WHO IS PRESIDENT TRUMP?

There has been endless discussion and much confusion over what kind of president Donald Trump will be.  In foreign policy, is he the opponent of the Iraq War, or a leader staffing his administration with warriors?  One day he meets with Al Gore, the next he appoints a climate change opponent to the Environmental Protection Agency.  Who really is the next person to sit in the White House?

To understand how Donald Trump will handle the presidency, it is best to assume that there will always be three Donald Trumps—the policy president, the political president, and the emotional president—each operating alongside the other, simultaneously.

The policy president will be the most conventional.  In the best article so far analyzing Trump’s actual positions (as opposed to his rhetoric), Doyle McManus explained, “in Trump’s picks for economic and domestic policymaking jobs, there’s a consistent underlying thread. And no, it’s not that so many of them are billionaires….It’s Republican orthodoxy. Trump’s choices have all been thoroughgoing conservatives who believe in the free market, deregulation and, wherever possible, privatization of government functions. Most of them could have been nominated by any GOP nominee….”  Other evidence points to this conclusion as well.  His economic leadership is as conventional a Republican business dominated team as he could pick, going with the same setup as George W. Bush, appointing Goldman Sachs veterans to head Treasury and the National Economic Council.  The New York Times reported, “Business leaders, once wary, are now expressing excitement that one of their own is headed toward the White House. And Wall Street is bordering on the ecstatic.  A month after Donald J. Trump’s election, a series of pro-business cabinet nominations, along with promises to cut taxes, roll back regulations, invest in infrastructure and negotiate better trade deals, have conjured up the possibility, some executives say, of a ‘Field of Dreams’ economy.” A subsequent article in that paper reported, “a majority of Republicans are overjoyed with Mr. Trump’s other cabinet picks — staunch conservatives in the world of education, health care and law enforcement….”  Jonah Goldberg, the rightist columnist, remarked on his picks, “as a conservative I find most…of them reassuring.”

In other words, when it comes to policy, Trump is an extremely conservative Republican, not a new, populist model.  Think Rick Santorum or Paul Ryan as president.

Then there is Trump the political president.  This is the figure that will utter intensely divisive comments to gin up voters, who attacks media, political correctness, and any and every group he feels he can get mileage from:  immigrants, Muslims, women, the disabled.   For this aspect of his presidency the top adviser is Steve Bannion, a self-described “disrupter” who revels in attacking the status quo and fanning resentment.  This is President Trump working crowds, seeking support and votes at the expense of many Americans, to win elections.  The question here is not what policies the president-elect will sponsor, but what messages he sends to his followers.  In North Carolina a man called the head of an Islamic center in Asheville attacking this religion. When the Muslim leader asked if the man was threatening him, he replied, “I don’t have to.  My president will take care of you for me.”

And finally, there is the emotional president, the one who expresses neither policy nor political positions, nor the advice of advisers, but who has deep personal needs.  A lot of what Trump does results from growing up with a father who, while economically successful, worked the low status outer boroughs like Brooklyn and Queens. 

Quick interlude:  I grew up in the Bronx, of immigrant parents.  Early in college I decided to get my mother a gift from Tiffany’s.  Walking into the flagship store on Fifty-Seventh and Fifth, I selected an inexpensive item.  An incredibly genteel older woman took my order; sitting at her desk she wrote out my order and filled out the form.  When she got to the address I mentioned the Bronx; she looked across at me and as sweetly as you could imagine, inquired “Do they have a Zipcode up there?” as if it was the wilds of North Dakota.

Donald Trump felt this resentment, instead breaking into the elite Manhattan real estate market, something his father never achieved.  Yet the insecurity remains.  This is the deferential Trump, seeking approval from Barack Obama, a sitting president, or during a meeting with the New York Times’ editors and columnists.

