hunts. But feel free to believe whatever works for you."

"I want to talk about why Trump supporters are sticking with him. People like you expect that his favorabilites will plummet. Well, think again. They're pretty rock solid. Still about 40 percent."

"I have been wondering about that."

"Well, it's pretty simple. Basically, he's doing exactly why we sent him to Washington to do. To tear everything down. Even if he has to put a blowtorch to things. That's why they're going after him. Even Republicans, though they won't admit to that out loud. We've grown fed up with everything. Both parties are at fault. All they want is to keep the gravy flowing in their direction. They don't care about the people, they only care about feathering their own nests. To continue to do so. Trump is a threat to that. That's what we wanted and that's what we still want from him. Bring it all down. Start all over."

"None of this surprises me. There's a lot of frustration out . . ."

"Listen to yourself. Frustration? It goes way, way beyond that. We're talking rage, fury. Not frustration."

"You got me. I underestimated it. A lot of people are furious. They deserve to be. I share some of that, but no way is Trump the solution. In fact, he's part of the problem. He's on the gravy train too. He's all about wanting the government to do things to the tax code, for example, that will yield to him and people like him more and more money. At everyone else's expense. At the expense of the rest of us."

"Furthermore," Jack rolled on, ignoring me, "people like you and the elite media think they know how to make sense of this. You have your conventional wisdom that you apply to what's going on but that gets in the way of your understanding what's really at work. In fact, your conventional wisdom is a good place to begin because everything you assume to be true isn't true. It's the opposite of true. Take any example, and I'll show you how the reverse of what you think you understand is not what's going on. Go on, try me."

"I'm not sure I'm following you. So why don't you give me one example."

"Sure. You value leaders who are thoughtful and restrained. You think that's what voters want. You assume that's what we want, what everyone wants. Well, we don't. We want a leader who goes with his gut and is the opposite of restrained. We don't value that. Restraint. We value the opposite of that. Reasonable leaders think they can negotiate their way to good deals for people. What they wind up negotiating is worthless to us. Worse than that. It is harmful to us. So we like it when Trump goes off script and tells it like it is. Especially when it comes to what's politically correct, which is another example of how the conventional wisdom is all wrong. We're OK with the outrageous. In fact we value it."

"This sounds totally crazy to me."

"We're also OK with crazy. Not totally crazy, but a decent amount of crazy. Crazy also shakes things up. We like it when everyone is scared about the next things coming out of his mouth. I'll admit it, I would prefer if he toned it down. Not all the way down but a little bit. It would make him more effective."

"'Trump' and 'effective' don't belong in the same sentence."

"One more thing from the conventional wisdom," Jack said, ignoring me again, "About economics. I don't mean big-picture economics but personal economics. People like you think that a big motivator for people is concern about their personal finances. Of course to some extent that's true. Everyone has to pay rent and eat. But even truer is that people like me don't follow what you assume about us--we're not primarily motivated by what's 'good' for our bottom line. 'Good' in quotes. Money doesn't trump everything for us. Bringing everything down, bringing everything to a halt is what motivates us. That's what we care about. Bring it down so we can start all over. Enough tinkering around the edges. Even if the tinkering puts a few more dollars in our pockets. Blowtorching it, that's what we wanted from Trump, that's what we still want even as the witch hint unfolds."

"I have to run in a minute," I really did, "so cut to the chase--what do you want to see happen? I mean for him to accomplish."

"What I just said--to bring things to a grinding halt. A lot of people are saying, including conservative people, that if Trump is forced out of office--and I don't see that happening; to be a loser would kill him so he's not quitting--if Pence took over, people are saying, he'd sign the same kind of bills Trump would sign. But Pence fits the conventional wisdom so with him it would be more of the same. We're in a crisis and, don't quote me, we need to be in one. As I see things a bigger mess would be even better."

He paused for breath, "My 10 minutes are up," Jack said. I could sense him smiling, feeling good about himself. That he got all this off his chest.

"I have one more thing to share with you," I said.

"What's that?"

"You may hate it, viewing it as another example of the conventional wisdom. But you remember when Trump was first elected how so many people of my persuasion were worrying out loud, fearing that he was like Mussolini and was going to bring fascism to America?"

