Trump Tracker (2nd term)

Ugh, I hate starting this thread (and it’s revolting to write “2nd term”), but I want a place to post articles that will serve as a matter of record. For example, this WaPo article about Trump transition not working with the federal agencies that help every president make the transition. Here are things the Trump team are not doing:

Trump has yet to collaborate with the General Services Administration, which is tasked with the complex work of handing over control of hundreds of agencies,because he has not turned in required pledges to follow ethics rules.His transition teams have yet to set foot inside a single federal office.

In calls with foreign heads of state, Trump has cut out the State Department, its secure lines and its official interpreters.

As his team considers hundreds of potential appointees for key jobs,he’s so far declined to let the Federal Bureau of Investigation check for potential red flags and security threats to guard against espionage — instead relying on private campaign lawyers for some appointees and doing no vetting at all for others.Trump’s transition team is considering moving on his first day in office to give those appointees blanket security clearances, according to people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to disclose private conversations.

My concerns: control over the agencies will be poor; jeopardizing national security by not using secure lines of the state department with competent interpreters and giving blanket security clearances to people that shouldn’t have them.

Has the Descent into Autocracy Begun?

I believe Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic stated that modern day authoritarian regimes don’t usually occur through a violent coup. Instead, they happen gradually. The executive in power attempts to control the press, first through intimidation and threats, and then maybe eventually getting literal control. They take over the equivalent of the Department of Justice and FBI and begin to use these institutions to protect themselves and their family, while siccing these entities on their political enemies. They also surround themselves with people loyal to them–loyalty being more important than competence and fidelity to the rule of law. This is just some of things an autocrat does to gradually erode a liberal democracy.

Unfortunately, I think that process has begun in the US. (I would love to be convinced that I’m being too alarmist about this.) Really, I feel like I’m living in a nightmare, and I have a hard time believing this is happening. The situation is stressful, and in addition to praying a lot and greater effort to rely on God, I thought creating a thread to track the occurrences of backsliding would be therapeutic–specifically, having a place to let this out instead of keeping it bottled up. (Then again, this might have the opposite effect, in which case I might abandon the project.)

When I think about the beginning of liberal democratic demise, WaPo and the LA Times announcing they would no longer announce presidential candidates is what comes to mind.

A few days ago, here are some other things relevant to the topic:

  • Reports that Jack Smith will stop the two prosecutions against Trump;
  • Reports that Trump allies want to punish Smith, including talks that Rep. Jim Jordan will start a House investigation;
  • Trump’s appointments–Rep. Matt Gaetz to be the AG; Tulsi Gabbard to Director of National Intelligence (DNI); Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. That’s a few off the top of my head. This makes me think of a warning I constantly heard before the election: In Trump 2.0, there will be no guardrails.

More later.

What I Expect After the Election

In the last eight years I’ve consumed the most news in my life–subscribing to both the NYT and WaPo for the first time (sometime during Trump’s first term). For a lot of this time, I also followed several academics, journalists, politicians, former political appointees and federal government officials on Twitter. In the sections below, I have written things I expect–or at least won’t be surprised by–based on all the information I’ve consumed–including what I’ve seen and read from Trump himself. Indeed, if they don’t happen, I will be really surprised.

If Trump loses

  • Trump will claim he won and claim the election was rigged;
  • Trump and his supporters will attempt to overturn the election in a variety of ways;
  • (I’m hoping this doesn’t happen) violence from Trump supporters–including violence against prominent politicians;

If Trump wins

  • Harris concedes;
  • Protests from Harris supporters and maybe some violence from them;
  • Trump will surround himself with people who will do his bidding.
  • Trump will use the government to go after political rivals, journalists, businesses that have crossed or criticized him;
  • Trump will have federal court cases against him dropped;

I’m sure there are other things, but these are the ones that come to mind quickly. To me, everything I said above would be uncontroversial to anyone who has followed good sources of news for the last eight years; I don’t have special insight or knowledge. (I did spend some time and energy in consuming the information, though.)

How We Got Here

My previous post discussed the failures of the press relating to the upcoming election. But I don’t want to leave the impression that I believe the press deserves the most blame. They don’t. To me, a lot of great reporting occurred, but I believe they failed in the larger framing of Harris vs.Trump and Democrats and Republicans–a failure that may have superseded the great reporting in terms of overall impact.

Having said that, more of the blame should go to two other groups–in this order

Continue reading “How We Got Here”

Whatever Happens on November 5, 2024, the American Press has Failed Voters

A day or two ago, the NYT published comments from General John Kelly, Trump’s former Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Secretary, that were truly remarkable. He said, “Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law.” Prior to Trump this would have ended a presidential candidacy, especially since General Mark Milley said similar things (i.e., Trump, at heart, is a fascist) At the same time, for anyone following the news closely since 2016, Kelly’s remarks (and other comments in the article) are not surprising or necessarily revelatory (but the starkness of the language is noteworthy).

But here’s the thing: The following day’s NYT‘s front page had no big headlines of Kelly’s troubling comments, no follow up stories. It’s as if the story disappeared. Are Kelly’s claims accurate? