Our traditional press is much better at reporting individual events than they are at conveying meaning. Meaning is conveyed in narratives that link events with one another and with facts. But in politics as soon as a narrative is constructed that favors one "side" over another "side", that narrative is deemed "opinion" which is left to battle with other "opinions" on a level playing field.
Except the playing field is not level. One side cares about true, meaningful narratives and the other does not. And that side has Fox News.
And that's the problem.
George Lakoff, the linguist, comes at the problem from that perspective in "Trump has turned words into weapons. And he's winning the linguistic war." With the subheading "From ‘spygate’ to ‘fake news’, Trump is using language to frame – and win – debates. And the press operate like his marketing agency"
Lakoff makes the important point that "As president of the United States, anything he says – true or false – is faithfully parroted by the press. This needs to change." True, but the press did this even before Trump was president, when he was only a candidate, because the daily outrages made good copy for the daily news cycle. So the challenge is even greater.
And our press is very bad at recognizing what Lakoff calls "framing" as well as related techniques used by propagandists. As Lakoff implores, "Reporting, and therefore repeating, Trump’s tweets just gives him more power. There is an alternative. Report the true frames that he is trying to pre-empt. Report the truth that he is trying to divert attention from. Put the blame where it belongs. Bust the trial balloon. Report what the strategies are trying to hide."
As Lakoff continues, "...don’t spread lies. Don’t privilege Trump’s lies by putting their specific language in the headlines, the leads or the hashtags. Don’t repeat the lies assuming people will automatically know they’re lies. People need to know the president is lying, but be careful about repeating the lies because “a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth”. Repetition of lies spreads them."
Lakoff is right about all this. But, in order to do a better job, editors will need to recognize false balance and the false equivalencies that result from forcing "balance" reporting in a world of imbalance.
Friday, June 15, 2018
Bad Faith
In "How the conventions of political journalism help spread Trump’s lies" Greg Sargent takes traditional news outlets to task for their knee jerk 'two sides to every issue' reporting on the Inspector General report released yesterday. Keep in mind that the IG review only exists due to bad faith efforts by the president and the Republican leadership in Congress to discredit inquiry into the Trump campaign.
The very fact of journalists' efforts to maintain "balance" in political reporting betrays a weakness that ruthless politicians are willing to exploit. As a result, the journalistic commitment to the truth (using outmoded standards that rely on good faith, or, an idealistic belief that "the truth will out" or "no one will ever trust a liar") is the very thing that makes them report falsehoods as possibly true.
Sargent writes:
"One of the most important but overlooked lessons in the bombshell report on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation is that bad-faith, right-wing ref-working, via purely instrumental attacks on institutions, works. Buried in the report by the Department of Justice’s inspector general is evidence that former FBI director James B. Comey undertook actions that damaged Clinton’s candidacy, in part, because he had been spooked by such attacks."
And he continues:
"Right on cue, the news media’s coverage of the inspector general’s report is also confirming the same lesson: Bad-faith ref-working is producing its desired results once again.
The report’s core finding is that the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Clinton was untainted by bias or politics. This lays waste to one of the most important narratives pushed by President Trump and his allies in the quest to undermine special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation by claiming law enforcement is riddled with anti-Trump corruption.
But in many of this morning’s accounts about the report, you find versions of this additional claim: The IG report nonetheless provides fodder and ammunition to Trump and his allies to discredit Mueller’s probe.
Trump’s allies have widely cited the inspector general’s findings about the now-infamous texts between an FBI agent and lawyer — which do show animus towards Trump’s candidacy — as not just proof of anti-Trump bias at the FBI during the Clinton investigation, but also to bolster Trump’s argument that the Mueller probe into Russia-Trump campaign collusion is suspect.
Many news accounts inadvertently grant these arguments credibility, not just by quoting them, but also by claiming as fact that the conduct in question actually does lend support to those arguments. Yes, they also convey that the inspector general’s overall conclusion undercuts the Trumpian narrative. But the straddle itself is the problem. It showcases a convention often relied upon in political journalism — the use of the “lends fodder” formulation to float false claims alongside true ones — that has to go.