"I remember that. I thought you and people who thought that way, who were so afraid, feeling so smart about yourselves and how you looked down you noses at us, showing off what you thought history taught, well, I thought you were a bunch of jerks. Sorry, but that's what I thought."

"I felt that people who thought that way were way over-reacting. But whatever we thought at the time, one thing I said, and this was conventional wisdom too, was that no one should underestimate the power of checks and balances built into our system. Look around, take a look. As of two days ago we have a special counsel and Trump is on the ropes. I don't know where this is headed but his strongman days are over. That's one thing I'm sure about."

"We'll see," Jack said, "People of you persuasion counted him out before, all the way back to the first days of the primaries, but he won the nomination and the election and he's still standing. A little weaker at the moment, but keep you eye on North Korea. I'm not suggesting anything, but if things get out of control there, it will be commander-in-chief time."

As usual, after having the last word, Jack hung up.

March 27, 2017--The System (Sort Of) At Work

In response to my Saturday blog, "The System At Work," where I argued that the defeat of the Republican's attempt to repeal and replace Obamacare was evidence of the system working and that this should be comforting to the fear many progressives have had that Donald Trump is a crypto-fascist, an American Benito Mussolini, a very good friend wrote--

System working? Sort of. 

They will find other ways to gut Obamacare instead of fixing it. The system is way broken. The American people come last. No one wants to find real solutions which would alienate each sides gerrymandered bases.  

Though I understand this view and acknowledge she may be right, I sent a note back to her in which I said--

For me the system working is more than "sort of." 

I've been arguing here for more than a year, as more and more progressives saw Trump to be our own Duce, that we need to give the system a chance to bring him to ground. So, of course, as a result of the repeal-and-replace fiasco, immodestly I think my predictive ability is being confirmed. 

For example, almost as many "moderate" Republicans as Freedom Caucus Republicans were set to vote "no" because they felt the health plan before them was too severe.  

Even more potent an argument for the system working is the diminishment of Trump's perceived power. His perceived power is at least half his appeal and I expect to see it erode further as more people feel released to abandon him. His approval numbers are already at all time lows. And have been falling. Then of course there is the Russian connection ticking. Wait 'til we hear more about the Trump part of that connection. 

This of course doesn't mean we will see an outburst of progressive legislation and behavior. For me it means very little will get done and all things considered that's a good thing. This may also very well mean that Trump will be a one-term president.  

Further, expect to see Ryan go after the Freedom crazies. Mainly to seek vengeance and also to protect his speakership. Rather than the Freedom Caucus being empowered by what happened they are weakened. Note that "only" 15 of the 29 of them were "no's." That means almost half defied their own leadership. 

I also think Trump will back way away from anything having to do with health care. It never was a priority for him. Too wonky a subject and too divisive  A virtual policy tar baby. Just ask Nixon, Hillary, and Obama. I expect to see him focus exclusively on tax cuts and infrastructure. The two things I think he actually cares about and about which he at least knows something. OK, a little. 

He'll need Dems for both and we'll see if he gets them. I suspect only for infrastructure and corporate tax cuts will the Dems play along. They don't want to prop Trump up or help him become successful. Then Ryan won't need the 14-29 Freedom votes. He can make them irrelevant by working with a handful of Democrats.

My friend also wrote that--

Steve Bannon still wants to try to destroy administrative state. Cabinet departments now have fairly low level loyalist appointees who spy and report back on the civil service professionals.

To that, I said--

Having eyes in the departments is not in any way new. Pretty much every modern president has had his plants in most departments. If I were president, I'd want some loyalists there too to keep an eye on who was working on my agenda and who was freelancing. So I don't worry too much about that.  

I worked a lot in a few federal departments in my day and knew a number of people who were there to report back to the Clinton, W, and Obama White Houses. This sort of thing is also common in corporations and NGOs. Like it or not, this is basic management stuff. A way of trying to maintain control of large, bureaucratic institutions. 

But of course I could be wrong about this and if pushed could make the case that all is perilous and that we are doomed. I'm not wired  that way and thus will continue to keep an eye on the system at work.  

Only 65 days into the Trump admin and I already see progress at whittling down the scary stuff. Including Bannon's agenda which after this debacle has little chance of being realized. Expect Trump to move closer to the advice of the practical people (Jared Kushner--when he and Ivanka return from skiing is Aspen) and less to the ideological Steves (Bannon and Miller). I think Trump's already had his fill of the latter.  

