We just have to survive

Trump’s victory makes a troublesome statement about America

Source: Newsweek

As of this writing, some 71.9 million Americans proved something quite disturbing as of the close of Election Day yesterday. They revealed themselves as ignorant of economics, heartless toward the desperate, tolerant of racism (if not racist), and disrespectful of basic morality and law.

Their vote for Donald J. Trump is enough to make one ashamed of being an American.

There are hard lessons in the election of a dictatorial demagogue whose personal immorality is well-established, whose venal self-interest has been all too obvious and whose ignorance and scorn of history, political norms and institutions such as the military is astonishing. Among other things, the vote reflects failures on the part of our educational, religious and civic institutions.

It suggests an America suffering from a deep rot that could be tough to root out. It suggests an America that is in dire need of a hard look at itself.

“We just elected a convicted felon who has normalized bullying, spread hate like an industrial sprinkler and shown us over and over and over again he sees laws as irrelevant and self-enrichment as sacrosanct. Faced with a billowing ocean of red flags – from indictments for trying to overturn the 2020 election to the coddling of dictators who rule enemy nations – a majority of Americans cast their vote for the man who is a totem of the worst in all of us,” USA Today columnist Rex Huppke writes. “So spare me the wails of ‘This isn’t who we are!’ I’ve got bad news for the sane and decent among us: This is exactly who we are.”

Check out the insight of Lisa Lerer of The New York Times:

“Donald Trump told Americans exactly what he planned to do.

“He would use military force against his political opponents. He would fire thousands of career public servants. He would deport millions of immigrants in military-style roundups. He would crush the independence of the Department of Justice, use government to push public health conspiracies and abandon America’s allies abroad. He would turn the government into a tool of his own grievances, a way to punish his critics and richly reward his supporters. He would be a ‘dictator’ — if only on Day 1.

“And, when asked to give him the power to do all of that, the voters said yes.

“This was a conquering of the nation not by force but with a permission slip. Now, America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style of governance never before seen in its 248-year history.”

Source: Agence France-Presse, via The New York Times

And consider what David A. Graham of The Atlantic had to say:

“Trump may be the most negative mainstream candidate in American history. Observers including my colleague Peter Wehner have noted the contrast between Trump’s disposition and Ronald Reagan’s sunny optimism. But in a strange way, Trump does offer a kind of hope. It is not a hope for women with complicated pregnancies or LGBTQ people or immigrants, even legal ones. But for those who fit under Stephen Miller’s rubric that ‘America is for Americans and Americans only,’ Trump promised a way out.”

Indeed, Trump’s election represents a victory for the nativists in the long-established cyclical pattern of the U.S. to repel, welcome and then again repel outsiders. Though we are a nation of immigrants, we repeatedly have shut our doors to those who would join us. As far back as the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, we’ve shown our suspicion of newcomers. In the 1800s, native Americans detested and demeaned IrishItalian and Jewish immigrants. Then, the Immigration Act of 1924 set a quota on European immigrants and shut out Asians. And in World War II, as the Holocaust raged, thousands of Jews were barred from the U.S.

Oh, and we “interned” thousands of Japanese-Americans during that war for no other reason than the color of their skin.

Japanese-American “interns,” source: The National WWII Museum

Trump’s plans to deport millions of migrants to the U.S. are well in line with this entrenched American anti-immigrant and racist tradition. Even though his own grandfather Friedrich came to the U.S. from Germany and his wife, Melania (originally Melanija Knavs) hails from Slovenia, Trump has a deep-set revulsion to immigrants — at least non-white ones. Perhaps betraying his Germanic sympathies for eugenics, Trump in a radio interview linked immigration, violent crime, and genetics, saying, “we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.” 

Soon, we are likely to see American law enforcers rounding up migrants, putting them into internment camps and tossing them out of the U.S. Families will likely be uprooted and broken up, all because of a failure to establish a path to citizenship for them. The effect on our economy could be devastating, as people who do our roofing and carpentry, pick our vegetables and staff our grocery stores and restaurants are driven out.

Indeed, the economic effects in general of the Trump presidency could prove devastating. They could make the inflation of the Biden years pale. The economically ignorant may have voted for Trump in large part because of that inflation – unaware that the price spiral sprang mostly from post-Covid shortages and a robust employment picture – but they soon are likely to experience steep price hikes when Trump’s tariffs kick in and drive up the costs of American-made goods and imports alike.

The global trade war that his levies are likely to spawn will also hurt America’s standing in the world and substantially increase tensions with China and other countries. Of course, his likely abandonment of Ukraine, his coziness with Vladimir Putin and his distaste for NATO will have severe implications, as well.

At this political nadir, it’s difficult to find reasons for hope. Editorialists at The Wall Street Journal have argued that checks and balances in the U.S. system will contain some of Trump’s worst impulses, scaling down any aspirations toward dictatorship he may have. But will there be many such checks, given the toadies in what will be a Republican-dominated Senate (and perhaps House, though we don’t know yet)?

In fact, is it more likely that a second-term Trump will be far less bound than even the first-term Trump was?

“Those expecting his instincts to be tempered by advisers, as sometimes happened during his first term, will be disappointed,” The New York Times editorialized. “His inner circle has been purged of people who say no. In a second Trump term, the secretary of state would not come from Exxon, and the secretary of the Treasury would not come from Goldman Sachs. The smart — and courageous — people have left the room. What remains are loyalists and ideologues and a decision-making process that begins and ends with the question of what is most expedient for Mr. Trump.”

While it’s hard to strike an optimistic note, it is, nonetheless, heartening that some 66.9 million of our countrymen saw Trump for the loathsome and dangerous figure he is. Overall, the man won with a bare majority of 51 percent to Vice President Kamala Harris’s 47.5 percent, according to current tallies by the Associated Press.

Source: The Washington Post

Those Harris supporters apparently went to good schools or, at least, paid attention when they were there. This, in fact, is no small concern. According to early exit polls, some 54 percent of Trump voters nationwide lacked college degrees, perhaps explaining the ignorance that drives many of his backers. And that number could rise as more thorough surveys come in over time.

Pew in 2020 reported that voters who identify with the Democratic Party or lean toward it were much more likely than their Republican counterparts to have a college degree (41% vs. 30%). In 1996, the reverse was true: 27% of GOP voters had a college degree, compared with 22% of Democratic voters. But the problem is that, as of that year, about two-thirds of registered voters in the U.S. (65%) lacked a college degree.

The 2024 election, by and large, was a working-class election. That is the group that gave Trump the votes in the so-called Blue Wall, handing him Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. If Harris had carried those elector-rich states, she would occupy the White House for another four years. In other words, Trump’s success was a triumph for the undereducated who bought the promises of a demagogue who tailored his grievances to theirs.

Give Trump credit. He may be a business failure (see his bankruptcies), but he is a brilliant huckster.

Source: pool photo from The New York Times

Those to whom he pandered were gulled in 2016 and again in 2024, it seems. The lapse seems to prove an adage often attributed (perhaps incorrectly) to Mark Twain that “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.”

Indeed, the number of people who paint a rosy picture on the first Trump term, at least economically, is extraordinary and flies in the face of objective evidence to the contrary (inflation notwithstanding). Consider our historically low jobless rates and the performance of the stock market in recent years, for instance.

No one knows for sure what the future holds for the economy. But Trump’s plans bode ill, whether regarding tariffs or the decimation of the federal budget because of his top-down tax cuts. It’s entirely possible that the people fooled by Trump again this time will rue the day they made their choice.

And, on the upside (the side occupied by those 66.9 million Harris voters), Trump will face an uphill fight for some of his other moves. Perhaps we can take heart from the encouragement of such resistance by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor and a distinguished academic.

“We will do that by resisting Trump’s attempts to suppress women’s freedoms. We will fight for the rights of women and girls to determine when and whether they have children. No one will force a woman to give birth,” Reich writes.

“We will block Trump’s cruel efforts at mass deportation. We will fight to give sanctuary to productive, law-abiding members of our communities, including young people who arrived here as babies or children.

“We will not allow mass arrests and mass detention of anyone in America. We will not permit families to be separated. We will not allow the military to be used to intimidate and subjugate anyone in this country.

“We will protect trans people and everyone else who is scapegoated because of how they look or what they believe. No one should have to be ashamed of who they are.

“We will stop Trump’s efforts to retaliate against his perceived enemies. A free nation protects political dissent. A democracy needs people willing to stand up to tyranny.”

Is Reich whistling in the wind? Well, it depends on who will do the resisting. Most women voters (54 percent) voted for Harris, as did most people 18-29 (55 percent), most Blacks (86 percent) and Latinos (53 percent). Will such people, along with white men who likely will find themselves disenchanted anew after a couple years, wield enough power in the midterms to neutralize Trump?

American history and politics, like much else, tend to move in cycles. If Hegel was right and if Trump’s mistakes loom large enough, things will come around again. Embarrassing, disturbing and troublesome as this election has been, coming ones could give sensible folks hope. We just have to survive the coming storms.

Really, what do we have to fear?

The NY Times seeks balance but the facts are a lot more lopsided

Source: Newsweek

It is the duty of the media to report the news in a fair and balanced way. Journalists learn this from the get-go in J School. Give equal weight to all responsible and credible sides in every story, whether they involve elections or almost any other controversial topic. Tell a full, complete and impartial story to the best of your ability.

But the key words there are “responsible,” “credible” and “full.”

The New York Times set out on this election eve to tell a tale of our national anxiety – of which there is surely no shortage. But did it meet the tests posed by such key words?

“The nation enters this Election Day on edge over possibilities that once seemed unimaginable in 21st-century America: political violence, assassination attempts and vows of retribution against opponents,” the paper began its piece, under the headline “How Americans Feel About the Election: Anxious and Scared.” The piece carried the subhed: “Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump have framed the presidential race as an existential battle. Voters are heeding their warnings.”

But one must wonder, based on that evenhanded subhed, whether the existential issue really exists for both sides.