For instance, the New York Times quotes a Trump ally pushing his narrative, and then asserts as fact that “any independent criticism” of Comey “helps” Trump “undermine the credibility of someone who may be a crucial witness against him in any case of obstruction of justice.” The Associated Press claims the report gave Republicans “ample fodder” to “question” the Russia probe. The Post says the report will serve as a GOP “cudgel” against Mueller. CNN asserts that the inspector general gave Trump “fodder” to claim a “deep state” coup.
But here’s the problem: There is no neutral way to make this claim. Either the inspector general’s actual findings legitimately support that Trumpian argument about the significance of those findings, or they do not. To be sure, these accounts sometimes quote an interested party on the other side saying the findings don’t support the Trump/GOP interpretation. Yet this isn’t enough, particularly since these accounts also state as neutral fact, in the voice of the omniscient journalist, that the findings do indeed provide “fodder” for those arguments, effectively conferring legitimacy on the Trump/GOP interpretation of them.
This rewards bad-faith arguments. The IG report simply does not legitimately lend “fodder” to efforts to undermine the Mueller probe. Take the Times’ claim that the report may boost efforts to undermine Comey’s credibility as an obstruction witness. As David Leonhardt notes, the IG report doesn’t question Comey’s credibility; it questions his judgment in his handling of the Clinton case. So that claim adds meaning to the report that isn’t there, conferring legitimacy on the manipulation of the inspector general’s findings in service of a bad-faith assertion.
Or take the claim by Trump’s allies that the report’s demonstration of anti-Trump bias by two FBI employees means the Mueller probe is deeply suspect or illegitimate. That’s the “fodder” some accounts refer to. But describing this neutrally as fodder for that interpretation effectively endorses it. And this interpretation is just straight-up nonsense. As Brian Beutler and John Harwood point out, even if there are legitimate concerns about the FBI agent who texted about stopping Trump, the IG report showed, above all, that any such bias was institutionally prevented from impacting the Clinton probe and that the FBI’s conduct helped elect Trump. That agent got removed from the Mueller investigation. The claim that the report lends “fodder” to Trump’s attack on Mueller announces itself as true — even though it isn’t — by virtue of the fact that Trump is treating it as such.
Bad-faith attacks get rewarded"
And "Comey was worried that the FBI, which Trump and company assailed during the campaign as in the tank for Clinton, would be falsely accused of rigging the election if he didn’t go public. So he did, and this helped tip the election against her. The bad-faith attacks were rewarded.[emphasis added]"
And so on. This is not only a failure of the mainstream press to convey meaning with truthful reporting. It is a failure to recognize that they, the mainstream press, are the dupes of Republican attacks on democracy, and, by extension, Putin's attacks on American democracy and the Western alliance. Standard political reporting requires objectively reporting facts and relegating meaningful conclusions to a battle of arguments between two equal and opposite sides, both of which are as likely as each other to be acting in good faith and both of which need to tell the truth - otherwise, anyone lying loses credibility. That's the theory, but the theory is false. As Trump knows, you can say anything and they will believe you. He knows that works because he does exactly that and it works.
Sargent notes above that Comey adjusted his behavior in a manner that rewarded bad faith attacks. Sargent notes in his piece that the bad faith attacks are currently being rewarded by the press with their bending meaning to favor false interpretations of the IG report.
But bad faith is also rewarded by diverting attention away from other stories of corruption that is widespread and open. For example, now that we know so much more about the intertwining of the Trump campaign with Russia and Russian operatives, including Wikileaks, the Internet Research Agency, Cambridge Analytica, and so many others, in a sane world, we would be looking back at AG Sessions' Senate testimony denying any Russian contacts between the campaign and Russia.
The very fact of journalists' efforts to maintain "balance" in political reporting betrays a weakness that ruthless politicians are willing to exploit. As a result, the journalistic commitment to the truth (using outmoded standards that rely on good faith, or, an idealistic belief that "the truth will out" or "no one will ever trust a liar") is the very thing that makes them report falsehoods as possibly true.
