February 13, 2018--#metoo

Friday afternoon, exasperated, Katy Tur on MSNBC, said, "All I'm hearing is 'he, he he.' Not a word about 'her.'"

She was referring to what she and the rest of us were hearing from Donald Trump about Rob Porter, his recently fired White House Staff Secretary. Though an ordinary-sounding job title, the Staff Secretary has frequent direct access to the president and is responsible for determining what printed material is given to the president to read or, in Trump's case, ignore.

To serve in that position, like his predecessors, Porter needed a top secret security clearance. Which he didn't have since the FBI, about a year ago, when reviewing his application, discovered that he had physically assaulted both of his ex-wives and thus did not approve assigning him that status.

Late Friday afternoon, in a virtually unprecedented move, unannounced, Trump invited the White House press corps into the Oval Office to take a few questions. It was no surprise that all of them were about Rob Porter. Trump had clearly thought carefully about what he would say.

At length, with a heavy-sounding heart, he spoke about what an exemplary employee Porter had been and how he would be missed. He called his departure "very sad" and that "we hope he will have a wonderful career." That "it's been a hard time for him."

He also reminded us that poor Porter had not been proven guilty, that he was merely the victim of allegations. There had not been due process. 

It was widely noted by Katy Tur and others that Trump spoke not a word about the women who had been physically assaulted. He didn't point out that what they had endured was also "sad" or offer the hope that they too would have "wonderful careers" or lives.

Over the weekend a little research revealed that with Trump there is a distinct pattern about these matters--when someone is accused of spousal abuse or sexual harassment, in all cases except Harvey Weinstein's, Trump totally ignored the women and consistently made excuses for the men.  

About Senate candidate Roy Moore in Alabama, who was credibly accused of molesting and raping minors, Trump,  not acknowledging the then girls, emphasized that Moore hadn't been convicted of anything. It was classic he-said-she-said though it was clear who Trump believed. 

And in the cases of campaign managers Cory Lewandowski and Steve Bannon, both accused by ex-wives of domestic violence, Trump did not seem concerned and stood by them when the accusations came to light.

Then, still fitting the pattern, when Fox News's Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly were exposed as serial sexual predators, Trump fell in line in support of them.

About Weinstein Trump couldn't resist joining the condemnation since he was a major donor to Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats' campaigns. And so he overcame his reluctance to criticizing the men and took a swipe at Weinstein, saying, with unintentional irony on the very anniversary of the notorious Billy Bush Access Hollywood tape, that he was "not at all surprised" by revelations that the movie mogul repeatedly paid to settle charges of sexual harassment. It was obvious that Trump was speaking from personal experience.

"Still missing from this discussion," Rona said, "is more analysis about Trump's reticence."

I said, "I think in general it's been claimed that he's a classic chauvinist right out of the era in which he, a spoiled rich kid, came of age. A world where powerful men felt free to sexually exploit women, especially in the workplace. Mad Men like."

"I think that's only a part of the story," Rona said, "More significant to me is that he himself has been charged with sexual misconduct by at least 15 women and that he allegedly raped Ivana, his first wife. So he is directly implicated in his own world of similar accusations. Thus to talk in a more balanced way about the current burst of sexual allegations would potentially force him to confront his own behavior. So, by making excuses for the men accused, men like Rob Porter, via the psychological mechanism of projection, he is making excuses for himself. Diminishing the claims of the women suing him by assigning or projecting his behavior onto them. 

"You remember the hashtag Maureen Dowd created for him in her Sunday column? Instead of #metoo, she came up with something more appropriate for him--#me." 

"Perfect," Rona said with a sad smile.

November 27, 2017--Duffer In Chief

During his campaign for the presidency, nominee Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Barak Obama for spending so much time on the golf course. Among other things, in dog-whistle terms, this meant black people are lazy.

Trump tweeted--

"Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf."

He also said that Obama "plays more golf than Tiger Woods." (More dog whistle.)


Then about himself, on the campaign trail, he said, "If I'm elected I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf."

Well, the facts are that Obama didn't play his first round of golf until about the 100th day of being sworn in while Trump's first round, at his golf course in Palm Beach, occurred just two weeks after he was inaugurated. 


And this past weekend, again in residence at his Palm Beach pleasure palace (and for-profit private club), he played the 80th round of golf of his presidency. Since he had been in office just a little more than 300 days, 80 rounds means he golfed on 27 percent of them.

A few months ago when pressed to explain this blatant hypocrisy, he claimed he only plays golf with world and congressional leaders. In other words, rather than playing for fun he was working. Like his times on the tee with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. 

