Ross Douthat on Trump
Here’s what I said last month:
Trump is like one of those kings/sultans/emperors in the history books who assumed power as a child and had various ministers conduct governance while they spent time in their harem or engaged in falconry.
And here’s Ross Douthat:
There is, as my colleague David Brooks wrote Tuesday, a basic childishness to the man who now occupies the presidency. That is the simplest way of understanding what has come tumbling into light in the last few days: The presidency now has kinglike qualities, and we have a child upon the throne. . . .
Read the things that these people, members of his inner circle, his personally selected appointees, say daily through anonymous quotations to the press. (And I assure you they say worse off the record.) They have no respect for him, indeed they seem to palpitate with contempt for him, and to regard their mission as equivalent to being stewards for a syphilitic emperor.
I like “syphilitic emperor” much better—if only I could write like Douthat.
Here’s The Economist:
In their darker moments, though, some grandees on Capitol Hill wonder if what ails this presidency goes beyond unwise tweeting or the lack of a gatekeeper who can shield Mr Trump from what one Republican describes as “people filling his head with stupid”. It has become a commonplace, especially on the right, to accuse the press of exaggerating palace intrigues in Trump World. If only that were true. In fact, powerful folk in Washington routinely describe Mr Trump in shockingly dismissive terms. He is compared to an easily distracted child who must be kept “on task”.
Through no fault of their own, the (TV) news media gives a very misleading picture of Washington DC. Republicans in DC are reluctant to be too critical on camera, but off camera they are utterly contemptuous of Trump. Trump has almost no supporters in DC, and even the people within the White House are abandoning hope.
For the past 12 months I’ve been accused of Trump derangement syndrome. If so, virtually every well informed person within 20 miles of the White House has the exact same disease.
Tags:
18. May 2017 at 19:03
“For the past 12 months I’ve been accused of Trump derangement syndrome. If so, virtually every well informed person within 20 miles of the White House has the exact same disease.”
Did you think that draining the swamp was referring to Yosemite National Park?
Of course the majority within 20 miles of the White House are against Trump, but they are not, nice try, “well informed”. You’re not well informed, look at what you keep citing:
“And here’s Ross Douthat:”
NYT is fake news
“as my colleague David Brooks wrote Tuesday”
David Brooks is a radical democratic operative, who was a manager of massive social media astroturfing campaigns of fake news, “CTR”, and “Shareblue”, anti-anything-Trump-does
“Trump has almost no supporters in DC”
You say this like it’s a negative on a person’s character
It is baffling how you put the headquarters of Swamp USA as some sort of standard or compass
It’s not a bad thing to be hated in Washington DC
18. May 2017 at 19:07
Yet…I wonder.
Trump may be a lulu and a dunce, but we are seeing all the same methods used against Trump that used to be deployed against “lefties” and others in the commie witch-hunt days.
Anonymous sources who say things, information that is damning but has to be kept secret for national security reasons, endless investigations, innuendo and so on.
Here is a Reuters story in part:
“Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.
The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between Sergei Kislyak, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, and Trump advisers, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.
Conversations between Flynn and Kislyak accelerated after the Nov. 8 vote as the two discussed establishing a back channel for communication between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin that could bypass the U.S. national security bureaucracy, which both sides considered hostile to improved relations, four current U.S. officials said.
In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign. The White House and advisers to the campaign have since confirmed four meetings between Kislyak and Trump advisers during that time.
The people who described the contacts to Reuters said they had seen no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion between the campaign and Russia in the communications reviewed so far.”
—30—
I suppose I give Reuters credit for that last exculpatory sentence (there is more to the story, it is the last sentence I quote), but one could have written the story along the lines of,
“There was scant contact between the Trump campaign and Russians—less than three times a month on average—and the limited contacts were determined to be innocuous.”
Think about it.
I say “scant contact,” as a national campaign must generate thousands of phone calls and emails, perhaps every day, and certainly weekly.
And how about the line in the lead sentence “others with Kremlin ties”?
“Kremlin ties”? Egads! Is that Americans who have done business in Russia, or any academic who taught in Russia in the last 20 years?
Is that a campaign phone call to Carter Page, who met with a Russian operative in 2013, except Page did not know he was a Russian operative? Page appears to be a mid-level oil-deals guy (and former U.S. Navy man) who likes Russia and wants to make money. Boris Badinoff?
I hope this guy Robert Mueller is as fair and straight-shooting and not a dramatic, as everyone says.
If Trump is a Russian stooge, I hope he is exposed. If not, I hope Mueller says so clearly.
But I say this: If you are old enough, you have seen this tactics before. This is all out of the old anti-commie playbook.