Sargent writes:
"One of the most important but overlooked lessons in the bombshell report on the handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation is that bad-faith, right-wing ref-working, via purely instrumental attacks on institutions, works. Buried in the report by the Department of Justice’s inspector general is evidence that former FBI director James B. Comey undertook actions that damaged Clinton’s candidacy, in part, because he had been spooked by such attacks."
And he continues:
"Right on cue, the news media’s coverage of the inspector general’s report is also confirming the same lesson: Bad-faith ref-working is producing its desired results once again.
The report’s core finding is that the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Clinton was untainted by bias or politics. This lays waste to one of the most important narratives pushed by President Trump and his allies in the quest to undermine special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation by claiming law enforcement is riddled with anti-Trump corruption.
But in many of this morning’s accounts about the report, you find versions of this additional claim: The IG report nonetheless provides fodder and ammunition to Trump and his allies to discredit Mueller’s probe.
Trump’s allies have widely cited the inspector general’s findings about the now-infamous texts between an FBI agent and lawyer — which do show animus towards Trump’s candidacy — as not just proof of anti-Trump bias at the FBI during the Clinton investigation, but also to bolster Trump’s argument that the Mueller probe into Russia-Trump campaign collusion is suspect.
Many news accounts inadvertently grant these arguments credibility, not just by quoting them, but also by claiming as fact that the conduct in question actually does lend support to those arguments. Yes, they also convey that the inspector general’s overall conclusion undercuts the Trumpian narrative. But the straddle itself is the problem. It showcases a convention often relied upon in political journalism — the use of the “lends fodder” formulation to float false claims alongside true ones — that has to go.
For instance, the New York Times quotes a Trump ally pushing his narrative, and then asserts as fact that “any independent criticism” of Comey “helps” Trump “undermine the credibility of someone who may be a crucial witness against him in any case of obstruction of justice.” The Associated Press claims the report gave Republicans “ample fodder” to “question” the Russia probe. The Post says the report will serve as a GOP “cudgel” against Mueller. CNN asserts that the inspector general gave Trump “fodder” to claim a “deep state” coup.
But here’s the problem: There is no neutral way to make this claim. Either the inspector general’s actual findings legitimately support that Trumpian argument about the significance of those findings, or they do not. To be sure, these accounts sometimes quote an interested party on the other side saying the findings don’t support the Trump/GOP interpretation. Yet this isn’t enough, particularly since these accounts also state as neutral fact, in the voice of the omniscient journalist, that the findings do indeed provide “fodder” for those arguments, effectively conferring legitimacy on the Trump/GOP interpretation of them.
This rewards bad-faith arguments. The IG report simply does not legitimately lend “fodder” to efforts to undermine the Mueller probe. Take the Times’ claim that the report may boost efforts to undermine Comey’s credibility as an obstruction witness. As David Leonhardt notes, the IG report doesn’t question Comey’s credibility; it questions his judgment in his handling of the Clinton case. So that claim adds meaning to the report that isn’t there, conferring legitimacy on the manipulation of the inspector general’s findings in service of a bad-faith assertion.
Or take the claim by Trump’s allies that the report’s demonstration of anti-Trump bias by two FBI employees means the Mueller probe is deeply suspect or illegitimate. That’s the “fodder” some accounts refer to. But describing this neutrally as fodder for that interpretation effectively endorses it. And this interpretation is just straight-up nonsense. As Brian Beutler and John Harwood point out, even if there are legitimate concerns about the FBI agent who texted about stopping Trump, the IG report showed, above all, that any such bias was institutionally prevented from impacting the Clinton probe and that the FBI’s conduct helped elect Trump. That agent got removed from the Mueller investigation. The claim that the report lends “fodder” to Trump’s attack on Mueller announces itself as true — even though it isn’t — by virtue of the fact that Trump is treating it as such.
Bad-faith attacks get rewarded"
And "Comey was worried that the FBI, which Trump and company assailed during the campaign as in the tank for Clinton, would be falsely accused of rigging the election if he didn’t go public. So he did, and this helped tip the election against her. The bad-faith attacks were rewarded.[emphasis added]"
And so on. This is not only a failure of the mainstream press to convey meaning with truthful reporting. It is a failure to recognize that they, the mainstream press, are the dupes of Republican attacks on democracy, and, by extension, Putin's attacks on American democracy and the Western alliance. Standard political reporting requires objectively reporting facts and relegating meaningful conclusions to a battle of arguments between two equal and opposite sides, both of which are as likely as each other to be acting in good faith and both of which need to tell the truth - otherwise, anyone lying loses credibility. That's the theory, but the theory is false. As Trump knows, you can say anything and they will believe you. He knows that works because he does exactly that and it works.