And this is also the president who tweets deeply personal resentments in the early hours of the morning.  Lauren Batchelder, an 18 year old college student, had told Trump at a public rally she did not feel he “was a friend to women.”  Trump tweeted in reprisal that she was an “arrogant young woman” and a Clinton plant. Batchelder talked about what happened for the first time recently with a reporter for the Washington Post, and that paper described how, “Her phone began ringing with callers leaving threatening messages that were often sexual in nature. Her Facebook and email inboxes filled with similar messages. As her addresses circulated on social media and her photo flashed on the news, she fled home to hide.  ‘I didn’t really know what anyone was going to do,’ said Batchelder, now 19….”  At the time Trump had 5 million Twitter followers; now he has 17 million.

McManus concluded his insightful piece, “in practice, Trumpism looks like mainstream conservatism plus tougher trade negotiations – and now, circuses. Just like the campaign.” We are getting three President Trumps, not just one.  The gifts continue to come.

TRUMP’S PARTY

This is a year of turmoil for the GOP, with possible disaster at the polls in November.  But both of the two main parties have experienced debacles before and come back.  What are the odds of that happening this time?

David Brooks painted a positive outcome in his column, “The Post-Trump Era”.  Rather than gloom, it predicted rebirth and boundless futures; the piece began, “This is a wonderful moment to be a conservative.”  Brooks argued that, “For decades now the Republican Party has been groaning under the Reagan orthodoxy, which was right for the 1980s but has become increasingly obsolete.” Donald Trump, however, has blown that model apart; Reaganesque stagnation is no longer acceptable.

Brooks now draws on the models of Thomas Kuhn and envisions a paradigm shift.  The old orthodoxy is shattered.  Donald Trump, bold yet thoughtless, provides no alternative.  Instead, for Republicans, this will be a moment of fundamental examination, of reshaping.  “The great question is not, Should I vote for Hillary or sit out this campaign? The great question is, How do I prepare now for the post-Trump era?”

This will start with what Brooks refers to as “mental purging”, a casting off of old ideas.  New notions will center on nationalism; compassion (“Trump is loveless….the Republican Party will have to rediscover a language of loving thy neighbor.”); and “a worldview that is accurate about human nature,” including diversity.  At the end of this process there will be a new GOP:  “Nobody knows what it will be, but it’s exciting to be present at the re-creation.”

There is historical precedent for this argument.  Both parties have suffered catastrophes, landslide defeats, and persevered.  Following the 1964 Goldwater episode, the Republican Party underwent a process much like Brooks described, and came back with two winning elections under Nixon, and then the Reagan revolution.

There is, however, another alternative perspective, the possibility that this will be an historic game changer in a less positive direction.

In a Politico article, Michael Hirsh provided deep insights about the GOP frontrunner.  Hirsh pointed out that what Trump does, above all, is rebrand:  he takes existing buildings, steaks, wines, beauty pageants, anything and everything, and stamps his name on them.  But this not only makes them profit centers within his corporate domain, it changes their identity.  No longer individual entities, they are now part of the world of Trump, both in practical terms and in the public’s eye.  Hirsh explains, “The Trump Organization is a global trademarking factory”, and cites 515 different bodies that have become, simply, Trump.

But the master’s greatest project, his stroke of genius, is a work whose scope dwarfs anything he has attempted before:  rebranding of the Republican Party as a Trump enterprise.  As Hirsh indelicately put it, “we can add one more entity to the Trump Marks list: the Trumpublican Party, LLC.”  Detailing the scope of this achievement, he pointed out, “Trump accomplished this rebranding so fast that Republicans still don’t seem to understand what happened to them.” 

Evidence supports this proposition.  Ivanka Trump, no political pundit of any repute, nevertheless nailed something crucial when she told Breitbart, “From Day One, my father set the agenda for what the whole party is talking about.”  Far more important, in the public’s mind the rebranding is an accomplished fact.  Donald will probably get the nomination, and if so, he becomes the literal symbol of the party.  Even in the unlikely case that he is not heading the ticket, Trumpism will remain the dominant impression of what the GOP stands for, if nothing else because the Democrats will see to that.

