February 22, 2017--Milo Yiannopoulos

More evidence of implosion--

General Michael Flynn is gone, fired as National Security Council Advisor, replaced by an adult, and with him goes some of the paranoia and conspiratorial thinking that pervades the West Wing.

Many on both sides of the aisle are hoping that chief strategist, Stephen Bannon and his protégée Stephen Miller will soon follow. Kallyanne Conway has already been marginalized. Have you seen her recently? Is she still being "counseled" and reeducated for hawking Ivanka Trump's schematas? Is she the next one to be jettisoned?

If so it could be that there is some low-wattage light flickering at the end of the very long Trump tunnel.

More good news--

The ever-hypocritical Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) has just withdrawn its invitation to senior Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos to address their upcoming convention.

Greatly "admired" by Bannon, according to the New York Times, for his alt-right orthodoxy which includes dollops of racism and anti-Semitism, Milo has been in the headlines recently for having been driven away from speaking at Berkeley where protesting students proclaimed with some violence, forgetting the free-speech history of their institution, that there is "no free speech for hate speech."

CPAC made a big deal of this, totally enjoying the irony at Berkeley and, mounting their high libertarian horse, invited Milo to address them as evidence that conservatives are less politically correct and more constitution-minded than liberals.

They were OK with the hate speech part of Milo's repertoire but when it leaked out that he also has spoken positively about man-boy pedophilia, including among Catholic priests, that was too much even for CPACers. They pulled the plug on him and made frantic rounds of the morning talk shows to try to explain away their hypocrisy.

They are for free speech but not when it "crosses certain lines." Clearly one of those lines doesn't include forbidding a CPAC speaker to hint with winks and nods that it's all right to be a white supremacist or anti-Semite.

Does this foretell Stephen Bannon's fate? With Yiannopoulos on the loose and CPAC at a boil, Bannon's presence, whispering in Trump's ear, may embolden Bannon's White House enemies (Reince Priebus and Jared Kushner among others) to put pressure on Trump to do a little more house cleaning.

February 13, 2017--Jack On "Sane Republicans"

"I read what you wrote the other day about how ridicule has the power to bring Trump down."

Once again, Jack was calling. "That could be true," he said, "It can be powerful when it gets under the skin of someone as thin-skinned as Trump."

"That's what I'm thinking," I said.

"On the other hand," Jack said, "a lot of Democrats are thinking it has to be 'sane Republicans' like John McCain and Lindsay Graham who need to step up and begin to openly take Trump on. Everyone knows they hate him, but so far they have been muted in their criticism. This makes sense to me. You can see them seething and at some point Trump'll do something so outrageous, there will be some sort of smoking gun, maybe from the Russians' secret files, and that will signal the beginning of the end."

"You're beginning to sound like one of us," I said.

"Not one of your kind, but maybe I'm one of those sane Republicans." I knew if we were seated across from each other at the Bristol Diner he'd be winking at me.

He added, "I watched Saturday Night Live on Saturday, knowing they'd be going after Trump again, to check out how potent their humor is."

"So what did you think?"

"I thought the Melissa McCarthy takedown of Sean Spicer was the best of the three political sketches. He's a very angry man and she got to the heart of that. And was savagely funny. One more week and Trump will ready to pull the plug on him. Not just to end the mocking but because he's jealous of Spicer stealing the spotlight. I read some place that his daily press briefings, which the cable news people are carrying live, are getting higher ratings than General Hospital and the other soaps. Not too mention Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. All are seeing their ratings at all time highs"

"People can't seem to get enough of Trump," I sighed. "In any form."

"But then the skit about Kellyanne Conway, where she goes after CNN's Jake Tapper the same predatory way Sharon Stone did to Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct, was so vicious that it went beyond humor and came out on the dark side. It wasn't really as funny as Steve Bannon the week before when he played the Grim Reaper. That was very dark but funny. I guess with comedy there are no limits. But if I'm thinking about political effectiveness--and I do think the SNL people are out to bring Trump down--for me that bit didn't work."

"I felt the same way," I said, "It crossed too many lines to have much impact, though I did think it was bold."

