Item one: The insurrection, three years on |
President Biden will give what they’re billing as the first speech of his reelection campaign today, and in it, he will attack Donald Trump by name as a historic threat to democracy. An aide told The Washington Post that Biden “is going to be very straightforward on what happened, the truth of what happened, and the role that Trump played in that.” The speech will arrive, as we approach the third anniversary of the insurrection, in about as bleak a context as we could imagine. Trump leads Biden in most head-to-head polls, albeit just by a point or two. And Republicans are apparently rallying to Trump. A Post poll released earlier this week had some gobsmacking findings showing that Republicans are far less concerned about January 6 than they were right after it happened, and they weren’t very bothered then. We’re in a surreal hall of mirrors. Trump keeps suffering legal defeat after legal defeat. He’s being tossed off state ballots. His lawyer all but admits he led an insurrection. A new House report details the nearly $8 million he made from foreign governments while serving as president. And for now, none of it matters. This campaign will be about a lot of things, as all campaigns are. But the main question will come down to this and this alone: Will a majority or plurality of Americans use their vote—that is, employ the peaceful means of democracy’s most essential right—to put a violent fascist back in charge of this country? |
That the answer isn’t a clear “no” is terrifying. But here’s the thing: Some would argue that the fact that the answer isn’t a clear “no” means that Biden and Democrats shouldn’t emphasize the issue because it’s not a clear winner. I say the opposite is the case. Emphasize the issue and make it a winner. If polls today show that not enough people care about democracy, don’t just follow the polls. Change the polls. Make them care. Republicans understand this dynamic and have for years. The classic recent example is the Iraq war. After the 9/11 attacks, no one outside a handful of neoconservatives thought they justified waging war on Iraq. But over the course of 2002, the Bush White House changed public opinion. They did it largely through lies, but they did it. By the time the United States invaded Iraq, majorities supported it. Trump has changed polls, too. Pre-Trump Republicans believed a lot of bad things, and I’m certainly not sugar-coating that GOP—which, after all, laid down and gave itself over to Trump. But they did still believe in the general integrity of the American electoral system. No one was urging Mitt Romney to dispute the 2012 election results. Romney conceded on election night (or very early Wednesday morning, technically), and everyone moved on. But by 2016, Trump was saying that he would respect the results “if I win.” And that was all it took. The polls, at least among Republicans, changed and changed dramatically. Democrats historically don’t do this. When the polls are on their side—as when, for example, George W. Bush tried to privatize Social Security in 2005—they’re as swashbuckling as Blackbeard. (That was one case where the GOP/right-wing media onslaught failed conspicuously to change the polls.) But when the polls aren’t on their side, they’re about as swashbuckling as Caspar Milquetoast. If they want to make this democracy argument—and I think they’re right to do so—and if they want to win it—and they must—this habit has to change. They need to be mapping out a plan now that stage by stage will lay out an argument to voters (swing voters especially) that by Election Day will have them terrified at the prospect of Trump getting back into the White House. This can, and must, start with January 6. But then, by late spring say, and especially by the fall, the argument should be almost entirely about the future. Attack ad after attack ad simply needs to take Trump’s own words, and the words of his people in leaks to media outlets, about how they’re going to impose authoritarianism in his second term. I would anticipate, too, that by the fall Trump will have said as much many times on the hustings, handing the Democrats fresh and irrefutable fodder. Obviously, there are other things the Democrats need to do. They are positioned to win millions of votes on the question of abortion rights. They have to press an economic argument the best they can, and as I wrote Monday, if some economic predictions are right, that could be less of a challenge than it seems like it will be today. But there is a deep moral and ethical question at the center of this election unlike any other of my lifetime. Will Americans use the tools of democracy to hand their country to a democracy destroyer? They won't if Democrats refuse to accept the "people don't care about democracy" argument and make them care. |
Item two: The Trump legal motion to hold Jack Smith in contempt |
This one may have gotten lost in the rush of news this week, but you should spare a moment’s thought for the contempt motion Trump’s lawyers filed this week against Jack Smith and his prosecutors because it’s a perfect example of how MAGA land can so easily invert reality. In mid-December, Tanya Chutkan, the judge in the January 6 criminal case against Trump, issued an order that “automatically stays any further proceedings that would move this case toward trial or impose additional burdens of litigation.” This came after Trump appealed a court ruling that rejected his claim of immunity from prosecution for anything he did as president. It is true that after Chutkan’s order, Smith’s office made two moves related to the case. First, they sent Trump’s legal team a list of exhibits. Second, they filed a memo to Chutkan asking her to order Trump to stop making baseless claims (good luck with that). Chutkan’s order said that requiring additional discovery or other legal moves would impose a burden on Trump until the question of his immunity was resolved. It did not, however, appear to bar a sharing of exhibits or a wholly separate request to stop Trump from talking. But Trump’s lawyers pounced. Un-American, illegal, hyper-partisan, and so on. They’re demanding that Smith’s team be held