To be fair, there is some truth here--riding around in a golf cart with the likes of Abe or, twice each, senators Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham can not only be relaxing but productive. Deals can get struck. Like pressuring and flattering Lindsey to get him to vote to repeal Obamacare.

But in truth, the list of world leaders who have been Trump golfing companions includes only the Japanese prime minister. Neither President Xi of China nor German Chancellor Angela Merkel have taken divots with him. His companions have mostly been professional golfers, other athletes, and a few small-time business executives such as Mike Fasio, CEO of Prime Staffing, a New York based employment agency.

And what about his round of golf last Friday with Tiger Woods? How does this fit into Trump's golf/work paradigm? 

It's heard to imagine that Trump and Tiger conversed about tax reform (except perhaps to chuckle about how much each of these very wealthy men would see their taxes cut) or what to do about North Korea.

My sources tell me that they spoke about more personal issues--

The sort of thing two well-known ladies men discuss in the "locker room" or 19th hole--favorite places for such talk. That's how Trump tried to explain being caught on tape joking around with Billy Bush about how easy it is to get laid when you're a "star."

"So, Tiger," he might have said, "What's going on with you these days, and I'm not talking about your golf swing?" I can imagine a presidential wink.

"My back is feeling better," Tiger would say, "I'm hoping to get back in action soon." Imagine a Tiger wink.

"That means you haven't been getting any lately?" Continue to imagine winks.

"Not so much in person," Tiger likely said, "But I do like texting. I know you do too."

"I don't want to get caught like that Weiner--can you believe his name, by the way--or that loser congressman from Texas who just got exposed last week. Pardon the pun. Burton, Barton, I forget his name. What a bunch of losers. I'm so busy these days trying to concentrate on what's going on with that damn Congress and that low life Mueller that I haven't been able to get out much. Or watch most of my favorite TV shows. And every time I turn around Steve Bannon is on the phone or Ivanka wants me to do something for women."

"Been there, done that," Tiger would say. "These women won't leave you alone."

Trump would sigh, "You know what I said to that jerk relative of low-energy Jeb Bush, Billy whatever, about how easy it is to get women when you're famous? Can you imagine what I could be gettin' now that I'm president? Look what Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton got their hands on. All Democrats by the way. Or got into, if you know what I mean. I could use some of that. This is a hard job--they even wake you up in the middle of the night every time that short, fat guy shoots off a rocket. I wish Dennis Rodman could work out a deal with him so I could get some sleep. And everyone has their eyes on me. Can you believe that the Secret Service knows every time I have to take a leek?"

Tiger would say something commiserating. 

October 24, 2106--A Progressive's Dinner

At a gathering of a group of friends the other night we were talking about . . . what else.

It was after the Billy Bush tape had been in wide circulation and the consensus in the room of progressives was that this would be the end, finally, of . . .

No one was even comfortable pronouncing his name.

And then we slipped into our own not-really-that-funny version of Saturday Night Live where all of us played The Donald role. No one took on Hillary.

After a few more drinks and lots of satirical laughter one of my friends turned to give me a hard time about some of my blog postings. It didn't take long for a few others, equally well fortified, to join in.

It seems the problem is that they feel in my efforts to "understand" the reasons so many are supporting Trump, in spite of his many outrages, I was lending credibility--one said "legitimacy"--to his candidacy. By taking them and, by association, him seriously.

"He doesn't deserve to be taken seriously," another said.

"What should I be doing?" I asked, a bit agitated, "Turn my blog into a platform of support for Hillary?" This came out hotter than I intended.

There was some indication that some thought this was in fact what I should be doing. The stakes were that high. Fascism was threatening. It was not time for nuance or analytics. There would be time for that after the election. What's called for is partisanship. Every vote counts. I should be helping to bring out potential Clinton voters.

At least that's what I thought was being implied. All hands on political deck until he is defeated, gone and forgotten. So we can settle into four more years of what we have had for the past eight. Not perfect, but better than the alternative. Then there would be time to tweak Hillary's agenda. But only after a few more liberals are appointed to the Supreme Court.

"But shouldn't who are about to win recognize that Hillary will not just be our president but Trump's people's as well?"

"They're bigots, homophobic, Islamophobes, misogynists, white supremacists. You really want to have anything to do with people of this kind?"

"In many ways, I'd prefer not too," I confessed, "But since they're Americans too and there are apparently almost enough of them to elect a president--though I've also been writing that there are lots of Trump people who are none of these things--shouldn't we, who call ourselves liberals, who pride ourselves on understanding life's subtleties, shouldn't we be making an effort to understand more about what is tearing our country apart so that maybe we can help heal some of the breeches and distrust."

"It's a waste of time," a friend said. "These people are not interested in changing. They're dug in in their beliefs."