He now has a glimpse of what the far-right are really about. They are not his natural constituency--he ran mainly as a populist. Bannon helped guide him into the healthcare mess since the bill that was finally pulled represented "progress" on reducing the administrative state--the end of Obamacare and the beginning of the end of Medicaid.  

So, in sum, I'm OK with the direction in which I see this headed. I'm optimistic about the rest of the domestic agenda. That is won'r get through Congress. 

To me, if you really want to make yourself crazy think about N. Korea, Russia, far-right crazies in Western Europe, laptop bombs . . . sadly I could go on. 

But in spite of this I plan to have a good weekend. I hope that's true for you as well.

And I know she will also continue to challenge me and keep me in line. That's what good friends are for.

She qualifies.

Mach 25, 2107--The System At Work

Many of my friends who have feared that Donald Trump is a crypto-fascist in the mold of Benito Mussolini, that he doesn't believe in representative democracy and plans to overturn our system, need to take another look at the power of the American political system to resist Strong Men and protect itself.

This resistance expresses itself mainly though the power of our vaunted system of political checks and balances.

Take today's defeat of the Trump-Ryan plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. The bill was among the meanest spirited to ever come before Congress with a real chance of being approved. It would have led to the illness and death of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It had the tincture of fascism about it.

But it never even came to a vote.

Forget for the moment the internecine war within the Republican Party that contributed to Trumpcare's defeat. That internal warfare is another illustration of the system working. As do the street demonstrations and dissent-filled town hall meetings.

We may have a totally unqualified and unstable person in the Oval offie, but as of today he and his powers are dramatically diminished and there is no chance that he will turn into an American Duce

Consider this progress and move on to other things to be concerned about and resist. Like tax cuts for the wealthy.

May 18, 2016--Zwerling's Law

Back on March 1st I posted a piece about Godwin's Law. Actually about Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies.

It stated that "as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazi analogies approaches."

This intrigued me because I was finding that this was what was happening to me with growing frequency whenever I wanted to have a conversation about Donald Trump's political success (no matter what one thought about it or him). Before very long Nazi or Fascist analogies would manifest  themselves. Generally he would not only be labeled a demagogue (perhaps fair) but would also most frequently be compared to Benito Mussolini (in my view, over heated).

I was reminded of this yesterday when reading Charles Blow's op ed column in the New York Times, "Trump's Asymmetric Warfare."

It's actually a pretty good piece that begins with a reference to MSNBC's Chris Matthew's perception that Trump is difficult to attack because "conventional forms of political fighting won't work on this man."

Blow asks, "How do you embarrass an embarrassment."

Well and good, but Trump so clearly makes Blow crazy that he also said, "There is no way to sully a pig or mock a clown."

I'm OK with the clown reference because Trump is a very entertaining entertainer, but "sully a pig?" This goes for meaningful discourse in the paper of record?

Further, there is the whiff of Godwin's Law when Blow writes, "This had made him nearly impervious to even the cleverest takedowns, and trust me, many have tried [think poor Elizabeth Warren who tired and is now referred to by Trump, devastatingly, as Pocahontas], comparing him to everyone from P.T. Barnum to Hitler."

Blow cleverly doesn't say he agrees with this latter comparison. As a journalist, all he's disingenuously doing is reporting what others have said.

Oh really.

But Blow has more to say. Now about Trump's supporters. These, he claims, are people who "tire of higher-level cerebral function."

And concludes, "Trump's triumph as the presumptive Republican Party nominee is not necessarily a sign of his strategic genius [Blow also refers to him as a "simpleton"] as much as it's a sign of some people's mental, psychological and spiritual deficiencies."

Thus, Zwerling's Law--If Nazi analogies don't work, blame the victims.

In this case, the victims are those duped by Trump. To the likes of Charles Blow to support Trump by definition assumes one has been duped. There can be no other explanation. And so to be venerable to Trump's lies and manipulations, one has to be mentally deficient.

It is just this sort of arrogance too common among liberal elites that is ironically proving most helpful to Trump in his ascendancy. Perhaps all the way to the White House.

Charles Blow