There is enormous danger here for the Republican Party.  Minorities are gone.  A rising wave of immigrant voters are gone.  A large proportion of women are lost, at least for this election.  At least, if not more dangerous, is the situation with youth.  In a recent piece in the New York Times Upshot Toni Monkovic argued, “The potential of losing an election is one thing, but as polling numbers suggest, the Trump brand could weigh on the G.O.P. for a generation.”  Thus, political scientists have long theorized that young voters are more malleable, that their long-term affiliations can be shaped by a defining episode like this one.

And the signs are clear.  In a USA Today poll, respondents under 35 picked Hillary Clinton over Mr. Trump, 52-19.  If the focus narrowed to whites only, her lead was still substantial, 45-26.  Monkovic reported, “A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton essentially tied among people 40 and older, but with those under 40 preferring her by a nearly 2-to-1 margin…. In USA Today  Republican pollster Frank Luntz called it ‘a chasm of disconnection that renders every prominent national Republican irrelevant with the voting bloc that could control campaigns for the next 30 years.’”

The Republican Party faces a boisterous future.  David Brooks predicts a season of glorious tumult.  Another alternative is dealing with rebranding as the party of Trump.  Either way, the next few years are not going to be easy if you’re a Republican.

References

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/opinion/the-post-trump-era.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/upshot/lasting-damage-for-gop-young-voters-reject-donald-trump.html?_r=0

HOLIDAY CHEER

It’s holiday season time, so everyone with disabilities can once again expect a new wave of abuse over parking spaces.  The hustle and crush of getting everything done, instead of producing good will, generates intense competition over every possible resource, including accessible parking spots. 

To folks who really need them, the theft of handicapped slots ranks high on the list of life’s irritations.  In May 2010 the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation conducted a survey, to discover what were the top ten things that annoy people who use wheelchairs.

Topping the list was, “Able-bodied people parking in accessible parking spaces.”  And not by a small margin, either:  37% reported this, as compared to only 12% for the number two; that’s more than three times as many.  Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner:  something that really pisses off a lot of the different kinds of folks in wheelchairs.

Despite this, I’ve discovered that the holiday season is when disabled parking spaces are most likely to be taken by able bodied citizens, all in a dreadful hurry, and hence possessing a powerful sense of entitlement.  So much for good will towards humankind.  The presents are due, I need wrapping paper, and you’ll understand if I take your slot and run into the store.  You can find another place to let out that ramp.

This year it also comes on the heels of a growing wave of folks impersonating disability to gain an advantage in so many activities.

There are a number of ingenious, and heinous, varieties of this fraud.  The New York Times reported on the growing practice of improperly requesting a wheelchair in order to skirt lines at airport security checkpoints.  People see a wheelchair passenger breeze through, so they request one too, often quite brazenly.  One wheelchair pusher for Delta Air Lines explained, “When they see that the line is so long, they just ask for a wheelchair,” whether they need one or not.   Another described how, once past the final check, their charge would just stand up, “They say, ‘Ma’am, I feel better — I can go by myself.’ ”  The abuse is so rife on some flights, that professionals refer to them as “miracle flights”, with as many as a dozen wheelchair passengers getting on.  “We’d say there was a miracle because they all needed a wheelchair getting on, but not getting off,” explained Kelly Skyles, national safety and security coordinator for the Association of Professional Flight Attendants, which represents American Airlines attendants.    

The list goes on.  A friend of mine and wheelchair user explained, “The handicapped parking spaces have provided a great convenience to people that use a grocery cart to haul their load to their cars.  Just put the cart on those wonderful blue stripes.  There had to be a reason for the stripes, after all how many people with wheelchairs do you see using them?”