Look, you don’t like Trump, that is fine. He is not likable. But if they can railroad Trump this way, then they can railroad anybody else too.
18. May 2017 at 19:28
This Sumner post is pure rant. Trump has tons of well informed, intelligent fans and advocates. I was heartened to learn that the author of the infamous “Flight 93 election”, Michael Anton, is working in the administration.
“If Trump is a Russian stooge, I hope he is exposed.”
Trump may or may not have broken serious rules. I don’t find it credible that he is simply a “Russian stooge”. Several of Trump’s top cabinet members have quite passionately spoken against the governments of Russia, China, and Iran being involved in anti-western activities.
I read the now scandalized Michael Flynn’s book, “Field of Flight”. He makes convincing arguments that the governments of Russia and Iran are leading the Islamic extremists and coordinating lots of global terror and governments of China and North Korea are engaging in dangerous anti-western movements. I would stress that probably most of the common normal citizens of those nations are very pro west, very desirable citizens, and in many ways the opposite of the leaders. I can’t believe that Trump would ever associate with someone like Michael Flynn if he was a stooge of Russia or Putin.
18. May 2017 at 19:29
‘ If so, virtually every well informed person within 20 miles of the White House has the exact same disease.’
Yes, that’ correct. It’s a class thing, they can’t stand the fact that such a non-intellectual, non-policy wonk is above them in the pecking order.
19. May 2017 at 00:52
They should’ve impeached Bushitler, and would’ve impeached Romnazy.
Once they impeach the Trumpenfuhrer, then Pol-Pence will be the most despicable president in American history.
19. May 2017 at 02:52
Not that I care about partisanship, but Dems have. A great political gift in Trump and should milk it for all it’s worth. Don’t call to impeach him now. Let him wreck everything on his own and time it just right to start investigating in 2019 with timing to impeach right before 2020 election (but after primaries).
Of course I think that would be immoral and wrong. They should instead be focused on building new leadership, presenting alternative policy options and developing workable options, and spending energy criticizing the things that matter. But they wont.
19. May 2017 at 03:48
Check out Matt Yglesias piece in Vox as to all the ways a toddler is better than Trump.
19. May 2017 at 04:39
JMCSF,
That’s exactly my concern. Democratic leadership largely still doesn’t get it. I’m concerned they will play not to lose and try to depend mostly on Republicans being awful to win seats in Congress. Then, there will be gridlock, they will not have built a mandate, and Trump or Pence beat them in 2020. That’s a real possibility.
Democrats need to very publicly stop taking corporate money and raise money the way Sanders did. He out-raised the Clinton machine during the primary, and then Trump beat Clinton while spending roughly half as much as she did.
Stupid Democrats still don’t understand how the world has changed and don’t get the zeitgeist. Many Americans want a sense of economic fairness and security.
They want a bold, straightforward agenda. Medicare for all, while too expensive, would be a huge winner politically. If reforms to lower costs were adopted down the road, I could even get behind it.
Also, Democrats should run on some kind of minimum income guarantee, including a wage subsidy. They should invoked the image of Wall Street fat cats as those who would pay for it. And while at it, break up the big banks, not because it’s an important issue economically, but because it’s very important politically. It’s a real winner, and there seems to be a bit of evidence the sum of the parts are greater than the whole anyway.
Democrats should talk about these issues in terms of fairness, and openly promote an entitlement culture. They should talk about “economic freedom” in terms of freedom from worrying about the problems of maintaining mere existence. And they should talk about economic rights. Everyone has the right to healthcare and a minimum standard of living, etc.
“Americans work to live. We do not live to work”.
19. May 2017 at 04:56
#MikePence2017!
19. May 2017 at 06:59
“… information that is damning but has to be kept secret for national security reasons…”
Come on. Granting that such tactics (“I know some very damning information, but cannot tell you because it is classified”) are despicable, and should be ignored, this is all beside the point. One does not need to consider such innuendo to know that Pres. Trump should be impeached. Just watch him give a press conference. He is visibly ignorant, impulsive, and paranoid. We can all see that with our own eyes and hear it with our own ears.
Impeach him now or impeach him later? The only question is how much damage we are willing to let him inflict on us before the inevitable.
19. May 2017 at 07:05
Greg Delassus,
Good comments.
19. May 2017 at 07:16
This is humorous, if true. Trump wants to rehire Flynn:
http://www.redstate.com/terichristoph/2017/05/19/report-not-only-is-trump-still-in-communication-with-michael-flynn-he-wants-to-rehire-him/
19. May 2017 at 11:43
Ben, It makes no difference if Trump is a “Russian stooge”, he needs to be impeached for obstruction of justice.