Certainly, with democracy at stake, it exists for supporters of Kamala Harris and, one might fairly say, for the whole country. Should Trump prevail — and live up to his promises of retribution, the use of the military against dissenters, the pardoning of Jan. 6 rioters, the gutting of civil-service protections and a stronger hand for the Presidency, and much more — then the term “existential” seems apt.

Source: The Stanford Report

But does the equation work the other way? Is it reasonable to think the word is appropriate if we elect a sitting vice president who isn’t planning to do any of those things, who isn’t planning to upend Washington or to embrace chaos, and who would likely bring a lot of continuity to the job?

So, one might question whether the Times, in an effort to live up to the ethic of evenhandedness, is misleading readers. One might ask whether it is dealing in false balance, so-called “bothsidesism,” at the expense of the truth here.

This is not to say that Americans of all stripes are not anxious about the vote. Indeed, it is a seminal election and both conservatives and liberals have a lot at stake. And this is not to say that the paper’s diligent reporters aren’t fairly reflecting the divergent views of ordinary folks whom they quote.

“In dozens of interviews over the final weekend of the campaign, Americans from across the political spectrum reported heading to the polls in battleground states with a sense that their nation was coming undone,” the piece says. “While some expressed relief that the long election season was finally nearing an end, it was hard to escape the undercurrent of uneasiness about Election Day and what might follow afterward.”

And the individuals mentioned reported real fears, as the paper recounted:

“I worry about violence,” said Bill Knapp, 70, a retiree from Grand Rapids, Mich., faulting Trump for that possibility as he mingled with other Harris supporters at a local Democratic campaign office. “I’m bracing for that no matter what the outcome is.”

And, on the Trump side, the paper reported on how 56-year-old Melody Rose of Levittown, Pa., worries about everything from affording a place to live to the outbreak of World War III — a global conflict Trump warns is all but inevitable unless he retakes the White House.

“We’ll lose all our freedoms,” Rose said. “I think there will never be another election season again.”

Oh, really?

Jan. 6 rioters, source: Pew Research Center

Yes, it’s true that Democrats from Harris on down are rousing – and worrying – their backers with the specter that Trump will sow chaos and threaten the democratic order. But, isn’t Trump’s rejection of the 2020 results and his refusal to say whether he would accept defeat this time just such a threat? Isn’t hard evidence, such as the bloody rioting on Jan. 6, persuasive about who is vulnerable here? Was that day really a “day of love,” as Trump sought to recast it, even several people died and many were badly hurt?

And, for their part, are Harris and the Democrats similarly planning to reject an electoral rejection, should that happen? To not honor the will of voters, as Trump appears willing to do?

Indeed, are Democratic operatives planning to intimidate voters at the polls, as thousands of GOP “watchdogs” are likely to do? The Republican National Committee last June launched a drive in swing states to marshal thousands of polling place monitors, poll workers and attorneys to serve as what the RNC called “election integrity” observers.

It’s no wonder, that some Harris voters are afraid to even speak out loud about their candidate. As the Times piece reported, at an early voting site in a small city outside Grand Rapids, Mich., a 69-year-old man who would publicly identify himself only as Gary D. spoke in hushed tones when discussing his choice.

“Some questions are not safe to answer,” he said, glancing around before admitting he backs Harris. “Ten years ago I would say ‘yeah,’ no problem. Now, things are different now. I feel like there’s more intimidation than there used to be.” His biggest feeling about the election “fear.”

Given Trump’s incendiary rhetoric and weighing it against the “fascist” charges Harris and her supporters have leveled, is there really any balance? Is there, moreover, a question of accuracy?

At a recent Georgia rally, Trump said he  would invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1790, the law under which Japanese, Italian and German Americans were interned during the second world war, as The Guardian reported. He said he would pursue the death penalty for undocumented immigrants who kill an American.

As Politifact reported, Trump early last month told supporters in Scranton, Pa., that Harris is surrounded by “very smart, very vicious people” who are “the enemy from within.” A few days later, he told Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo that U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is “the enemy from within.” Asked about possible Election Day chaos, he warned of “very bad people,” “radical left lunatics” who should be handled if “necessary” by the National Guard or the military. 

The outlet noted that experts say the “enemy from within” phrase echoes rhetoric by Sen. Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., who led 1950s congressional investigations seeking to root out imagined communists who he claimed had infiltrated the federal government.

“Trump’s use of the ‘enemy within’ language is intentionally vague, open-ended, and malleable,” Allison Prasch, an associate professor of rhetoric, politics and culture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told Politifact.

She suggested it “plants a seed” in the listeners’ minds that “there is something or someone that must be punished” for the current state of the economy, the immigration system, false claims about voter fraud, the U.S. political system or whatever he’s talking about, the outlet reported.

“With this vague but explicit idea articulated, Trump underscores the ‘Us versus Them’ framing of the US electorate while also distancing himself from any actions taken by supporters against this ‘enemy within,’” the academic said. “It’s incredibly dangerous.”

One, again, must ask who those in real danger are.

Source: AFP/Getty via Vox

A friend in Seattle argued this past summer that liberals like him need to get guns because they could be the targets of crazed Trumpers. Does he have a point? Has he got a stronger case than would Trumpers who fear they could lose their guns if Harris wins, as the former president has baselessly said?

The effort at balance that the Times made is understandable, but it is also wrongheaded. To be sure, the editors and reporters haven’t missed the real threats that Trump and his backers pose — they’re all there. But they have buried those real dangers in a flawed evenhandedness.

Much more on target is another piece in the paper, headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” with the subhed “No major party presidential candidate, much less president, in American history has been accused of wrongdoing so many times.”

That piece lays out, in fact, much of the reason that Trump is running. He is determined to try to get out from under an extraordinarily long long list of legal woes, and serving in the White House could do much of that for him — certainly in eradicating the pending Department of Justice actions and, perhaps, delaying state actions.

“America for the first time in its history may send a criminal to the Oval Office and entrust him with the nuclear codes,” the piece says, referring to Trump’s 34 felony convictions. “ What would once have been automatically disqualifying barely seems to slow Mr. Trump down in his comeback march for a second term that he says will be devoted to ‘retribution.’

“He has survived more scandals than any major party presidential candidate, much less president, in the life of the republic … He has turned them on their head, making allegations against him into an argument for him by casting himself as a serial victim rather than a serial violator.

“His persecution defense, the notion that he gets in so much trouble only because everyone is out to get him, resonates at his rallies where he says ‘they’re not coming after me, they’re coming after you, and I’m just standing in the way,’ the Times reports. “But that of course belies a record of scandal stretching across his 78 years starting long before politics. Whether in his personal life or his public life, he has been accused of so many acts of wrongdoing, investigated by so many prosecutors and agencies, sued by so many plaintiffs and claimants that it requires a scorecard just to remember them all.”

So, one must for a final time ask: who really poses the danger here? And is that something every voter should ponder as he or she enters the voting booth?

If editorialists had their way …

… things would have been far different

Jeff Bezos, source: New York Post

Jeff Bezos is half right. Newspaper endorsements don’t sway elections. If they did, Donald J. Trump would not have won in 2016.

Eight years ago, the gap between editorialists and the public made the Grand Canyon look like a roadside ditch. Only two of the nation’s top 100 newspapers – the Las Vegas Review-Journal and The Florida Times-Union – supported Trump for president. Fifty-seven editorialized for Hillary Clinton, while 31 (perhaps surprisingly) didn’t endorse anyone, four supported others and three just opposed Trump, according to The American Presidency Project.

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post, tells us in explaining why he has taken the paper out of the endorsement business. “No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None.”

Clearly, Trump wasn’t the choice of the smart set in 2016. Enough Americans thumbed their noses at editorial writers that Trump could plant his ample bottom behind the Resolute Desk the following January. Yes, it’s true that more voters lined up behind Clinton (48.2 percent) instead of Trump (46.2 percent), but the GOP candidate, nonetheless, swept the Electoral College vote by 56 percent.

So, does this mean that more newspaper opinion writers should go the way of Bezos’s Post? Will the lack of an editorial page thumbs-up make any difference to readers?

Editorial writers at a number of major papers say no on the first point. With Election Day a week away, The New York Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Houston Chronicle, the Seattle Times, The Boston Globe and the Las Vegas Sun have weighed in for Harris. Stumping for Trump so far are the New York Post, The Washington Times and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

But the endorsers are among a shrinking number of papers advising voters on how to cast their ballots. As recently as 2008, 92 of the nation’s 100 largest newspapers endorsed either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain for president, according to the Associated Press. But by 2020, only 54 made a choice between Trump and Joe Biden, AP reported, citing the presidency project (47 went for Biden, seven for Trump and 44 took no stance).

Some publishers and editors may side with the Amazon billionaire, who bought the Post in 2013, and who argues that the only thing presidential endorsements do is “create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence.” Readers, he implies, don’t distinguish between editorial pages, which are devoted to opinion, and news pages, ideally devoted to unbiased reporting.

Source: Gallup

That, he suggests, is at the root of widespread public mistrust of the media. Such mistrust, of course, has been growing for decades. Indeed, Trump capitalizes on it with his incessant attacks on “fake news” and, worse, his latest threats to punish media that offend him.

“We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate,” Bezos maintains. “It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion.”

But does it follow that withholding endorsements will help change that view of bias? Even Bezos equivocates: “By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction,” he writes.

His argument raises a host of questions. Would newspaper readers be more likely to believe what they read on the front pages because of the absence of calls to action by editorial boards? Do they now disbelieve those front pages just because of opinionated material on the inside of the papers?

Well, consider some recent headlines from the news section of The Washington Post. On the paper’s website, we find “On Elon Musk’s X, Republicans go viral as Democrats disappear,” “Poop artist strikes again with neo-Nazi tiki torch statue for Trump,” “Trump to speak in Florida amid fallout from comedian’s Puerto Rico insult,” and “Autocracy and ‘enemy from within’ are thrust to center of campaign’s final days,” to name a few.

Certainly, Trump supporters would scarcely warm to such pieces. Would such readers believe the outlet to be impartial? Or would they – when fed a steady diet of such headlines over time – just turn away from the paper, deeming it unfair to their golden boy?