Sargent notes above that Comey adjusted his behavior in a manner that rewarded bad faith attacks. Sargent notes in his piece that the bad faith attacks are currently being rewarded by the press with their bending meaning to favor false interpretations of the IG report.
But bad faith is also rewarded by diverting attention away from other stories of corruption that is widespread and open. For example, now that we know so much more about the intertwining of the Trump campaign with Russia and Russian operatives, including Wikileaks, the Internet Research Agency, Cambridge Analytica, and so many others, in a sane world, we would be looking back at AG Sessions' Senate testimony denying any Russian contacts between the campaign and Russia.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
When Everything is Nothing
In The Incredible Lightness of Minimalism, I wrote:
"What I am calling "minimalism" is a lack of imagination tied to an antiquated standard that says political news reporters are not responsible for finding and reporting the truth - reporters are responsible for reporting "maybe facts" - claims and statements that reporters are to accept as true in an almost "hands off" manner, until and unless "fact checking" establishes otherwise, or the "other side" refutes them in a debate based on reason, supported by facts. But what if that reliance on reason by "all sides" never comes? What if one "side" is happy with their truth supported by their claims?"
The larger point here is that traditional journalists, in order to maintain an appearance of objectivity, tread ever so lightly in instances of possible (or even likely) wrongdoing by holders of high office, that they bend over backwards to avoid unfair accusations - SO MUCH SO -- that their reporting becomes laughably understated.
So it is in the NYT "Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Made Millions in 2017" with the subheadline:
"Ethics experts have said the activity could raise questions of possible conflicts of interest."
"Ethics experts..."
OK, who are we to say? We are only reporters. Who are we to judge corruption? In fact, we will avoid even mentioning the word "corruption" lest that lead anyone to jump to conclusions. Oops. I mean possible conclusions.
"Ethics experts have said the activity could raise questions..."
Just because we are bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of presenting information that supports potential accusations - accusations that we would never dare make (such as calling a lie a lie until after the first 10,000 or so lies). We dare not say "the activity raises questions..."
Which gives up the game. The word "questions" provides enough doubt without the soft tone already embedded in the headline.
"...possible conflicts of interest". Still so careful. "Possible". We are not even sure whether any conflict of interest exists. Our take is so far from the possibility of financial corruption that you would not even suspect the Justice Department is investigating anything. "Conflict of interest" falls short of conveying reality as it is, never mind qualifying it with "possible".
The article assiduously avoids citing specific examples in support of the possibility of corruption. When discussing Ivanka's take from the Trump International Hotel of $3.9 million, the article notes:
"The hotel, just steps from the White House, has prompted concerns from ethics experts, who worried that guests may be trying to curry favor with the president by staying there." But there are many specific examples of heads of state and foreign government reps who have stayed there.
At the end of the day, a literal reading of the headline equates to:
There may be no conflict of interest.
One might even conclude:
Nothing to see here. Experts agree.
And why does the Times avoid any mention of this:
Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE?
Why? Because any objective observer would conclude that widespread corruption persists among the Trumps, that they are joined as a family in government dedicated solely to their own corrupt financial enrichment at the expense of the conduct of policy, foreign and domestic.
But don't count on that article either. The Times writer concludes that it's all a coincidence! Always the need at the Times to minimize the story.
Nothing to see there either!
"What I am calling "minimalism" is a lack of imagination tied to an antiquated standard that says political news reporters are not responsible for finding and reporting the truth - reporters are responsible for reporting "maybe facts" - claims and statements that reporters are to accept as true in an almost "hands off" manner, until and unless "fact checking" establishes otherwise, or the "other side" refutes them in a debate based on reason, supported by facts. But what if that reliance on reason by "all sides" never comes? What if one "side" is happy with their truth supported by their claims?"