"You're getting to my main point and the reason I called."

"I was wondering about that."

"Take the last sketch where Baldwin played Trump appealing his travel ban to the courts. Not the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court but, of course, The People's Court. A reality show court. This should have been funny but I felt it was predictable and more manufactured than inspired. To be consistently funny you need to avoid slipping into into routines and cliches. Things have to be fresh and the Alec Baldwin version of Trump is getting to be overexposed. My sense is that after another week or two people will begin to tune out. Ditto for McCarthy's Sean Spicer. This week the innovation was to motorize the podium. Pretty thin stuff."

"I also was thinking been-there-done-that and started to nod off."

"So, from an effectiveness perspective, SNL, as fresh as it seemed three weeks ago, is feeling stale and a little boring. Boring is the opposite of funny."

"Here's one more thing," Jack said, "I'm thinking that the Trump act is also wearing thin. He too is in danger of slipping into predictability. His act is wearing thin. This could be a good thing--to rein Trump in--or a bad thing--we'll stop paying attention to what he's up to. He might be more dangerous out of the spotlight than basking in it."

February 7, 2017--Glimmers?

My close friend, Dr. Gary Schwartzberg, the best audiologist on the east coast, has been in existential angst since Donald Trump was elected. It is hard to blame him.

But I have taken it as my mission to find things for him to consider that might ease his anguish. Perhaps some have been more stretches of my imagination than verifiably true, more wish than reality. However, struggling to offer him things to feel optimistic about, all right, to not make him crazy, I have come up with a few things these past few days that appear to have helped ease his political pain. Or at least to offer some brief solace.

Here's something I wrote to him over the past weekend, and what he said back to me--

GS  

Because of med-induced reduced energy this, which could be lengthy, will be brief. I am beginning to see some glimmers of hope. All in the realm of our cherished checks and balances-- Asserting that the U.S. government is not made up just of a powerful executive branch, the federal courts have begun to assert themselves. In at least two instances already there have been judicial rulings that suspended Trump's egregious Muslim-ban executive order. And Trump and his administration are obeying these rulings, albeit appealing them. This is most important. It suggest some acknowledgement on their part of the courts' authority and evidence of restraint on Trump's potential imperial aspirations. 

If this gets to the Supremes with the current 4-4 split the other court's rulings will stand. Of course, who knows what will be if the 9th seat gets filled. (it will). But about these kinds of fundamental constitutional matters even conservative justices (sometimes especially conservative justices) are very protective of the Constitution's separation of powers. Though, on the other hand, they have been over-tolerant of protecting presidential authority, which has grown exponentially since the Depression, World War II, and Cold War. Then, there is clearly a blood-struggle for primacy within the White House among some of the senior staff and Cabinet heads. There was a good WaPo piece a few days ago and a Time magazine cover story about the emerging feud between Bannon-Miller, who hatched the exec order without consulting with the Secretaries of Defense, State, or Homeland Security. All three entities headed by mature, powerful, and self-assured men who, if they will continue to act independently (and I feel will  considering who they are and with history watching), will at some point tell Trump it's either them or Bannon.  

And my guess is that Jared Kusher will soon try to pull the plug on Bannon as he did to get rid of Chris Christie. There may not be room enough in the West Wing for those two. Even Ivanka's brand is being hammered by the excesses of Bannon and Miller. Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus are no longer carrying her line.  I see these to be glimmers of some hope. Of course, as the criticism mounts, Trump may dig in and begin to act out more. Which could be dangerous. But I'm betting on Mattis, Tillerson, and Kelly. And especially Jared and Ivanka. Trump is essentially a small-time mom-and-pop operator on steroids and if his kids do an intervention, it could get interesting and things could get a lot better.  And then thankfully there's the Super Bowl . . .   

SZ

Dr. S responded--

Steve, 

I do see the glimmers and believe that they are real.  Reasonable conservative and liberal federal court judges are beginning to step up to the plate; I am hopeful that more will be energized to do the same.  I read (maybe Times OpEd) that the “so-called judge” tweek was the one of the most dangerous of all--delegitimizing the fed court system.  I also agree, the more extreme and irrational the inhabitants of the White House are, the more likely things will implode sooner than later.   We spent the weekend with my daughter and her boyfriend.  I am encouraged at the intellect and progressive mindedness of some of our youth.   Enjoy the game and help us stay positive my friend.  