Would they, instead, turn to Fox News? There, they could find “news” pieces headed “Momentum shifts against Kamala Harris just days before election and here’s why,” “Harris caught on hot mic admitting her campaign is struggling with male voters,”  and “Trump merchandise outsells pro-Harris by striking margin, as Election Day draws near.”

Bezos is demonstrably correct that editorialists – and columnists, for that matter – don’t make much of a difference in elections, at least once perceptions are set. More than that, though – and far more troublingly — it seems news coverage doesn’t make all that much of a difference.

Citizens nowadays either find media that suits their biases or they just disregard whatever discomfits them, regardless of whether the information is opinionated. Some of my Trump-backing relatives simply dismiss news coverage, either unaware of journalistic ethics of impartiality or blinded by cable TV so much that they argue that all media outlets have agendas. Thus, none are trustworthy.

Source: AIB

But where Bezos may be wrong is in implying that viewpoint-oriented material isn’t important, that it can’t change minds. Support for the Vietnam War waned on newspaper editorial pages (and on network TV, for that matter) long before widespread public support did, for instance, but eventually the public came round.

The editorialists just got there early.

More recently, editorialists in places such as The New York Times urged withdrawal from Afghanistan as far back at least as 2019. This was while Trump was in office and long before the Biden Administration drove its poorly executed abandonment of the 20-year war in 2021. Even then, at the time of the withdrawal, a substantial minority of Americans – 29 percent – did not think the war was a failure. And a surprisingly low 62 percent thought the war wasn’t worth fighting.

Truth be told, some of us who have worked in both straight news and in viewpoint-oriented journalism don’t look on editorials (or op-eds and other commentaries) as all that useful in changing minds on elections. Partisan loyalties and personalities often dictate there. But the edits are vehicles where insights are distilled, where the flood of facts that hit us daily can be sifted, put in context, and, yes, where smart analysis can lead to judgments.

Indeed, Bezos is not barring opinion writers from the Post pages. There, one nowadays still finds “Only care about your pocketbook? Trump is still the wrong choice,” “The U.S. can learn from other countries’ encounters with fascism,” “The Black vote will signal a change, but what kind?: A turn toward nativism among Black voters would send America in the wrong direction,” and more such hardly Trumpian views.

Moreover, he is not barring editorialists from criticizing candidates. On the same day that he explained his rationale in his owner’s note, Oct. 28, the Post’s editorial board lambasted Trump anew and praised Harris in “The right place to make the best case against Trump.” This was in an editorial, an “official” stance of the paper:

“Vice President Kamala Harris will deliver her closing argument in a speech Tuesday at the Ellipse in D.C.,” the editorialists wrote. “This location, where President Donald Trump incited a mob to ransack the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is fitting and proper. Mr. Trump’s unprecedented efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election, combined with promises to pardon supporters convicted of crimes committed that day, represent Ms. Harris’s strongest argument for why voters shouldn’t return him to the White House. Mr. Trump has shown no contrition for what happened during the worst assault on the Capitol since the British set it ablaze in 1814. Instead, he’s attempted to rewrite history.”

Is that not a condemnation of Trump, if not an endorsement of Harris?

In fairness to Bezos, a longstanding industry view about editorials (and news coverage) suggests that outlets should not get too far ahead of their readers on controversial matters or they simply will lose them. But that doesn’t mean they can’t lead the crowd or try to.

If Denis Morton or Jenn Sherman push too hard or too fast, Peloton riders will just avoid them, as exercise fans know. But riders do expect to be nudged a bit out of their comfort zones.

Back in the day, my editors at BusinessWeek bristled at the idea of letting focus groups of readers determine our editorial content. The argument was that such readers might not know what they want until they see it, and it was up to writers and editors to provide that. Journalists brought judgment that readers needed.

Similarly, when editors at The Wall Street Journal a few decades ago were asked whom they were editing the paper for, they answered “for ourselves.” Of course, that view seems to have changed under editor Emma Tucker, who has remade the paper. Our user-friendly choice-filled days seem to make such responsiveness necessary.

As it happens, both the BusinessWeek I worked for and the Journal long declined to make election endorsements. At BW, the non-stance stance had to do with whether such an endorsement would reflect the views of then-owner McGraw-Hill and the McGraw family or the editors of the magazine – which would likely differ. In the case of the WSJ, the paper hasn’t endorsed a candidate since 1928 (embarrassingly, it backed Hoover). The Journal did say in a recent editorial, though, that it wished that the GOP had chosen someone other than Trump as its nominee for 2024.

“His rhetoric is often coarse and divisive,” the journal wrote. “His praise for the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping is offensive, and betrays his view that he can by force of personality cut favorable deals with them. He indulges mediocrities who flatter him, and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election was disgraceful. These columns preferred any other Republican nominee.”

Hardly warm praise for Trump, whom the writers called “flawed.” But this fell short of an endorsement of Harris.

For its part, The Washington Post until 1976 had mostly avoided endorsements. Even in the critical 1972 election of Richard Nixon, the editorial board stayed neutral.

“In talking about the choice of a President of the United States, what is a newspaper’s proper role?,” the Post board wrote then, as noted recently by current publisher William Lewis. “Our own answer is that we are, as our masthead proclaims, an independent newspaper, and that with one exception (our support of President Eisenhower in 1952), it has not been our tradition to bestow formal endorsement upon presidential candidates. We can think of no reason to depart from that tradition this year.”

Source: The Atlantic

But, given the starkly different options today and the high stakes of this election, is there not reason to think that some smart judgment in an editorial would be useful? The editors at The Atlantic this year decided, for only the fifth time in the magazine’s history, to make an endorsement. Calling Trump “one of the most personally malignant and politically dangerous candidates in American history,” it backed his opponents in 2016 and 2020.

“This year, Trump is even more vicious and erratic than in the past, and the ideas of his closest advisers are more extreme,” the editors wrote. “Trump has made clear that he would use a second term to consolidate unprecedented power in his own hands, punishing adversaries and pursuing a far-right agenda that most Americans don’t want. ‘We believe that this election is a turning-point in our history,’ the magazine prophesied correctly when it endorsed Abraham Lincoln in 1860. This year’s election is another.”

Bezos, along with peers at papers including the Los Angeles Times, the Minnesota Star Tribune, USA Today, The Tampa Bay Times and the Gannett, McClatchy and Alden chains, have taken a different course. Gannett argued that “readers don’t want us to tell them what to think,” as a Poynter Institute analyst reported. The others offered variations on the same theme.

An editor whose paper, The Oregonian, took a different route suggested to Poynter that trying to stay above the fray sometimes doesn’t play well with readers. “Our decision to endorse in this race reverses our policy in 2012 and 2016,” Therese Bottomly said in explaining her paper’s Harris support. “We heard the community’s disappointment over our past non-endorsements loud and clear. Particularly at this precipitous moment, we recognize both the privilege and obligation we have to advocate for the candidate who can best lead our country forward.”

Plenty of folks have been disappointed with Bezos’s decision to sit on the fence this year, with many suggesting he was feeling cowed by ever-increasing threats by Trump to punish his critics. Bezos drew heat from within and without.

Eighteen columnists signed a dissenting column against his choice, calling it “a terrible mistake.” Watergate reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward called the move “disappointing, especially this late in the electoral process.” And former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron said in a post on X: “This is cowardice with democracy as its casualty.”

As The Guardian reported, the cartoon team at the paper even published a dark image protesting the non-endorsement decision. This was a play on the “democracy dies in darkness” slogan that the Post adopted in 2017, five years after Bezos bought the paper. Author Stephen King and former congresswoman and Trump critic Liz Cheney announced they were cancelling their Post subscriptions, just as more than 200,000 digital subscribers reportedly have.

In the end, this contretemps may amount to just another painful blow to a declining industry. But it could also be a distressing harbinger of the rising threat America faces if the public makes the wrong choice next Tuesday.

Sound and fury

But, rather than signifying nothing, it is most revealinG

Macbeth, a general in one of Shakespeare’s more famous armies, offers a profound insight in Act V of his renowned play. “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” he says.

As the presidential election race tightens, we are hearing many such furious tales from Donald J. Trump.

Consider his “wildly false personal attacks” on the vice president, as The New York Times put it. Trump labeled Harris a “low IQ individual” and suggested baselessly that she has a drinking problem and may be abusing drugs. In a typical case of what the psychologists call projection, he said she was not “mentally or physically able” to be president. He said the sitting VP, former senator and former California State Attorney General was “lazy as hell.”

Will these racist dog-whistles play well with his base? Will the billionaires atop Trumpworld and the white working class and rural folks on the bottom cheer him on for them, seeing them as more evidence that Trump is the ultimate anti-politician? That he speaks like they do?

There’s no doubt that some part of Trump’s base warms to the canards he hurls at Harris, especially since he has so little else to attack her for. But deeply ingrained racism and sexism can’t be the whole story that underlay some 46.3 percent of the electorate’s sentiments.

There’s likely something even more insidious and troubling at play.

Prof. Emeritus John Hibbing, source: The Daily Nebraskan

A well-regarded political scientist who recently retired from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln sheds some light on what animates Trumpers. Prof. John Hibbing, author of The Securitarian Personality: What Really Motivates Trump’s Base and Why It Matters for the Post-Trump Era, points to fundamental splits that divide American voters.

For Trumpers, the key issues are immigration, gun rights, the death penalty and defense spending. For Harris supporters, they are racial justice, healthcare, women’s rights and income inequality.

Hibbing developed this taxonomy from his observations, his work with focus groups and from a national survey that included more than 1,000 Trump backers. He argues that those in the Trump base crave a particular form of security that revolves around their key issues. Trump plays to their longings brilliantly.

Trumpers, Hibbing contends, feel threatened by those they regard as outsiders, groups that include welfare cheats, unpatriotic athletes, norm violators, non-English speakers, religious and racial minorities, and people from other countries. Their key aim – which allows them to disregard Trump’s immorality, dishonesty and corruption – is to elect someone they believe will shield them, their families and their dominant cultural group from these “outsider” threats.