"I know, Hillary called them deplorables who are unredeemable. That may be what she thinks--those were her words--but I don't. I believe in the possibility of change for almost everyone. But that can only come, I feel, from a deep and empathetic understanding. It may be unpleasant and messy but that's what my definition of being liberal--minded means--being open to even listen to ideas we hate. Especially that. And if we don't take a step in this direction we shouldn't expect those who have very different views will take the initiative."

"This all sounds good but is too unrealistic to make anyone feel optimistic."

"Let me try out one more idea. How many of us have contributed money to Clinton's campaign?"

"Does giving money to Bernie count?" Everyone laughed but only two of ten indicated that they had contributed to Hillary.

"What about active electioneering? Like planning to go to a purple state and canvassing or making phone calls?" No one had done or planned to do that.

"That goes for me too," I said, "I haven't given her any money and I haven't been making phone calls to undecided voters. I'm not proud of that. But I've tried to read everything, talk to people like tonight, and I even to communicate with Trump supporters. But that's all pretty passive considering what's at stake. Having fessed up to that, it's hard for me to feel good about my open mindedness. But one final thing and then let's get back to having fun."

"As soon as possible," one said.

"So you have nothing but dismissive and disparaging things to say about Trump voters?"

"Don't they deserve it? Have you looked at who shows up as his rallies?"

"I do look at who they are. And that's my final point--they also look like those who show up at military recruiting offices. You're not OK with them as voters, but how do you feel about them as soldiers in our volunteer army?" Silence.

"How many of us have friends or family members who signed up to go to Afghanistan, Iraq, or just to be in the army?" More silence. Eye contact had broken off.

"Sorry to bring you down," I said. And to lighten things up again asked, "How do you like Alec Baldwin's Trump?"

October 19, 2016--Hillary's Gender Problem

It has been widely reported that Hillary Clinton and her team are distressed that polls show she is doing less well with young woman than among middle-age women who form the heart of her base.

Madeleine Albright summed up these feelings back in February when she said something in public that she had been saying in private--that there's "a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other" i.e. who don't vote for Hillary.

It is understandable that she and Hillary Clinton would feel a version of this--

Why weren't the younger generation of women grateful for the changes Albright and Clinton have helped to bring about? Fair question because it is true that they both, and now especially Hillary, broke and are breaking through the most important and formidable glass ceilings.

Why were so many young women flocking to Bernie, a late-middle-age white man who is more like their fathers or grandfathers than feminist movement leaders such as Albright and Clinton?

Partly because he is a sort of grandfather type (though a bit strident and know-it-all in my view) and many young people seek grandparents who often understand them better than their own parents. Partly because Hillary's has a schoolmarmish public speaking style that sets off unpleasant bells and whistles and on the stump and TV can sound more preachy than empathetic.

But more profoundly, many professionally successful young women feel that much of the struggle is either over or what's left of it should be focused on the kinds of issues they face in their careers and family lives and which they feel Hillary doesn't understand or "get."

They are less interested in equal-pay or affirmative action, for example, then what Sheryl Sandberg wrote about in Lean In--how women should no longer doubt their ability to combine work and family and thus do not need to avoid demanding assignments in anticipation of having children. And that, as the result of the positive outcomes of "leaning in," put themselves in a better position to ask for what they need and to make changes that could benefit others.

But this may be about to change. And, if I am reading the situation correctly, it will ironically be because of Donald Trump ever-more-disgusting misogyny.

The so-called Billy Bush open-mike tape where Trump joked so graphically about his sexual stalking is hopefully the last in a long list of last straws that should have much earlier doomed his candidacy. But somehow didn't.

From his slander about John McCain, to his boasting that his supporters would stay with him even if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue, to his mocking and abuse of female reporters, Mexicans, and people with disabilities, to egging on "Second Amendment people" to "take care"of Hillary, to his . . .

Many of us have our list of his worst calumnies that should have brought him down, but up to now, in spite of what he has said and tweeted, no matter how offensive he has been, he wiggled free and in some cases perversely seen his poll numbers rise.

But not this time.

Young women especially, very much including those who have fought on campuses against date rape and other offenses directed at women, are now seeing support for Hillary Clinton coinciding with their feminist agenda.

They also are seeing that the agenda is not in fact completed and that it is important to work on that and to do so in solidarity across generations. Equal pay, for example, may now be seen to be very much a practical and symbolic issue.

Young women may not feel fervent about Hillary for some of the reasons noted above, but because of what she would do about court appointments and pressing a gender-aware social policy agenda as well as the metaphoric power of what having a female president would mean, I am sensing that this generation of women will now vote heavily for Clinton and likely contribute to a landslide.

There will be no more examples of Trump wiggling free. This is the last straw.