G

Then I wrote--

GS 

The Patriots are down by 25 points and I have the TV on mute. Most boring Super Bowl ever! So I have some time to send you one more note before turning it off altogether and hitting the hay. 

Did I read, or am I making it up, that the Trump adminsidtartion has decided not to use off-shore black-op interrogation sites where they torture captives? If true it's another glimmer and likely the result of General "Mad Dog" Mattis asserting himself. 

And in regard to checks and balances we shouldn't forget the American Street.  

Remember the Arab Street during the ill-fated Arab Spring? For the most part things got worse, but it did show the power of an aroused population, even in totalitarian situations. Here, now organized through social media, if the people remain motivated and turn out, that can make a big difference. Remember how street demonstrations helped bring down two presidents--Johnson and Nixon? 

Then again, I can't stop thinking that it may come down to Trump the father and father-in-law versus Steve Bannon, his surrogate whatever. I'm betting on the kids. 

SZ

And then from GS--

SZ 

Speaking of betting, turn on your TV. The Pats are now trailing by only 16 points. Never count them out. 

GS

Finally, I wrote--

GS 

Forget it. There are only a few minutes left and they need two touchdowns, each with two extra points. Can't happen. I'm going to sleep. 

SZ 

November 16, 2016--Normalization

Yesterday, the following sub-headline appeared on the first page of the New York Times website--

"Critics lamented what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as chairman of Breitbart News."

The Times went on to say that by president-elect Trump appointing Stephen Bannon chief presidential strategist--responsible for generating ideas that will animate his administration--as one of the founders of the white supremacist alt-right, this designation contributes to legitimatizing racist, homophobic, nationalistic, and anti-Semetic views and behavior. And, of course, will make these kinds of reprehensible thoughts welcome in the White House.

On a very different scale, I have been accused of contributing to the normalization of Donald Trump.

I have been writing here and elsewhere for a year and a half about the unexpected political rise of Donald Trump. And after he won the Republican nomination, in spite of his outrageous words and behavior, I continued to write about him, taking him seriously while most of the others on the left continued to mock and disregard the seriousness and potency of his candidacy.

Almost all of what I wrote through the many months was asserted by me to be an attempt to understand the Trump phenomenon, particularly why he was appealing to so many. Enough eventually to elect him.

My view was and is that we must come to understand why so many white men regardless of educational evil and economic status supported him enthusiastically, why so many Hispanics (close to a third of those who turned out) cast ballots for him, and particularly why more than half of white women (again across the demographic spectrum) chose him to be our next president.

I was criticized widely for not simply condemning Trump's racism and sexism and that, by writing about him and his followers with an dispassionate mind, I was contributing to taking him seriously, rather than treating him as dismissively, and, again, by so doing I helped normalize him.

Perhaps I did not do a good enough job of making the distinction between this effort to understand and what might be viewed as unintended implicit support.  

In other words, I was lectured by many, Trump did not deserve to be taken seriously and by continuing stubbornly to do so I was inadvertently--or perhaps subliminally--endorsing his candidacy.

I can understand the angst and rage and fear that his election is causing many to feel--I as well feel his election has the potential to turn out to be a national tragedy--but I do not understand why simply dismissing him was and is the preferred way to defeat his ideas and reduce his reach.

My view is that just the opposite is true.

We need to gain a nuanced and accurate understanding of Trump's appeal and a clear sense of what is motivating and mobilizing his followers if we are to have a chance to overcome appeals of his kind and the political and culture power that is responsible for the most perversely remarkable presidential election in our history.

Calling that effort normalization misses the point. One has to take the risk of taking Trump seriously (which is different than a show of support) in order to figure out what is seething in the middle of America.

Those who continue to believe that he is evil and that his supporters in one way or another are deplorable, and thereby not worth thinking about seriously, are the ones from the progressive end of the political spectrum who also contributed to his election.

Stephen Bannon