The larger point here is that traditional journalists, in order to maintain an appearance of objectivity, tread ever so lightly in instances of possible (or even likely) wrongdoing by holders of high office, that they bend over backwards to avoid unfair accusations - SO MUCH SO -- that their reporting becomes laughably understated.
So it is in the NYT "Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Made Millions in 2017" with the subheadline:
"Ethics experts have said the activity could raise questions of possible conflicts of interest."
"Ethics experts..."
OK, who are we to say? We are only reporters. Who are we to judge corruption? In fact, we will avoid even mentioning the word "corruption" lest that lead anyone to jump to conclusions. Oops. I mean possible conclusions.
"Ethics experts have said the activity could raise questions..."
Just because we are bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of presenting information that supports potential accusations - accusations that we would never dare make (such as calling a lie a lie until after the first 10,000 or so lies). We dare not say "the activity raises questions..."
Which gives up the game. The word "questions" provides enough doubt without the soft tone already embedded in the headline.
"...possible conflicts of interest". Still so careful. "Possible". We are not even sure whether any conflict of interest exists. Our take is so far from the possibility of financial corruption that you would not even suspect the Justice Department is investigating anything. "Conflict of interest" falls short of conveying reality as it is, never mind qualifying it with "possible".
The article assiduously avoids citing specific examples in support of the possibility of corruption. When discussing Ivanka's take from the Trump International Hotel of $3.9 million, the article notes:
"The hotel, just steps from the White House, has prompted concerns from ethics experts, who worried that guests may be trying to curry favor with the president by staying there." But there are many specific examples of heads of state and foreign government reps who have stayed there.
At the end of the day, a literal reading of the headline equates to:
There may be no conflict of interest.
One might even conclude:
Nothing to see here. Experts agree.
And why does the Times avoid any mention of this:
Ivanka Trump Wins China Trademarks, Then Her Father Vows to Save ZTE?
Why? Because any objective observer would conclude that widespread corruption persists among the Trumps, that they are joined as a family in government dedicated solely to their own corrupt financial enrichment at the expense of the conduct of policy, foreign and domestic.
But don't count on that article either. The Times writer concludes that it's all a coincidence! Always the need at the Times to minimize the story.
Nothing to see there either!
 |
| source:dailykos.com |
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Missing The Point
Trump continues to lead our traditional media by the nose and they still don't get it.
Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau asked Trump in a testy phone call how he could justify imposing tariffs based on national security concerns.
CNN reports in its "Exclusive: Trump invokes War of 1812 in testy call with Trudeau over tariffs"
"According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.
The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812."
But Trump's historical accuracy or lack thereof, going back 200 years, is completely besides the point. So what if the War of 1812 reference is inaccurate. Even if true, it would still be irrelevant. CNN and others are so stuck on defining reporting as fact-checking, that they have lost sight of reporting as conveying meaning in proper context.
Trump's power to impose tariffs is limited by law as an exception that only applies in certain cases. As Krugman explains in a recent column:
"...the conditions under which such actions are allowable are limited — with one big exception. Both the international rules and domestic law — Article XXI and Section 232, respectively — let the U.S. government do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of national security.
Historically, however, this national security exemption has been invoked very rarely, precisely because it’s so open-ended. If the U.S. or any other major player began promiscuously using dubious national security arguments to abrogate trade agreements, everyone else would follow suit, and the whole trading system would fall apart. That’s why there have been only a handful of Section 232 investigations over the past half century — and most of them ended with a presidential determination that no action was warranted."
So, when Trudeau asks Trump the relevant question - please explain how Canada constitutes a national security threat - he is trying to force Trump to justify his actions on serious legal grounds. A serious response could be subject to a serious challenge and lead to meaningful discussion - something Trump must avoid at all costs because he does not have a leg to stand on. But a ridiculous response effectively ducks the question. Accurate reporting by CNN and others would point out that Trump evaded the question because he can not justify his actions on legal grounds. When reporters fall for the distraction - "Trump confuses Canada with Britain", they are playing into Trump's hands
Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau asked Trump in a testy phone call how he could justify imposing tariffs based on national security concerns.
 |
| source: cnn.com |
CNN reports in its "Exclusive: Trump invokes War of 1812 in testy call with Trudeau over tariffs"
"According to the sources, Trudeau pressed Trump on how he could justify the tariffs as a "national security" issue. In response, Trump quipped to Trudeau, "Didn't you guys burn down the White House?" referring to the War of 1812.