If Hibbing’s framework is correct, what Trumpers crave is a strongman. And Trump’s well-honed image as an alpha male checks most of the boxes for them. Perverse as it may be, moreover, his prolific sexual history (including assaults) and his recent bizarre comments about Arnold Palmer’s genitals may only reinforce that macho image.

John F. Kelly, source: The New York Times

Indeed, one can only wonder whether recent comments about whether Trump is a “fascist” play well to the Trumpers Hibbing describes — that such claims may be counterproductive to those making them. Trump’s former White House chief of staff John F. Kelly, a retired Marine general, told The New York Times that Trump’s desire for power fits the fascist label.

And Mark T. Esper, who served as Trump’s secretary of defense, amplified that. On CNN, he said that “it’s hard to say” Trump does not fall into the category of a fascist. Moreover, as The Washington Post reported, that followed a warning from retired Gen. Mark A. Milley, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a new book that the former president is “fascist to the core.”

Such sentiments give credence to the recent report in The Atlantic about Trump’s dissatisfaction with generals who bridled at his dictatorial impulses. “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had,” Trump said in a private conversation in the White House, the magazine reported.

But will enough Americans be alarmed by such comments, troubled by such judgments by people once close to Trump? Will most see Trump’s seeming “strength” as dangerous, unlike some Trumpers? And, more to the point, will they see Harris as a better alternative?

Of course, some may just play down or ignore such sentiments. Consider the apologists at The Wall Street Journal, who seem oblivious to Trump’s tsarist ambitions. The editorialists there invoke American checks and balances to suggest he would be reined in. By contrast, The New York Times warns that Trump’s “inner circle has been purged of people who say no. In a second Trump term, the secretary of state would not come from Exxon, and the secretary of the Treasury would not come from Goldman Sachs. The smart — and courageous — people have left the room.”

Certainly, some will warm to Trump’s tyrannical inclinations and his latest barbs. But this last-dash sound and fury could also cost him. Sensible voters may respond to Harris’s arguments that Trump’s vileness – the scorching and divisive language and lies that come so naturally to him – should be put well behind us. After all, does anyone really want more of this for the next four years?

Still, with most voters likely to have cemented their impressions of both candidates — and with many having already voted — it’s unclear how much difference the closing-days rhetoric will matter. Each candidate now wants mainly to mobilize their bases and, perhaps, chip away at the support of the other.

For her part, Harris aims to undermine Trump’s strongman image. Thus, her attack on him for being “weak.” Harris challenged Trump recently for refusing to release a report on his health, sit for a “60 Minutes” interview and commit to another presidential debate – all of which she did.

“It makes you wonder: Why does his staff want him to hide away?” she asked the crowd at a rally in Greenville, N.C. “One must question: Are they afraid that people will see that he is too weak and unstable to lead America?”

And she has embraced the “fascist” label for him. “We must take very seriously those folks who knew him best,” she said in a CNN town hall, referring to the numerous former Trump advisers who have broken with him.

“Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?” host Anderson Cooper asked Harris. “Yes, I do. Yes, I do,” she replied.

She added that voters care about “not having a president of the United States who admires dictators and is a fascist.”

Strong charges, of course. But Harris is also waving a red flag about Trump’s mental acuity. And, given his increasingly erratic speech, her criticisms may carry weight with some voters still mulling over their choice.

Source: The Conversation

Trump’s mental fitness has long been in doubt and, at 78, it’s as reasonable to question that as it was to question President Biden’s sharpness. Lately, Trump has served himself ill in this regard with the meandering talks he calls his “weave.”

He infamously cut off questions at a recent town hall outside Philadelphia and instead swayed to music on stage for 30 minutes. He bobbed his head through the Village People’s “Y.M.C.A.,” swayed to Rufus Wainwright’s “Hallelujah,” watched a Sinead O’Connor video, rocked along to Elvis, watched the crowd during “Rich Men North of Richmond” and then, finally, left the stage to shake hands on his way out.

More recently, his campaign canceled at a virtual town hall he was scheduled to take part in, suggesting he is tiring. Reporters have noted that his energy is flagging at some events, and he’s lost his way verbally – never his strength anyway.

He discussed the porosity of limestone in Washington, D.C., as he complained about vandalism. He referred to his so-called Front Row Joes — devoted superfans he often points out during his rallies — as Front Row Jacks, then corrected himself by calling them “the Front Row Jacks and Joes.” He got Harris’s gender wrong in a comment about vice presidential nominee Tim Walz. And, at a McDonald’s, he couldn’t recall the word “fryer.”

 “Those French fries were good. They were right out of the, uh — they were right out of whatever the hell they make them out of,” Trump said.

As The New York Times reported on Oct. 17, Trump described mail-in ballots as “so corrupt,” reviving one of his false attacks on the 2020 election results. Then, he shared his thoughts about when he watched SpaceX, Elon Musk’s spaceflight company, fly a rocket back onto its launch site.

Such bizarre off-script comments gain attention, for sure. These “flashes of controversy and oddity,” as The Wall Street Journal described them, have spawned headlines and airtime. Perhaps his followers simply disregard them, choosing instead to hear about how much he plans to deport immigrants and otherwise protect them from various threats.

But one has to wonder, do we really want a president who has trouble finishing thoughts as he practices “the weave?” And might geriatricians have other descriptions for such rambling, with characterizations that are more medical and psychological? One must ask: how would incoherence — especially when it’s vicious, racist and vindictive — serve us for the next four years?

The vulgarian strikes anew

Donald Trump plumbs new depths in taSTELESSNESS

Trump and Arnold Palmer, source: People Magazine

In 1988, the cofounders of the now-defunct Spy magazine came up with a memorable description for Donald J. Trump. He long hated the moniker they had for him:  “short-fingered vulgarian.”

But the label stuck. Veterans of the 2016 campaign will recall how the epithet figured into that race. Marco Rubio even criticized Trump’s small hands, saying: “And you know what they say about guys with small hands.”

Crude? No doubt. But Rubio was just descending to Trump’s level – it was his response to Trump’s “little Rubio” crack. And it is all part of a coarse style of politics that Trump has pioneered and perfected, and that he is repeating.

After a Saturday rally in the Pennsylvania hometown of golf great Arnold Palmer, for instance, Trump once again dominated the headlines and the airwaves by making a crude comment about the deceased champion’s genitals.

“Arnold Palmer was all man, and I say that in all due respect to women,” Trump said at the Latrobe gathering. “This is a guy that was all man…. When he took the showers with other pros, they came out of there. They said, ‘Oh my God. That’s unbelievable,’” Trump said with a laugh. “I had to say. We have women that are highly sophisticated here, but they used to look at Arnold as a man.”

You gotta hand it to Trump for that seemingly idle spur-of-the-moment crack. Not only did it garner attention – at which Trump is a master – but it confirmed the views of many of Trump’s devotees about their guy. To them, he is a) refreshingly as blunt and coarse as they are, b) virile enough to salute another’s machismo, and c) the kind of man’s man they want in the White House.

Harris, source: The Appeal

Was this an indirect dig at the idea of a woman as president? A sexist statement that suggests Vice President Kamala Harris could not, as chief executive, command the levers of power as well as the macho Trump could? Well, when a narcissist talks, he generally talks about himself one way or another, and with Trump, a passionate golfer, it’s not a stretch to believe that he wanted to bask in the reflected glory of Palmer, to have voters think of him in the same boorish way.

Ironically, Palmer, who died in September 2016, found Trump appalling. Palmer’s daughter, Peg Palmer, in 2018 recalled a moment when her father saw Trump on television during the 2016 presidential campaign, as The Palm Beach Post reported.

“My dad and I were at home in Latrobe. He died in September, so this was before the election,” she said in a conversation with author Thomas Hauser. “The television was on. Trump was talking. And my dad made a sound of disgust — like ‘uck’ or ‘ugg’ — like he couldn’t believe the arrogance and crudeness of this man who was the nominee of the political party that he believed in. Then he said, ‘He’s not as smart as we thought he was’ and walked out of the room. What would my dad think of Donald Trump today? I think he’d cringe.”

Palmer, she said, “had no patience for people who are dishonest and cheat. My dad was disciplined. He wanted to be a good role model. He was appalled by Trump’s lack of civility and what he began to see as Trump’s lack of character.”

Trump’s focus on manhood is hardly new, though. He has long been preoccupied with genital matters.

As Jezebel reported, when Trump’s former aide Stephanie Grisham wrote in her 2021 book, “I’ll Take Your Questions Now,”  that porn star Stormy Daniels said in an interview that Trump’s penis looked like a “toadstool,” the former president called Grisham “to assure her that his penis was, in fact, not shaped like a toadstool or small.”

Rubio, source: AP via Politico

Indeed, in 2016, he defended his endowment against Rubio’s comments during a primary presidential debate. “Look at those hands, are they small hands?” Trump said at the time, raising them for the audience to evaluate. “And, he referred to my hands – ‘if they’re small, something else must be small.’ I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”

Of course, it’s an open question whether Trump’s continuing coarseness will deepen his problems with women voters. No doubt, many of his followers – male and female – will warm to his crudeness or dismiss it as Trump being Trump. But, for more thoughtful women, his vulgarity may confirm anew their worst senses about the man.

Many may recall that the thrice-married often philandering felon is on the hook for more than $90 million after juries found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll, for instance. Indeed, Trump’s vileness may remind some that at least 26 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct, including assault, since the 1970s. His late ex-wife, Ivana, even accused him in a divorce deposition of raping her in a 1989 fit of rage (though she later amended her comment to suggest she felt “violated,” but not criminally raped).

Trump’s problems with women go beyond a sense of decency and his having the “morals of an alley cat,” as President Joe Biden memorably suggested in their debate.

An October New York Times/Siena College national poll found Harris ahead with 56 percent of the likely vote among women now, with Trump getting just 40 percent. That is similar to the breakdown of the final vote in 2020, when Biden garnered 57 percent of the female vote to Trump’s 42 percent, according to exit polls, though Trump appears to have captured a slender majority of the white-woman vote that year.

