Against "Distractions"
Plus all the links
I was going to do a note about the Trump administration’s cutbacks on economic data (short version: it’s very bad for governing, but isn’t apt to fool voters). But that was before the “Biden is old” blowup, a deportation blowup, the Musk/Trump blowup, and then the Los Angeles blowup over the weekend. I think there was also another round of Trump corruption stuff this last week?
I’ll defer to others about all of that for the moment, other than to say again that it’s all part of a sustained, multi-pronged attack on US democracy and the Constitution. And it’s good to see many people on the side of the rule of law – but there should be more.
I just have one thing to soapbox about today. It’s an oldie but goodie and certainly not original to me, but it looks like we need another round of it. Please, stop saying that this or that Trump administration move is intended to distract people from some other Trump administration move.
Just stop. Could it occasionally be true? I suppose, although I don’t really recall any of the tell-alls from the first Trump presidency confessing to any such diversions, even though they confessed to much worse things. But true or not, it’s speculation at best. My experience has been that the best explanation for any particular Trump action is simple lack of impulse control, but it really doesn’t matter.
Look, for better or worse…no, that doesn’t work. Look, the trouble with a multi-pronged attack on the republic at the same time as the president attempts to advance a whole bunch of (sometimes overlapping, sometimes not) extremist policy measures is that there’s always going to be just too much. There may or may not be any good way to combat that, but I’m reasonably confident that it’s better to fight back on something than to speculate about Trump’s strategies.
Which reminds me (okay, two things to soapbox about): Also, please stop saying that “with any other president….” It’s bad writing! If you think what Trump is doing is wrong, say it’s wrong. If you think there’s a remedy, state it. If you think there’s no easy remedy but that it deserves to be at least called out, call it out!
Claiming that the president is invulnerable is not only false (again, look at his dismal approval numbers) but it also helps him. Criticizing him? Hurts him. Even if it doesn’t hurt him as much as you think it should.
Besides, if people are insufficiently upset, the thing to do is explain to them why they should be upset, not to whine about them not being more angry.
On to the links:
1. Sarah Binder on Trump’s rescission package and the larger fight over federal spending and the Constitution.
2. Anne Joseph O'Connell on the battle over the Library of Congress.
3. Matthew McManus on who anti-liberalism extremists read. Or at least think people should read.
4. Nadia E. Brown at Good Authority on partner violence and the Combs trial.
5. Seth Masket on old presidents.
6. Henry Farrell on abundance.
And Saturday was election day here in San Antonio, again. This time it was the runoff for the mayoral and city council elections in which no one reached 50% in the initial election. So I voted again for both offices. That makes two election days so far this year, and five votes cast in all. I think that’s it until November. Unless we get a vacancy somewhere forcing a special election. Or if I’m not aware yet of another scheduled election. There’s no way anyone can keep track of all this stuff – and yes, that’s no way to run a democracy.