The problem with Trump's comments to Trudeau is that British troops burned down the White House during the War of 1812."
But Trump's historical accuracy or lack thereof, going back 200 years, is completely besides the point. So what if the War of 1812 reference is inaccurate. Even if true, it would still be irrelevant. CNN and others are so stuck on defining reporting as fact-checking, that they have lost sight of reporting as conveying meaning in proper context.
Trump's power to impose tariffs is limited by law as an exception that only applies in certain cases. As Krugman explains in a recent column:
"...the conditions under which such actions are allowable are limited — with one big exception. Both the international rules and domestic law — Article XXI and Section 232, respectively — let the U.S. government do pretty much whatever it wants in the name of national security.
Historically, however, this national security exemption has been invoked very rarely, precisely because it’s so open-ended. If the U.S. or any other major player began promiscuously using dubious national security arguments to abrogate trade agreements, everyone else would follow suit, and the whole trading system would fall apart. That’s why there have been only a handful of Section 232 investigations over the past half century — and most of them ended with a presidential determination that no action was warranted."
So, when Trudeau asks Trump the relevant question - please explain how Canada constitutes a national security threat - he is trying to force Trump to justify his actions on serious legal grounds. A serious response could be subject to a serious challenge and lead to meaningful discussion - something Trump must avoid at all costs because he does not have a leg to stand on. But a ridiculous response effectively ducks the question. Accurate reporting by CNN and others would point out that Trump evaded the question because he can not justify his actions on legal grounds. When reporters fall for the distraction - "Trump confuses Canada with Britain", they are playing into Trump's hands
Friday, June 1, 2018
New Tactics for Old Neighbors
Scott Gilmore gets it mostly right in his piece "Trade sanctions against America won't work. Sanctioning Trump himself might. Instead of taxing American goods, Canada and the western allies should collectively pressure the only pain point that matters to this President: his family and their assets"
Gilmore recounts the many above board efforts by traditional U.S. allies France, Germany, and Canada which failed (and subjected their leaders to varying amounts of humiliation in typical Trumpian style.)
He points to Ukraine, China, and Qatar who know how to work with Trump with sweetheart financial deals for his family, and asserts that " the western allies understand that if we want the U.S. to do something we must negotiate with the man himself. What we have not grasped yet is, as strange as it sounds, the President of the United States is more concerned about promoting his interests than defending America’s."
Actually, I would argue that the western allies are not so stupid. They all surely recognize, as do most Americans, that Trump cares almost exclusively only about himself and, to a lesser degree, because he knows he is mortal, his immediate family. However, western allies have felt compelled to try traditional means as a first attempt, because resorting to measures likely to be effective against Trump requires a dramatic departure from normal behavior.
And Gilmore correctly says that a Magnitsky Act type of response is required. Makes sense. When he are confronted with an oligarch, hit him in the only place he cares about.
The author continues "Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act and the Foreign Corrupt Officials Act permit us to sanction public officials who are 'complicit in ordering, controlling or otherwise directing acts of corruption'. In the case of Trump, we already have several open examples of this and the various ongoing criminal investigations (of his own government) are expected to produce many more."
So far so good. Then, where does Gilmore fall short? It's in his own self doubt about this modest proposal, by saying "I recognize this column has the stench of bad satire about it. I am sane enough to know this proposal does not sound sane."
No. No. No. No. No. Reporters and columnists - Please stop doubting yourself when you are right. Trump has spent a lifetime turning such self doubt and normal behavior by adversaries (and unless you are part of the inner circle of family and fixers, you are an adversary) to his personal advantage by responding with deeply antisocial behavior.