So I came up with an alternative, something that spreads a message long after the holiday crush is over.  A friend of mine owns a chain of airsoft stores, and after remodeling, the employees had some fun and redid the disabled parking logo in one slot.   I had it made up as stickers, one of which is on my rear windshield, then added a caption.  (see attachment)

It’s the holiday season.  Time to light the tree, drink some eggnog.  And above, all do whatever you can to get to the front of every line.  Ho ho ho, everyone. 

ELECTORAL MAPS

The 2012 election map doesn’t look good for Republicans; lots of blue, not much red.  A funny thing, though:  we’ve seen that same map before, just in reverse.  But the old school Democrats were digging their way out of the hole, while today’s GOP just sinks deeper.

In the 1920s this was a Republican country.  If you were proper, if you were middle class, you voted Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.  Only Southerners went for the Democrats in a presidential contest.

Take a look at the electoral map in 1924, a typical contest in that decade.  The whole country is red.  There is one blue strip of twelve states in the southeast, stretching north from the Gulf to Virginia, west to Texas.  That’s it.  Living in the South meant you were in a different part of America, isolated from the mainstream.

Now glance at the map showing the 2012 results; there’s that limited swath, except now it’s Republican.  Also joined by a few other states, mostly in the plains and mountain west, plus Utah and Arizona.  Places with lots of land but few people.  And America allocates electoral votes based on the number of voters, not the population of sage or trees.  So you have the same limited zone, still out of step with the rest of the country, just as they were eighty-six years ago.  These folks remain separate from America politically; they’ve just switched parties, that’s all.

But that’s where the resemblance ends.  In the 1920s a quiet revolution was taking place, below the radar.  In every big city, Democrats were registering urban immigrants and workers, laying the groundwork for the great New Deal coalition of Franklin Roosevelt.  In 1920 the Republicans carried America’s twelve largest cities with a cumulative margin of 1.64 million votes.  By the 1928 election they lost those same places by a 38.000 margin.  That year Boston’s Jewish-Italian Third Ward gave the Democrats 81% of their votes, while Chicago’s Poles and Czechs turned out 70%.  Even in Richmond, Kentucky, Democratic field reports claimed that “most of the negroes seem to be for [their candidate], and all Jews are.”  The great reversal had begun.

So what are the Republicans doing now to reverse similar fortunes?  They hope that a few candidates with Latino names will do the trick, but without changing any of their policies.  Or even many of their attitudes.

Harmeet Dhillon is a case in point.  Right now she is the front runner for vice chair of the California Republican Party.  Dhillon has some support, but some of her party mates oppose the candidacy.  Despite a solid record as an attorney, Dhillon was attacked in a Facebook post from the president of the San Bernadino County Federation of Republican Women. "I was told by one of Harmeet's friends that because of her religion her loyalty is to the Muslim religion," it read. "So she will defend a muslim [sic] beheading 2 men without any hesitation….”  The LA Times reported that others condemned her on the grounds of being “un-American;” some went so far as to ask if she would sacrifice a goat during the meeting.

For some Republicans there was a different problem.  They were upset because she once worked with the ACLU, and hence wasn’t conservative enough, a familiar claim; she is a RHINO, in other words.   Dhillon’s response:   after 9/11 "I joined…for a specific reason — people [who looked] like my brother and father were being shot, were being detained." Authorities "were rounding up South Asians, rounding up Muslims, people were questioning Sikhs because they didn't know the difference between who's a terrorist and who's just brown-skinned from that part of the world." Obviously some Republicans have no understanding of what that might be like, no sympathy for people falsely accused because of their features, not their politics.  Such insensitivity will not win voters in many California districts.

Party leaders condemned such claims in no uncertain terms.  A joint statement by state party chair Tom Del Beccaro, Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff and Assembly GOP leader Connie Conway read: "Blatant racism has no place in the party of Lincoln.  We strongly denounce this hateful speech in this and any other venue."

We’ll see which message gets out, if the Republican Party is laying groundwork like the Democrats did before 1932, or if they’re still an “Old Party” and not a “Grand” one.