Indeed, his overall gender gap has driven Trump recently to reach out to women. He appeared in an all-woman town hall in Georgia aired on Fox last week, where he declared himself to be the “father of IVF,” praised Alabama Sen. Katie Britt as a “fantastically attractive person,” and parried a sharp question about his abortion stance: “Why is the government involved in women’s basic rights?”

As the BBC reported, Trump replied by walking the tightrope he has maintained for much of the campaign, taking credit for ending nationwide abortion rights, while also saying abortion policy should be left to the states. Democrats have hammered away at the idea that a patchwork of policies could emerge from such an approach, forcing women to travel for abortions.

At times, Trump has sounded at best as condescending to women. Consider his remarks at a September gathering in Pennsylvania: “You will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger. … You will no longer have anxiety from all of the problems our country has today,” Trump said. “You will be protected, and I will be your protector.”

He added that “Women will be healthy, happy, confident and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion.”

For some women quizzed by the Associated Press about his comments, Trump hit just the wrong notes in that session.

Debbie Walsh, source: NJ Monthly

“This notion that women need to be protected, that women are somehow weak or vulnerable — this sort of protectionist, patronizing tone … I think for a lot of women will just add to that sense of he doesn’t understand their lives, that he doesn’t understand where they are on a whole host of issues,” said Debbie Walsh, the director of the Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.

And Jennifer Lawless, chair of the politics department at the University of Virginia, added: “This kind of language is just more evidence that Donald Trump is out of touch with American women… Not only is the sentiment paternalistic, but the fact that he uttered these words while simultaneously berating women for caring about reproductive rights is stunning.”

To be sure, Trump’s latest bawdiness may just be lost over time, replaced in coming days by new and fresh rambling vulgarity. At the same rally where he saluted Palmer, he called Harris a “shit vice president,” as his crowd roared its approval. If he goes still further down the low road he’s been on, who knows what sort of denigration he might come up with?

The bigger question is: when will Americans wake up to just how perverse – in almost all ways – this candidate is? When will they be as revolted as Palmer was?

Foul language, debasement and politics

Just how far down can we go?

Source: Forward Kentucky

When the sketch comedy show “In Living Color” debuted on Fox in 1990, it introduced America to a wonderful phrase, “Clutch the pearls.” And, as our culture has continued to descend toward some unfathomable bottom, pearl-clutching has become ubiquitous, moving beyond shocked high-society ladies.

So, gentle reader, kindly indulge me while I engage in a bit of it (though I own no pearls).

Actor Sam Elliott, known for portraying cowboys and other men’s men, has just broken some new ground in this area in a fresh ad for Kamala Harris, available here:

In his deep, sonorous tones, Elliott says the vice president has “more courage, more honor, more guts” than Donald J. Trump has ever had. And he tells the bros — presumably the targets of the ad — to shake off anything holding them back. “If it’s the woman thing, it’s time to get over that … it’s time to be a man and vote for a woman.”

Will it work? Who knows? It takes a lot to cut through the clutter, especially with young male voters. Some 36 percent of likely male voters between 18 and 29 favor Trump, compared with only 23 percent of young women, according to the Harvard Youth Poll. While such results suggest that Harris enjoys a commanding lead among young people of both sexes, chipping away at Trump’s support among the bros can only help her.

But one thing about the ad is a bit unsettling — and here comes my pearl-clutching. “Are we really going back down that same f—-ing broken road or are we moving forward …?,” Elliott asks. So, unless there’s some editing, that ad — produced by a Republican anti-Trump group, The Lincoln Project — will not run on network TV.

Perhaps the language — including a word many of us have been known to use at times — is just fine, given the places on social media where the ad runs. That’s where the target demographic is, after all.

Howard Stern and Harris, source: Rolling Stone

Indeed, such demographics and all others are being keenly pursued by Harris and her vice presidential nominee. Tim Walz. That’s why Harris has appeared in such media as Howard Stern’s satellite radio show, “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and the Call Her Daddy podcast and Walz opted for “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” To be sure, Harris has also sought out the older demographics by sitting for a “60 Minutes” interview, but she wants the younger folks, too.

Still, the unsettling thing about the Elliott ad is that it’s part of a continuing debasement of political culture. Coarse language is just a part of that, a symbol of it.

Sadly, we can lay the blame for this squarely on Trump. This process began, of course, in 2016 with Trump’s juvenile nicknaming of his opponents — Crazy Hillary, Birdbrain for Nikki Haley, Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren, etc. And that has continued with Crazy Kamala, Comrade Kamala and Tampon Tim. Trump is also known for his coarseness in his rallies, dropping f-bombs with regularity. “Let’s indict the motherf—-er,” he infamously said of Biden at a California GOP meeting last year.

To be sure, some Democrats have aired once-private vulgarities in public, too. In 2019, then newly elected Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib in vowed to “impeach the motherf—-er,” referring to Trump, in a meeting of the liberal group MoveOn.org.

And, as reported by The Washington Post, Harris has been known to be proud of her proficiency in profanity in private — but rarely in public. Last May, though, she bluntly described her thoughts about breaking barriers in a conversation at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies.

“We have to know that sometimes people will open the door for you and leave it open,” Harris said. “Sometimes they won’t, and then you need to kick that f—ing door down.”

But Trump and his followers degrade language in public on a regular basis. As president, he referred to African nations as “s—holes” and called Joe Biden a “son of a b—-” and, earlier, famously boasted of grabbing women “by the p—-,” of course. His supporters have gleefully echoed his vileness at rallies, wearing T-shirts that say “Biden sucks, Kamala swallows.” Trump’s crowds seem to exult in the freedom he gives them to act, well, like a “basket of deplorables,” as Hillary Clinton memorably put it.

Source: NPR

As the Post pointed out, there is a long history of presidents swearing in private, and maybe a growing level of acceptance for public profanity from leaders. But now Americans are hearing a woman in Harris’s position using unbecoming language, an unfamiliar reality, according to presidential historian Tevi Troy.

“There’s the question of whether it’s appropriate for a president to be cussing. Then there’s the second question of whether it’s considered ladylike to be cussing,” said Troy, who has studied presidents and profanity. “So she’s operating in both spheres, and we’re in uncharted territory.”

Serge Kovaleski, Trump; source: KTLA

This goes beyond public language, though. After all, using decent language — in any setting — is just a matter of showing respect for others. And Trump is a master of disrespect. Recall how he mocked a disabled reporter, Serge Kovaleski, by mimicking his physical challenges.

Trump seems to delight his crowds by waxing profane about many people— Blacks, gays, immigrants, non-Christians of all sorts. In her criticism, Clinton derided Trump followers as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamaphobic, and those labels likely still apply to many of them. The attacks work for Trump.

Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, have displayed extraordinary disrespect for legal Haitian immigrants, for instance, in their attacks on residents of Springfield, Ohio. Their demonization and villainization works to whip up fear and racism among his white followers, as it confirms their sense of superiority by invoking tropes such as the eating of household pets.

“The power of such baseless accusations by Trump and Vance lies not in their factual basis, but in their resonance with long-standing racial fears about Black and brown people,” Princeton Prof. Aisha M. Beliso-De Jesús writes in Time Magazine. “These anxieties transcend the specific moment of misinformation. Rather they tap into a fears rooted in Christian bias and cultural stigma and then perpetuated by law enforcement, animal rights groups, politicians, and white communities who see non-white immigrants as existential threats to the purity of American neighborhoods.”

Source: Black Agenda Report

Ever since Trump derided southern border-crossers as criminals and rapists in 2016, he has found a ready market among fearful white followers. One hears of people in lily-white areas rushing out to buy guns to protect themselves from the invading hordes Trump has described.

“Fear, like hope, can be very motivating and is not inherently bad. The challenge is to identify when fear is being used deceptively,” Dolores Albarracin, a professor of psychology, business, and medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said in an American Psychological Association piece in 2020. “For example, intentional distortion of evidence is within the realm of disinformation and often foments fear for political purposes.”

Certainly, the denigration of Haitian immigrants falls into the latter category. Trump campaign lies about the pets were denied by Republican Gov. Mike DeWine and local Springfield, Ohio, officials, but Trump followers breezed right on by the facts. “Bomb threats, school closings, rallies, and more have come at the cost of misinformation and baseless claims,” the Columbus Dispatch reported. “Associating eating pets with immigrants is often considered a longstanding trope that exposes racism and discrimination.”

Such cultural debasement by Trump extends to the media and other institutions, as well, of course. The former president has long excoriated the media and his recent refusal to appear on “60 Minutes,” for fear that his misstatements would be called out by fact-checkers, just underscores that.

He has also demeaned the legal system (and not exclusively over his 34 felony convictions, as well as the $88 million in judgments he must pay a woman he raped, E. Jean Carroll). And he has similarly discredited the FBI, intelligence agencies and the military.

Of course, if Trump wins on Nov. 5, we can expect more of the same. If he loses — and if the GOP consigns him to the political dustbin — perhaps we can hobble back to a culture of normalcy. The Elliott video for Harris is not an official campaign ad and it’s highly unlikely Harris would greenlight such language in forthcoming ads. We could also expect that a President Harris would likely keep her salty language behind closed doors.

Celebrating the best of American culture is a lot of what Harris is about. Trump is all about something else entirely.

Dickens would have been proud

JD Vance’s performance on the debate stage was quite Dawkins-like

Source: Getty via Variety

In 1838, Charles Dickens gave us a most memorable character in Oliver Twist. His Jack Dawkins is a masterful pickpocket, a marvel at skillful deception. He’s known as the Artful Dodger.

JD Vance makes the fictional character look like a piker.

To be sure, Yale Law School can point to the GOP vice presidential nominee as a superbly trained graduate. He’s articulate, can be gentlemanly and can master complex facts well.

Consider what another grad of the school had to say about him:

“At our shared alma mater Yale Law School, I used to have to debate people like JD Vance all the time— phony strivers who will lie and say anything to get ahead,” former Obama Administration aide and CNN commentator Anthony Kapel “Van” Jones tweeted before last night’s debate. “They are hard to beat. Coach Walz will be constrained by his decency. Let’s see if a good, big hearted man can beat a pretender with a high IQ, but low integrity.”