One problem is that the self doubt is a contributing factor that makes the author stop there with his proposal. Since we are recognizing the power of the personal - What if Canada started to slow walk border crossings by U.S. citizens to and from Canada. This would have an immediate negative impact on corporate travel by white collar Americans, and affluent tourists, as opposed to the delayed and less direct impact of tariffs. We saw how upset Americans were with the Muslim travel ban at the start of the Trump regime. Imagine how upset corporate America would be with this. Sure, they are happy with the corporate tax cut and the personal tax cut on high incomes, but this could shake some of the complacency around the erroneous view that the problem of Trump is one of style, when it is really a matter of substance.
 |
| source: cbc.ca |
Gilmore recounts the many above board efforts by traditional U.S. allies France, Germany, and Canada which failed (and subjected their leaders to varying amounts of humiliation in typical Trumpian style.)
He points to Ukraine, China, and Qatar who know how to work with Trump with sweetheart financial deals for his family, and asserts that " the western allies understand that if we want the U.S. to do something we must negotiate with the man himself. What we have not grasped yet is, as strange as it sounds, the President of the United States is more concerned about promoting his interests than defending America’s."
Actually, I would argue that the western allies are not so stupid. They all surely recognize, as do most Americans, that Trump cares almost exclusively only about himself and, to a lesser degree, because he knows he is mortal, his immediate family. However, western allies have felt compelled to try traditional means as a first attempt, because resorting to measures likely to be effective against Trump requires a dramatic departure from normal behavior.
And Gilmore correctly says that a Magnitsky Act type of response is required. Makes sense. When he are confronted with an oligarch, hit him in the only place he cares about.
The author continues "Canada’s Special Economic Measures Act and the Foreign Corrupt Officials Act permit us to sanction public officials who are 'complicit in ordering, controlling or otherwise directing acts of corruption'. In the case of Trump, we already have several open examples of this and the various ongoing criminal investigations (of his own government) are expected to produce many more."
So far so good. Then, where does Gilmore fall short? It's in his own self doubt about this modest proposal, by saying "I recognize this column has the stench of bad satire about it. I am sane enough to know this proposal does not sound sane."
No. No. No. No. No. Reporters and columnists - Please stop doubting yourself when you are right. Trump has spent a lifetime turning such self doubt and normal behavior by adversaries (and unless you are part of the inner circle of family and fixers, you are an adversary) to his personal advantage by responding with deeply antisocial behavior.
One problem is that the self doubt is a contributing factor that makes the author stop there with his proposal. Since we are recognizing the power of the personal - What if Canada started to slow walk border crossings by U.S. citizens to and from Canada. This would have an immediate negative impact on corporate travel by white collar Americans, and affluent tourists, as opposed to the delayed and less direct impact of tariffs. We saw how upset Americans were with the Muslim travel ban at the start of the Trump regime. Imagine how upset corporate America would be with this. Sure, they are happy with the corporate tax cut and the personal tax cut on high incomes, but this could shake some of the complacency around the erroneous view that the problem of Trump is one of style, when it is really a matter of substance.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Trump's Tells
Trump optimizes every statement he makes such that if true and relevant, the statement would place him in the best possible light. In the vast majority of cases, the result is a false or misleading statement that sends the fact checkers scurrying to debunk it, or compare it with something Obama or Clinton did (or did not do), thus wasting energy on a fruitless task while Trump moves on to the next self-protecting statement. Irrelevant statements that are true (or may be, such as "I can not release my tax returns because they are under audit) need to be considered in the same category as the lies and other distractions. And the "birther lie" was not a lie. It was an evil, baseless opportunistic claim that was false and degrading. "Show us your papers. We are in charge, not you."
When our objective media agonizes over whether or not to call Trump a liar they fall into the trap of inefficient and ineffective analysis. Unfortunately, constantly telling lies works better than ever telling the truth as a strategy to control the narrative, along with never admitting fault and never accepting responsibility. Our objective media has always relied on tilting prevailing narratives toward the truth by pointing out false statements. With a persistent opportunistic liar in power, journalists need to stop evaluating Trump using traditional methods and instead describe which type of lie he is most likely telling on each occasion. For example, when, five days ago, Trump pointed to the White House window for journalists to look at Melania, but no one saw her, the proper response is not to presume she was there or even may have been there. Instead, presume the lie with Trump always, always, always - OK, Melania is obviously not in the White House or anywhere nearby. She has probably left Washington.