Massimo, The Flight 93 election piece was laughable. This is the US, not North Korea. To think we have nothing to lose is to show an amazing lack of awareness as to what most countries are like. We are in the top 5% of countries. Nothing to lose? Seriously?
19. May 2017 at 12:31
Putin’s offer to release the WH meeting transcript suddenly looks a lot more nuanced, doesn’t it?
19. May 2017 at 13:48
Scott,
I am not a Trump supporter, I would have preferred Rubio or Paul. But this is TDS.
I remember hearing all this same stuff about Reagan. It was bullshit then, and I suspect much of this stuff is too.
19. May 2017 at 14:40
Obstruction of justice? I suppose you must be referring to Trump telling Comey that he “hoped” he could see his way clear to clearing Michael Flynn. He didn’t order him to drop the investigation, and Comey himself has testified under oath that didn’t think the White House was interfering with his investigation. So where’s the obstruction?
19. May 2017 at 15:17
Major Freedom – the problem appears to be that Trump brought the swamp directly into his office. These people are not within 20 miles they are within 20 feet. It is the people who are working directly with him that are complaining he acts like a child. It is possible the “swamp” is competent people. That is my current theory of what this swamp could be. And I agree that Trump supporters seem determined to drain the swamp.
19. May 2017 at 15:38
Jeff – learn to read more carefully on the Comey denial of pressure to drop the investigation. He was specifically referring to the Department of Justice not the White House. Also Trump appears to be getting closer and closer to directly admitting he fired Comey (the nut job) to stifle the investigation. Does that seem like obstruction of justice?
19. May 2017 at 16:28
Steve J,
Trump fired Comey largely due to Russia investigation. Trump has said so more than once. How do you define obstruction of justice?
19. May 2017 at 17:13
“Massimo, The Flight 93 election piece was laughable. This is the US, not North Korea. To think we have nothing to lose is to show an amazing lack of awareness as to what most countries are like.”
The point of the essay was that conservative politicians and intellectuals have grown comfortable with losing gracefully, their job in politics is “to show up and lose”, and even when they win elections, they are merely able to ratify the left’s agenda, and not challenge it in any serious way. The education system and the mainstream media have become these unelected highly partisan organizations that steer our society to the left. The point of the essay was definitely not that there is nothing to lose. The main premise of “charge the cockpit or you die.” is overwrought.
19. May 2017 at 18:00
Scott – I believe we are both on the same side – firing the guy who is investigating you seems like a bad idea. We will see (eventually) if Mueller thinks it is obstruction of justice. By the way I don’t think Trump has clearly admitted that is why he fired Comey. Especially in the Lester Holt interview you can interpret what he says as dismissing the idea that it would be related since Russia is a made-up story.
19. May 2017 at 18:18
Seth Rich was murdered by DNC hired thugs
https://i.imgur.com/2L9p8ji.png
19. May 2017 at 18:28
Sumner’s theory the media is too soft on Trump, DEBUNKED:
https://i.imgur.com/J2LIA8K.jpg
19. May 2017 at 18:29
https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/
19. May 2017 at 18:31
Scott Freelander:
“Trump fired Comey largely due to Russia investigation.”
No, that’s fake news
Comey was corrupt, that’s largely why he was fired
19. May 2017 at 18:32
Greg:
“Pres. Trump should be impeached.”
For what?
19. May 2017 at 18:34
Steve J:
“the problem appears to be that Trump brought the swamp directly into his office.”
No, because if he did, then all of Washington wouldn’t be against him, but they are, precisely because he didn’t
You’re conflating “swamp” with “people I don’t like”
19. May 2017 at 18:51
Is mf full of snowspiracy? Or is she just consnoflake?
19. May 2017 at 18:59
I am kidding, clearly Billary and Obama have conspired with Kenyan Islamic space aliens to steal Comeys brain and replant it with anti Russian AI generators that can manipulate the world media to oppose small government super genius trump. Anyone that can’t see that is clearly a cuck.
19. May 2017 at 19:03
And mf has must use his spider senses to dig up YouTube videos proving trumps competence in order to save the world from anti trump bias.
19. May 2017 at 20:11
Student, go back to sleep
You believe in conspiracy theories
19. May 2017 at 20:42
So I should take the blue pill. Damn. I guess I am not neo material. Maybe if you spent 3 more hours showering me with YouTube videos I’d take the pill. Hahaha.
19. May 2017 at 20:42
Red pill
20. May 2017 at 04:58
Massimo, So Trump will implement this conservative change that other GOP officials were afraid to do? Like what? Tougher on Russia? Balanced budget? Lower government spending? Get rid of Obamacare?
When will we see this conservative change?
Are you joking?
Scott, I presume you wrote that before the latest revelation. Now even the White House admits its true. The new line of defense is that it’s no big deal.