Vance told a lot of whoppers, but give some thought to his biggest dodge of the night. When Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic nominee for vice president, pressed him on whether Donald J. Trump lost the 2020 election, Vance ducked. He was unwilling to contradict or offend his senior running mate, who still maintains he won. “Tim, I’m focused on the future,” he said. Walz’s retort: “That is a damning, that is a damning non-answer.”          

As for his focus on the future, Walz pushed on Trump’s efforts to lay the groundwork for the public to not accept a Trump-Vance loss. Vance’s flagrantly dishonest answer was that Trump “peacefully gave over power on January the 20th.” Huh, did he forget Jan. 6, 2021, as so many Republicans seem eager to do?

Source: Notre Dame News

As The Wall Street Journal recounted, “JD Vance deflected when asked about comments he made after Jan. 6, 2021, saying that he would have allowed Congress to entertain alternative slates of electors from key swing states, a power that the U.S. Constitution and federal law don’t grant to the vice president.”

But Walz, to his credit, hammered home the point.

“He lost the election,” Walz said. “This is not a debate. It’s not anything anywhere other than in Donald Trump’s world, because, look, when Mike Pence made that decision to certify that election, that’s why Mike Pence isn’t on this stage. What I’m concerned about is where is the firewall with Donald Trump? Where is the firewall if he knows he could do anything, including taking an election and his vice president’s not going to stand to it. That’s what we’re asking you, America. Will you stand up? Will you keep your oath of office even if the president doesn’t?”

Yes, Walz often came across as fuzzy, even inarticulate. Until he was pressed, for instance, he didn’t own up to misspeaking about being in Hong Kong during China’s suppression of the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989. He had, in fact, been to China soon afterward and, mostly on school trips, visited some 30 times later. Walz also botched a reference to Iran, instead garbling his words and saying: “But the expansion of Israel and its proxies is an absolute, fundamental necessity for the United States to have the steady leadership there.”

Chalk that sort of thing up to nervousness and, as some commentators have suggested, to his and Kamala Harris’s refusals to grant more major new outlet interviews. Such interviews can be great opportunities to hone answers to difficult questions. Mark it down, too, to a congressman and governor who spent most of his career teaching high school kids and serving in the Army National Guard, not polishing untruths at the likes of Yale.

By contrast, consider Vance’s tapdancing on abortion, a major challenge for Republicans who crave the independent non-evangelical women’s vote. Vance denied his documented past support for a national ban on abortion, insisting he sought only to set “a minimum national standard” – whatever that means.

And consider his dodge on choice, as he insisted that abortion should be a states’ rights matter, with different states free to set different policies – no matter whether that forces women to travel to find such care (which caused the death of one such Georgia woman, as Walz noted). Vance also repeated the anti-abortion movement’s saccharine and insincere arguments about giving women other choices:

“I want us, as a Republican Party, to be pro-family in the fullest sense of the word. I want us to support fertility treatments,” Vance said.” I want us to make it easier for moms to afford to have babies. I want it to make it easier for young families to afford a home so they can afford a place to raise that family. And I think there’s so much that we can do on the public-policy front just to give women more options.”

There were many more such examples in Vance’s too-smooth-by-half presentation.

“Vance repeatedly stretched, twisted and abandoned the facts (e.g., minimizing climate change as ‘crazy weather patterns,’ denying increased manufacturing under the Biden-Harris administration, claiming the administration ‘lost’ more than 300,000 children, misrepresenting his own position on abortion, claiming Trump saved the Affordable Care Act), or simply ducked the question (e.g., deporting children, seizing federal lands for housing, refusing to certify the 2020 election),” Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post put it in her newsletter.

For his part, she wrote, “Walz landed jabs on Vance’s extremism and went after felon and former president Donald Trump for ‘fickle’ and irresponsible leadership (e.g., brushing off traumatic brain injuries inflicted on soldiers by Iran as ‘headaches,’ calling climate change a ‘hoax’).”

Source: Rolling Stone

Rubin also gave the Democrat high marks for a couple scorching lines: On gun violence: “Sometimes it is just the guns,” Walz said. And on abortion rights: “How can we as a nation say that your life and your rights, as basic as the right to control your own body, is determined on geography?”

She argued that “Vance came across as slick, rude (interrupting the moderators and whining about being fact-checked) and preprogrammed.” By comparison, she argued that Walz was a “happy warrior.”

Maybe, maybe not. But some of the best assessments of the night came from opinion-writers for The New York Times, most of whom gave the debating victory to Vance – but only on style points. Consider their left-handed compliments:

“Vance did an excellent job of impersonating a decent man,” Farah Stockman said. And Binyamin Applebaum added: “He made Trumpism sound polite, calm and coherent.” Maybe the most trenchant view came from Jamelle Bouie, who said: “Vance won this debate. It’s not hard to see why. He has spent most of his adult life selling himself to the wealthy, the powerful and the influential. He is as smooth and practiced as they come. He has no regard for the truth. He lies as easily as he breathes.”

Some voters may make up their minds based solely on these debate performances. And, if they read the fact-checks, that may be enough for them to see Vance for who he is, not who he cast himself as. Certainly, they ought to look past the hail-fellow-well-met façade that Vance presented, paying mind instead to the Vance who feeds red meat to the mobs at Trump campaign events.

“Less obvious is the disconnect between the Vance we saw last night and the Vance who’s been stoking fear with tales of pet-eating immigrants and problematic elections on the campaign trail,” Fortune’s Diane Brady wrote.

In the end, few voters will make their choice based on the No. 2 men on the tickets. Surely, Trump and Harris will stand at the fore on Nov. 5.

Hulu’s The Artful Dodger, source: The Michigan Daily

Still, the artful dodger did show up his boss in one major respect. Trump’s lies are often easy to read, sometimes given away by his capo-like rage-filled body language (and dutifully recorded by legions of fact-checkers). Vance tells his at times with a doe-eyed ease and conviction that almost masks an Ivy League sneer.

“I cannot imagine many voters would switch sides based on this outing,” Rubin wrote. “But perhaps some voters will conclude that someone as condescending and nasty as Vance should not be a heartbeat from the presidency.”

Easy fixes sometimes are anything but

Contrasting the Trump and Harris economic planS

Source: Directors & Boards

Politicians like easy-sounding solutions to complex problems, particularly on the economic front. Their fixes often are aimed at pleasing voters who know little or nothing of economics. At times, their efforts smack of pandering and might even be harmless.

But, at other times, they can be quite dangerous — as seems likely with the plans of Donald J. Trump. Just mull over what 16 Nobel laureate economists have to say:

“The outcome of this election will have economic repercussions for years, and possibly decades, to come,” warns a letter signed by Columbia Prof. Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank; Harvard Prof. Claudia Goldin, former director of the Development of the American Economy program at the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research, and 14 other Nobelists. “We believe that a second Trump term would have a negative impact on the U.S.’s economic standing in the world and a destabilizing effect on the U.S.’s domestic economy.”

They caution that Trump’s plans, including his goal to impose tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on foreign goods and 60 percent on Chinese-made products, will do exactly the opposite of what he’s been promising as he has attacked the Biden-Harris administration for inflation. Just as inflation rates are coming down, those duties would kickstart a price-spiral anew.

Source: Dividend Power

“Many Americans are concerned about inflation, which has come down remarkably fast,” the economists argue. “There is rightly a worry that Donald Trump will reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets. Nonpartisan researchers, including at Evercore, Allianz, Oxford Economics, and the Peterson Institute, predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.”

And listen to some of those folks, who’ve crunched the numbers on Trump’s plans:

The Peterson Institute for International Economics think-tank in Washington calculates that 20 per cent across-the-board tariffs combined with a 60 per cent tariff on China would trigger a rise of up to $2,600 a year in what the average household spends on goods,” reports the Financial Times. “They say that the tariffs would disproportionately hit the low-income households that Trump claims his economic policies help protect.”

And the Peterson Institute is hardly alone. The Tax Policy Center, concurs, albeit with slightly different figures because Trump has floated both 20 percent and 10 percent global tariffs.

“A worldwide 10 percent tariff and a 60 percent tariff on Chinese goods proposed by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump would lower average after-tax incomes of US households in 2025 by about $1,800, or 1.8 percent,” writes center senior fellow Howard Gleckman, a former BusinessWeek colleague. “They’d reduce imports into the US by about $5.5 trillion, or 15 percent, from 2025–2034.”

The consensus among the experts is that Trump’s plan would hit consumers hard. The effect would show up not only in finished goods made overseas, but in anything manufactured in the U.S. with foreign-made components, as the higher costs would filter through the system. Thus, there would be no escaping the higher prices.

Beyond just ratcheting up inflation, Trump’s plans could drive down gross domestic product and employment.

“Candidate Trump has proposed significant tariff hikes as part of his presidential campaign; we estimate that if imposed, his proposed tariff increases would hike taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrink GDP by at least 0.8 percent, the capital stock by 0.7 percent, and employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs,” says another nonpartisan group, the Tax Foundation.

The kick in the teeth that Trump could deliver to the nation may also come at a tough time, as the economy slows under the Federal Reserve’s so-called “soft-landing” approach. The Fed, the independent group that has the job of reining in inflation, recently lowered interest rates by a substantial half-point in the federal funds rate. That’s because its leaders believe that inflation is moving toward a sustainable 2 percent annual rate, the Fed’s target, without driving unemployment up to unacceptable levels.

The Federal Reserve, source: Investopedia

As the Fed tries to balance employment and inflation, it is no doubt mindful that the national jobless rate recently rose to 4.2 percent after dipping as low as 3.4 percent, a 54-year-low, earlier in the year. The Fed is following classic economic theory: when the jobless rate is too low, higher wages kick up inflation; when unemployment is too high, of course, that’s a red light for the economy.

In time, the lower interest rates that the Fed has engineered should deliver an upward jolt to the economy. That will set the stage for the next president – whoever that is – to bask in the glow of sustainably low unemployment with reasonable inflation. But that president’s policies, if they are inflationary, could tip the balance.