in contempt and forced to pay Trump’s legal fees. I’m not a criminal lawyer, obviously, so I can’t speak to the law here. But any informed person can see what the Trump team has done. They know very well that Smith won’t respond or say anything publicly to defend its actions, as indeed he has not, because his office doesn’t talk and doesn’t seem to leak, and Smith himself has uttered about 17 public words since this whole thing began. Knowing that they would face no public counter-argument, Trump’s lawyers unloaded. And so Smith was trending Friday morning on X/Twitter with all kinds of garbage being thrown at him, including Dinesh D’Souza arguing that he should be “disbarred and removed.” Heads up for next Tuesday: A three-judge panel in Washington, D.C. will hear arguments about Trump’s immunity. Two of the judges are Biden appointees, and one is a Bush Sr. appointee. That panel has indicated it wants to move fast, but Trump will pursue appeals of an adverse ruling—and, no doubt, his lawyers and MAGA land will find ways to smear these three judges and make their lives hell and use the law however perversely they can to destroy the law. |
Item three: An example of how the mainstream press is the problem |
People complain all the time about how the mainstream press normalizes Trump, but they often don’t bother to attach specifics to these complaints. Well, here’s a perfect, specific example. The Associated Press moved a story last night under the headline “One attack, two interpretations: Biden and Trump both make the Jan. 6 riot a political rallying cry.” The story explains that Trump (and it leads with Trump, not the sitting president) will hold two rallies in Iowa on Saturday on the anniversary of the riot and then points out that Biden will speak today in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Key paragraph: “With Biden and Trump now headed toward a potential 2020 rematch, both are talking about the same event in very different ways and offering framing they believe gives them an advantage. The dueling narratives reflect how an attack that disrupted the certification of the election is increasingly viewed differently along partisan lines — and how Trump has bet that the riot won’t hurt his candidacy.” That is very standard old-school he said–he said journalism. It is also a moral horror show in the current context, and one that the AP—which I know has its rules, and I understand the reason for those rules—simply has to figure out how to deal with. The problem? It puts the defense of democracy and insurrection to overthrow democracy on equal footing. One is not preferable to the other; one is not better than the other; one does not reflect 250 years of a way of life while the other subverts 250 years of a way of life. They’re just “dueling narratives,” no different from whether to raise income taxes or cut them. This kind of journalism legitimizes Trump. It puts his wildly anti-American posture on the same footing as democracy. And it happens again and again and again and again. Imagine: “Adolf Hitler and Otto Weis [head of the German Social Democratic Party in 1932] offered dueling narratives on the future of Jews in Germany should they be elected.” It’s the same thing AP did here. Or, Stuart Stevens put it more humorously, although still darkly: |
This is how the mainstream media are going to help reelect Trump if they do. By laziness and unthinking. Objective reporting must find a way to make value judgments. Journalism in a democracy exists, in theory, to inform and uplift. It doesn’t exist to tell readers that honor and dishonor are two sides of the same coin, each with equal value. |
This week’s quiz: “Cast off the shackles of yesterday!” In honor of the death of the great Glynis Johns at the age of 100, a quiz (largely) about Mary Poppins. And no, this is not a joke! On IMDB’s list of the 100 Greatest Musicals of All Time, Poppins ranks … are you ready? Second! That’s a bit high even for me, though it would certainly land in my top 15, maybe 10. Here we go. |
1. Johns played Mrs. Winifred Banks in the 1964 screen classic. In addition to being a proper British housewife, she was passionate about what cause? |
A. Workers’ rights B. Opposition to World War I C. Women’s suffrage D. Dissolution of the House of Lords |
2. Mary Poppins was the highest-grossing film of 1964. Rank these other four films that finished in the Top 10 in order of their place. |
A. A Hard Day’s Night B. Goldfinger C. The Pink Panther D. My Fair Lady |
3. Who among these four was not considered for the lead role before Disney landed Julie Andrews? |
A. Bette Davis B. Angela Lansbury C. Gwen Verdon D. Julie Harris |
4. What’s the name of the illustrious brother songwriting duo who wrote the amazing score? |
A. The Eisner brothers B. The Sherman brothers C. The Newley brothers D. The Menken brothers |
5. In the song “Feed the Birds,” where does the old lady mentioned in the song sell her seedbags for “tuppence a bag”? |
A. At St. Paul’s Cathedral B. At Westminster Abbey C. At the British Museum D. At Kensington Palace |
6. Johns’s other most acclaimed role would win her a Tony in 1973. For what show, and especially her rendition of what song, was she nominated? |
A. “Cabaret”; “Maybe This Time” B. “Fiddler on the Roof”; “Sunrise, Sunset” C. “Pippin”; “I Guess I’ll Miss the Man” D. “A Little Night Music”; “Send in the Clowns” |
She was great. And if you can complete the lyric “Cast off the shackles of yesterday” without looking, I will be extra impressed. Answers next week. Feedback to fightingwords@tnr.com. —Michael Tomasky, editor |
{{#if }} Get the most out of TNR’s breaking news and in-depth analysis with our new membership subscriptions, featuring exclusive benefits that help you dive deeper into today’s top stories. |
{{/if}} Update your personal preferences for newsletter@newslettercollector.com by clicking here.
Copyright © 2024 The New Republic, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is: The New Republic 1 Union Sq W Fl 6 New York, NY 10003-3303 USA
Do you want to stop receiving all emails from TNR? Unsubscribe from this list. If you stopped getting TNR emails, update your profile to resume receiving them. |
|
|