And please let's not rely on White House aides for their take on what goes on in Trump's head at any time, especially because he gives us so many tells.
When our objective media agonizes over whether or not to call Trump a liar they fall into the trap of inefficient and ineffective analysis. Unfortunately, constantly telling lies works better than ever telling the truth as a strategy to control the narrative, along with never admitting fault and never accepting responsibility. Our objective media has always relied on tilting prevailing narratives toward the truth by pointing out false statements. With a persistent opportunistic liar in power, journalists need to stop evaluating Trump using traditional methods and instead describe which type of lie he is most likely telling on each occasion. For example, when, five days ago, Trump pointed to the White House window for journalists to look at Melania, but no one saw her, the proper response is not to presume she was there or even may have been there. Instead, presume the lie with Trump always, always, always - OK, Melania is obviously not in the White House or anywhere nearby. She has probably left Washington.
And please let's not rely on White House aides for their take on what goes on in Trump's head at any time, especially because he gives us so many tells.
Tuesday, May 29, 2018
The Bright Light of Day
Since February of 2016 this site has been dedicated to the proposition that increasing tactical politics poses an existential threat to democracy and that only if some combination of (1) moderates who tend to vote Republican/moderate Republican officeholders and (2) mainstream journalists who favor "balanced" reporting of news recognize what is happening and adjust their behavior accordingly, liberal Democracy in the U.S. could fail.
In today's environment that has continued to see democracy erode since 2016, objective journalism is itself a liberal enterprise and the execution and administration of the law is itself a liberal enterprise.
In "President Trump Is Taking Control of the Mueller Probe in Slices", Jonathan Chait refers to Trump's advance antidemocratic efforts "Salami Slicess"
He writes:
"If Trump had baldly demanded a year ago that he be handed full control over the prosecutorial powers of the Justice Department, many of his coalition partners (Republicans in Congress) would have revolted. Instead he has encroached step by step upon the Department’s independence. At each step, his opponents have had to choose between giving him one more slice of salami and staging an irrevocable breach. The salami is getting shorter, and Trump’s final demands are drawing closer."
We have been heading toward this moment for the past 30 years or so. It was not the inevitable result of the 2016 election, but with Trump running, all of the necessary elements were in place.
So, contrary to the WaPo motto that "Democracy Dies in Darkness", in the U.S., Democracy Dies in the Bright Light of Day
In his description of Team Trump chipping away at the rule of law, Chait closes with the chilling statement:
"If Republicans maintain their majority in November, Rosenstein and the Justice Department will suddenly be staring down an emboldened Republican Party prepared to take whatever remains of his independence."
Unfortunately, facing that reality is not something we can expect from moderate Republican voters, moderate Republican officeholders, or journalists who believe that all balance equals truth - until it's too late.
In today's environment that has continued to see democracy erode since 2016, objective journalism is itself a liberal enterprise and the execution and administration of the law is itself a liberal enterprise.
In "President Trump Is Taking Control of the Mueller Probe in Slices", Jonathan Chait refers to Trump's advance antidemocratic efforts "Salami Slicess"
He writes:
"If Trump had baldly demanded a year ago that he be handed full control over the prosecutorial powers of the Justice Department, many of his coalition partners (Republicans in Congress) would have revolted. Instead he has encroached step by step upon the Department’s independence. At each step, his opponents have had to choose between giving him one more slice of salami and staging an irrevocable breach. The salami is getting shorter, and Trump’s final demands are drawing closer."
We have been heading toward this moment for the past 30 years or so. It was not the inevitable result of the 2016 election, but with Trump running, all of the necessary elements were in place.
So, contrary to the WaPo motto that "Democracy Dies in Darkness", in the U.S., Democracy Dies in the Bright Light of Day
In his description of Team Trump chipping away at the rule of law, Chait closes with the chilling statement:
"If Republicans maintain their majority in November, Rosenstein and the Justice Department will suddenly be staring down an emboldened Republican Party prepared to take whatever remains of his independence."
Unfortunately, facing that reality is not something we can expect from moderate Republican voters, moderate Republican officeholders, or journalists who believe that all balance equals truth - until it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)