As the experts see it, the outlook under a Trump presidency is hardly cheerful, particularly if his tariffs trigger an all-out global trade war. “The last time we were in a trade war under Trump, the global manufacturing cycle went into a recession,” Julia Coronado, a former Fed economist who now runs the MacroPolicy Perspectives consultancy, told the Financial Times.

Recall that, during Trump’s term, the economy slipped into recession from February to April 2020, a few months before his tour in the White House ended. Covid drove that downturn, which was marked by a jobless rate of 14.8 percent in April of 2020. When Trump left office, the jobless rate had fallen to 6.4 percent and it fell substantially after that, in part thanks to the infrastructure-spending policies of President Joe Biden.

Source: Bloomberg

Contrast Trump’s plan with Harris’s blueprint for stimulating housing construction, particularly for the middle class. She wants to boost housing supply by expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, providing incentives for state and local investment in housing and creating a $40 billion tax credit to make affordable projects feasible for builders. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s, and Jim Parrott, a housing adviser under the Obama administration, estimate that America has a shortfall of three million homes right now, and Harris aims to close that gap. The two are advising her campaign on these plans.

Ben Harris of the Brookings Institution, a former chief economist of the U.S. Treasury, concurs that the plan is sound. “Critics assail the high cost of subsidies to developers, but they are the best tool the federal government has to incentivize homebuilding,” he writes. “We desperately need more affordable homes in America – millions of them – and the only practical way to boost supply quickly and meaningfully is to offer financial incentives to local governments to expand zoning for affordable housing and to developers to build it. The vice president proposes to do both.”

To be sure, Harris’s plan to provide $25,000 to first-time homebuyers is drawing less praise.

Calling that “a really bad idea,” Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, says: “The ultimate beneficiary of that credit is not going to be first-time home buyers. It’s going to be people selling homes.” Economics writer Peter Coy of The New York Times echoes that, saying the plan would do nothing to boost housing stock, but only demand. “Sellers surely would take advantage of the increased demand by raising their prices,” Coy writes. “So a big portion of the taxpayer money that was intended for home buyers would wind up in the pockets of sellers.”

But it’s far from clear how the construction stimulation efforts and the aid to homebuyers would offset one another. A rush of homebuilding in theory should lead to lower prices, and the numbers of people likely to be involved in her $25,000 support effort seem relatively small.

Moody’s estimates that Harris’s down-payment plan would help some 11.7 million more first-time homebuyers, including 2.75 million first-time Black and Latino homeowners. This is just 3.2 million more first-time homebuyers and 1 million more Black and Latino first-time homebuyers than would take place without her plan.

For her part, Harris is doing some pandering by proposing to attack alleged price-gouging, particularly in grocery costs. Quoting a campaign statement, The Washington Post reported that Harris wants to implement “the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”

The details were not clear, the Post reported. But it said Harris would aim to enact the ban within her first 100 days, in part by directing the Federal Trade Commission to impose harsh penalties on firms that break new limits on so-called gouging. The statement did not define gouging or excessive profits.

As Alexander Henke, an economics professor at Howard University, told the school newspaper, Harris’s “vague” plan appears to be more like a political economy move than an economic one, tapping into popular sentiment against price gouging by delivering poll-tested messaging. And Harris should know better — she studied economics at Howard and her father, Donald, is a retired Stanford University economics professor.

What’s more, this horse long ago left the barn. Most of the inflation is now behind us, suggesting that the economy is resolving the inflation on its own and there would be few prosecutions.

Just look at the numbers. Prices for food overall rose 9.9 percent in 2022, faster than in any year since 1979, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The hike was especially sharp in so-called food-at-home prices, up 11.4 percent. But the rises have slowed since then, climbing last year by 5.8 percent overall and by 5 percent for food-at-home. This year, the department expects prices for all food to increase 2.3 percent, with food-at-home prices rising just 1.2 percent.

What drove up prices in prior years? Were greedy corporations taking advantage of consumers? Were nefarious or misguided Biden-Harris policies driving up the price of eggs (something VP nominee JD Vance embarrassingly got wrong in a Pennsylvania grocery store photo-op)?

Not according to experts at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. They point to post-Covid volatility in global commodity prices and a sharp rise in wages for grocery-store workers (likely related to a shortage of such workers). When such “input” costs rise, everyone in the production and retail chain tries to sustain their profit margins. As it happened, foodmakers showed no margin gain in recent years, while retailers showed only a modest uptick in already-thin margins.

Other key elements of the plans of both candidates suggest far different approaches — Trump would take a largely top-down tack while Harris, as she puts it, aims to build the economy from the middle class out. She hit hard on this theme in a Sept. 25 address on the economy and her idea are spelled out on her website.

Source: The New York Times

Harris would boost the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent and she has promised not to raise taxes on people making less than $400,000 per year. She wants to restore and expand the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, including a $6,000 child tax credit for the first year of a newborn’s life. She would also increase the tax deduction for start-up businesses from $5,000 to $50,000, a move she argues would stimulate innovation among all-important small businesses.

By contrast, Trump wants to reduce the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 15 percent for companies that make their products in the U.S. He already cut the rate from 35 percent during his 2017-2021 presidency. It’s long been known that such moves deplete government revenues. Trump also said he would end taxes on overtime pay and on tips (the tips idea is one Harris also suggests). And Trump also aims to exempt Social Security income from taxes, unmindful apparently of how the Social Security system, even under the current system, will likely be insolvent by 2035 unless policymakers impose a fix.

Trump also wants to extend individual tax cuts he pushed through Congress in 2017, including for the wealthiest Americans. Experts estimate that would reduce revenue over a decade by about $3.3 trillion to $4 trillion.

Harris has also proposed hiking taxes on high-income earners. Americans earning below about $100,000 annually would continue to pay no taxes on long-term capital gains and higher-income families earning up to $1 million would continue paying up to a maximum rate of 20 percent. But those who earn $1 million a year or more would see a rise in the tax rate on their long-term capital gains to 28 percent.

Whether soaking the rich a bit, as Harris proposes, is good or bad economically, it may sell politically. And, if nothing else, it’s likely to do far less harm than Trump’s tariffs would.

Nebraska may matter again

How antidemocratic efforts could sway a presidential election

Source: The Hoover Institution

“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose,” French journalist Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr wrote in 1849. “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

Consider 1968 and 2024. There are big differences, of course, but in some ways the years are echoing one another, especially in the pivotal role Nebraska may again play in a presidential election.

Nebraska’s public TV station in 2008 produced a documentary about the state’s key role in the election of over a half-century ago. The piece, “‘68: The Year Nebraska Mattered,” ably charted the ways presidential contenders courted support in the state.

The documentarians may have even more reason to revisit the theme about this year.

Source: Nebraska Public Media

Recall that in 1968, the country was beset by often-violent polarization. Vietnam was tearing us apart, pitting young people against old, conservatives against liberals. Racism was a huge issue, as the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. provoked rioting across the country.

An openly racist strongman candidate for president thought Nebraska was so important to his campaign that he appeared in Omaha. George Wallace, the segregationist governor of Alabama, came to the state to court voters for his American Independence Party. His visit triggered rioting in the then-small city and he drew condemnation from the state’s Republican governor, Norbert Tiemann, among many others.

Meanwhile, Democrats also stormed the state for their primary. Sens. Robert F. Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy both came to woo convention delegates, hoping to beat incumbent Vice President Hubert Humphrey for the nomination. On the Republican side, Richard Nixon vied with New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to his left and Ronald Reagan on the party’s right. Nixon, who was trying for a comeback after losing the 1960 presidential election, stumped for voters in Omaha, too.

As it turned out, Nixon swept Nebraska for the GOP ticket. While Kennedy won over the Nebraska Democrats, his assassination on June 5 left the party ultimately with Humphrey. And, in the end, Nixon prevailed nationally, overwhelming both Wallace and Humphrey that November.

Source: Lincoln.org

Now, Nebraska is looming large again – even larger this time — as Donald J. Trump presses legislators in the state to overturn its practice, dating back to legislation in 1991, of splitting its Electoral College votes by Congressional district. Nebraska will have five such electoral votes and Trump fears that he will lose one such vote, that of the 2nd District, comprising Omaha and its suburbs. While the state overall went for Trump in 2020, he lost that Omaha area electoral vote.

The district has gone twice for Republicans and twice for Democrats in the last four presidential elections, as reported by the Nebraska Examiner. To avoid a repeat of his 2020 loss, Trump wants the state legislature to switch over to the winner-take-all system that prevails in other states, a change that would, in effect, disenfranchise many Omaha-area voters, as the rest of Nebraska tends to go GOP.

As polls suggest that there will be a tight vote nationally, just a single vote in the Electoral College could put Harris over the top, giving her the 270 she would need. Thus, Trump’s electoral gamesmanship.

Unsurprisingly, the opportunistic Republican governor of Nebraska, Jim Pillen, backs Trump’s efforts. But, so far, he hasn’t amassed enough support among the state’s legislators to do this. Pillen went so far as to bring a couple dozen Republican legislators to his mansion to hear an in-person pitch for eliminating the electoral rule from Sen. Lindsey Graham, as the Examiner reported. Trump also spoke by phone beforehand with some of the attendees.

The only other state to have a similar split-vote rule is Maine, which has taken that approach since 1969. So far, however, legislators in the Democratically dominated state have balked at making a change, even though that could help Democrats by taking away a likely GOP single electoral vote. Trump carried a single Maine district in both 2016 and 2020, getting one of the state’s four votes.

The states each award a single Electoral College vote to the winner in each of their congressional districts, plus two votes to the statewide winner of the popular vote.

Maine pioneered the split-vote system as part of an effort to push the country toward a system where the popular vote matters more than the Electoral College does, as the Bangor Daily News reported. Recall that five presidents, including George W. Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016, lost the popular vote but prevailed in the college vote. Trump was swamped in both in 2020, though he continues to deny that.