20. May 2017 at 06:05
There is an alternative explanation that makes sense. Suppose for a minute that Trump really hasn’t been conspiring with the Russians. In that light, Trump’s actions mostly make sense.
Trump doesn’t like Comey for a bunch of reasons, one of them being that he is a self-righteous prig and a nut case. Who wears a blue suit so he can camouflage himself by standing in front of a blue curtain and thinks a public handshake with a politician is compromising? But leaving that aside, most everyone agrees (for different reasons) that Comey’s actions or lack thereof during the campaign warranted his dismissal. Just when do you think would have been the right time to fire him? Are we now going to say that any law enforcement person who doesn’t want to be fired need only drag out an investigation into his superiors to be protected?
With the appointment of a special counsel, the Russian stuff will be investigated. Trump thinks the appointment is a bad idea, but note that he did nothing to stop it, and he could have. He is mostly acting exactly the way an innocent President would act, except that he’s Donald Trump and he’s also acting like he is.
The tweets and off-the-cuff remarks, the seeming lack of a filter, this is all vintage Trump, and it is part of his appeal. We knew this about him before the election, so it’s not grounds to remove him.
The DC establishment, including the press, doesn’t like Trump’s policies or his style. But try to remember the kind of press that Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bushes got. It wasn’t quite as bad as what Trump is getting, but it still shows that the press, as Glenn Reynolds say, is mostly Democratic operatives with bylines. Most of the country now understands that, so none of this stuff is going to bring him down without some real, actual hard evidence. And that seems to be in very short supply.
20. May 2017 at 06:25
Jeff, The difference between partisans like you and non-partisan people like me is that I have no ax to grind. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. For instance, you say:
“Trump doesn’t like Comey for a bunch of reasons, one of them being that he is a self-righteous prig and a nut case.
Now go back to the Clinton investigation. Were Republicans saying that Ken Starr was a self-righteous prig? I don’t recall hearing that from the GOP—that was a Democratic talking point. Now the sides have reversed.
The press is not being hard on Trump, they are simply reporting all the idiotic things he says. Even people within his administration now admit that he’s a moron. Get your head out of the sand.
I wish people could see how partisanship just makes a person stupid. Stop defending the indefensible. Stop being pro-Republican or pro-Democrat. Please.
20. May 2017 at 07:41
Scott, I’ve not heard a single Trump administration member say that he’s a moron. Not on the record, and if it isn’t on the record, it’s fake news. There is a long history in every administration in my adult lifetime of people leaking stuff to try to look good in comparison to their superiors. If these people had any integrity, they would resign and go public with their criticisms. But they don’t, so I consider the source and discount what they say.
I don’t think that’s partisan. As for Ken Starr, he never should have been appointed. Every prosecutor in the federal government is part of the executive branch and can be fired by the President. That’s our Constitution, and if you don’t like it, amend it. Ken Starr could not be fired, and that was wrong.
As for Ken Starr personally, I don’t care. My reading of Bill Clinton’s testimony is that he did not technically commit perjury, but was able to avoid doing so only because the people questioning him were either incompetent or didn’t really want to prosecute him. Most likely the latter. But in any case, what we saw in the impeachment votes in the House and Senate was party-line voting, making me doubt whether the impeachment system can ever work.
Trump is a successful businessman who managed to beat a large field of experienced politicians in the primaries, and he beat the overwhelmingly favored Hillary Clinton in the general election. I disagree with Trump on the usual libertarian grounds: trade, immigration, drugs, surveillance, etc. I think you do as well. But so far, most of what he’s actually done is stuff I like: deregulation, Gorsuch, attacking PC, discontinuing Obama’s micromanaging of the ISIS fight, and taking the biased press down a few pegs. I think he made a mistake in not pressing for a straightforward repeal of Obamacare with any replacement coming later. But overall, on policy issues he’s done much better than I expected so far.
My point is that, like his electoral successes, these policies are not what you would expect from a moron. So I wonder, to what do you attribute Trump’s successes? Blind luck?
20. May 2017 at 16:32
haha, blue, no wait, red
21. May 2017 at 12:53
Jeff, You said:
“I’ve not heard a single Trump administration member say that he’s a moron. Not on the record, and if it isn’t on the record, it’s fake news.”
It’s not fake news. In DC the things I am saying are widely understood to be true, even by Republicans. Calling it fake news is just sticking your head in the sand. Reporters like David Brooks are not making this stuff up.
Chavez managed to get elected—are you saying he was not a moron?
You said:
“But in any case, what we saw in the impeachment votes in the House and Senate was party-line voting, making me doubt whether the impeachment system can ever work.”
It worked in Nixon’s case—although he resigned before being impeached, there were many votes there on both sides.