Source: The Guardian

Trump’s effort to overturn the Nebraska split-vote practice is of a piece with his general antidemocracy approach, of course. His supporters recently enacted a rule in Georgia to require counting ballots by hand, which would likely delay results and, according to critics, could lead to many errors. The change is being challenged in court.

Recall that Trump infamously tried to pressure Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes to put him over the top in the state in 2020. Trump’s phone call to the official was filled with a slew of false claims by the former president, as the Brennan Center documented.

Recall, too, Trump’s efforts to discredit elections all across the country. More than 60 court cases went against him, including many that involved judges appointed by Trump and other Republicans.

If he does win this fall, Trump’s intentions to subvert democracy are troubling, whether they involve electoral manipulation, concentrating more power in the White House or summoning the military to suppress dissent. His plans — some of which are based on Project 2025, despite his disavowal of the document — have been criticized by such nonpartisan groups as the ACLU and Protect Democracy, along with Democratic leaders from President Biden on down.

Trump has long been an admirer of autocrats, even praising one, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, by name in his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The former president warmed to the idea of being a dictator on day one in an interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. And his vice presidential nominee, JD Vance, recently shared a stage with autocrat-loving Tucker Carlson, a disgraced former Fox News host turned podcaster. Carlson did a fawning interview with Vladimir Putin and recently gushed over a Holocaust denier on his podcast.

If Trump defeats Harris — with or without overturning the Nebraska system — his bid to upend the longstanding split-vote approach in Nebraska may just be a sign of what more is to come. Much has changed since the state made a difference in 1968, but we again see a racist demagogue with a strongman approach trying to make a mark in Nebraska at a time of great polarization. The biggest difference this time is that he’s got much of the state’s Republican establishment behind him.

State Sen. Mike McDonnell, source: Nebraska Examiner

The choice of whether to toss out split-voting could be close — maybe even a matter of a single vote in Nebraska’s Republican legislative ranks. Fittingly, that may hinge on local Omaha politics, according to the Examiner. State Sen. Mike McDonnell, a labor leader and Democrat-turned-Republican, aspires to run for mayor of the city.

Would his constituents want to support someone who made their votes irrelevant? When he switched parties, McDonnell said he opposed a shift to winner-take-all. A spokesman said he’s sticking with that stance — for now.

And will antidemocratic efforts prevail nationally? If so, the path to those may begin in the state capitol of Lincoln, Nebraska.

Unfinished business

As the Trump-Harris race shows us, sexism remains alive and well

Source: New York Times

Fifty-four years ago this Sept. 19, Mary Tyler Moore launched an eponymous hit series on CBS about a young woman who was “gonna make it after all” as a TV journalist in Minneapolis. “Mary Richards” would build a life for herself as an independent woman. The show ran for seven seasons and won a stunning 29 Emmys. Widely hailed for being part of so-called Second Wave Feminism, which focused on equality and discrimination, the series dealt with sex, sexism, birth control and other hot-button topics of the time.

Debuting as women were surging into the workplace in larger numbers, the Mary Tyler Moore Show paved the way for other TV efforts that revolved around women demanding to be on equal footing with men. Among them were “Rhoda,” “Murphy Brown,” “30 Rock” and, in some respects, “Friends” and “Cheers,” all heavily influenced by Moore’s groundbreaking effort.

How can it be that a half-century on from then America has still not left the battles over sexism behind? How can it be that for the current generation of women political figures such as Donald J. Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, are doing their best to remind us of what, in many respects, were the bad old days? How can it be that gender remains an issue for many Americans as they ponder whether a woman can serve as president?

Women now approaching their 60s — such as Vice President Kamala Harris, 59 — were children when “Mary Richards” was challenging glass ceilings on Moore’s show. But, all around them, real women were doing the same.

Source: Instagram

Harris’s late mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, for instance, came to the United States from India alone at 19, earned a doctorate in nutrition and endocrinology from the University of California Berkeley, and went on to make important contributions as a researcher focusing on breast cancer. As a single mom, moreover, she raised Harris and her sister after splitting up with Harris’s father.

As gains that women have made are under siege now, it’s no surprise that Harris should adopt as one of her campaign mantras “We are not going back.” In counterpoint to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” evocation of a mythical American past, Harris’s tagline suggests progress in matters such as reproductive freedom, LGBTQ rights, Black and other minority rights, and a modern version of feminism — one in which a woman can become not only the first female vice president, but president.

Harris would have America “turn the page” — another tagline — on Trumpism. That, pathology, as she sees it, is the 78-year-old former president’s use of racial divisiveness, his juvenile treatment of opponents, and his well-recorded disrespect for the military, his disregard for the law (as his felony criminal convictions suggest) — along with his sexism.

E. Jean Carroll, source: CNBC

Trump’s attitudes and actions toward women, of course, seem like something on which turning the page seems well overdue. Recall Trump’s lewdness in the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. Take note of his sexual abasement of E. Jean Carroll, after which juries found him liable for abuse and defamation, costing him more than $90 million. Don’t dismiss his hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels and his extramarital affair with Playboy model Karen McDougal, part of his well-documented pattern of cheating on three wives.

Remember that about two dozen women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct dating back to the 1970s. Recall that his first wife, Ivana, accused him of rape during their 1990 divorce (she later retracted her claim). Another woman accused him of “attempted rape” in 1993 at his Mar-a-Lago resort, but settled a separate breach of contract case and forfeited the rape claim. Still another alleged that Trump attacked her on a flight to New York. Trump denied it all.

Just how vile is he? He looks on own daughter, Ivanka, in, well, a less than fatherly way. “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her. Isn’t that terrible? How terrible? Is that terrible?,” he said in 2006 on ABC’s “The View.” And, in a 2015 interview with Rolling Stone, Trump reportedly celebrated her “beauty,” adding, “If I weren’t happily married and, ya know, her father …” He was even rebuked by his former chief of staff for sexual remarks about Ivanka in front of White House staff.

Source: AP

Trump’s extraordinary litany of public comments define him, too. To pick three from a very long list, he labeled his own former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and former Gov. Nikki Haley “birdbrain,” said “If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?,” and said of talk show host Megyn Kelly “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever.” He slandered Harris as “Dumb as a Rock,” only to be humiliated by the former California State Attorney General and former U.S. Senator’s brilliance in skewering him in their debate.

Fortunately, many American women have long had Trump’s number. “President Joe Biden won women by 15 points over Trump in 2020, according to exit polls, up from former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s 13-point victory among women in 2016,” The Washington Post reported. “Polls suggest that this year, women prefer Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris over Trump by similar margins. Harris led Trump by 13 points among women in an ABC News/Ipsos poll” released in early September.

Disdain for Trump is especially pronounced among younger women — even while younger men don’t shun him quite as much. “Sixty-seven percent of women 18 to 29 supported Vice President Kamala Harris in a New York Times/Siena College poll in six swing states last month, compared with 40% of young men,” The New York Times reported. “Fifty-three percent of young men in those states backed Donald J. Trump, compared with 29% of young women.”

Still, substantial numbers of women back Trump, in spite of his misogyny and coarseness. Trump has implied that Harris’s former romantic relationship with Willie Brown, a former San Francisco mayor, fueled her political success. And as the Times reported, he recently shared a screenshot on Truth Social showing an image of Harris and Hillary Clinton, appended with commentary from another user, with a reference to oral sex.

Asked by a Times reporter what she thought about Trump posting that image, co-founder of Moms For Liberty Tiffany Justice stammered: “You know what, I think that, uh, a lot of people say a lot of things. And we’re focused on the issues that are hurting American voters.”

Women who support Trump seem willing to turn their eyes away from a lot. Like Melania Trump, who suggested that her husband’s celebration of sexual assault in the Hollywood Access tape was just “locker room talk,” they wave aside his depravity.

Evangelical women who back him may see Trump as the sinner who is G-d’s tainted vehicle in areas such as abortion, although his waffling on the matter — declining to endorse a national ban — lately has irked many of them and smacked of betrayal. As he has sought to win over women concerned about such bans, Christian leaders have suggested his backpedaling could dissuade religious voters from showing up on Election Day. R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminar, told The New York Times’ The Run-Up podcast that Trump faces the “grave danger” of evangelicals staying home on Nov. 5.

Harris and her team, however, are busy reminding voters that Trump just last spring proudly claimed to have destroyed the protections of Roe v. Wade by appointing Supreme Court justices who gutted the longstanding legal precedent. “After 50 years of failure, with nobody coming even close, I was able to kill Roe v. Wade, much to the ‘shock’ of everyone,” Trump said on his social media platform.

Source: Evangelicals for Harris

Trump, moreover, has lost some of his base even among evangelical women. The Rev. Billy Graham’s granddaughter, Jerushah Duford, famously condemned Trump in 2020. “How did we get here?,” she asked in a USA Today piece exhorting others to abandon him. “How did we, as God-fearing women, find ourselves ignoring the disrespect and misogyny being shown from our president? …. Jesus loved women; He served women; He valued women. We need to give ourselves permission to stand up to do the same.”

In mid-August, Duford made her support of Harris clear, taking part in an “Evangelicals for Harris” Zoom call. “Voting Kamala, for me, is so much greater than policies,” Duford said. “It’s a vote against another four years of faith leaders justifying the actions of a man who destroys the message Jesus came to spread, and that is why I get involved in politics.”

Will more women turn out for Harris? They might if they look into Trump’s history more closely, along with the views of his “childless cat ladies” running mate, Vance. The GOP vice presidential nominee apparently would have many women of the Mary Tyler Moore generation revisit their child-rearing days with grandchildren and give parents more voting power than childless Americans.

“In 2020, [Vance] did not demur when the podcast host Eric Weinstein asserted that helping care for youngsters was ‘the whole purpose of the postmenopausal female, in theory,’” The Atlantic reported. “The next year, Vance suggested that parents should have ‘more power—you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic—than people who don’t have kids.’ He also tweeted, “‘Universal day care’ is class war against normal people.’”

In past elections when Trump ran, the gender gap was substantial. This time around, it could prove to be a yawning chasm. And when one explores why, the question arises: How could any self-respecting woman, of any age and any religion and any race, support this man?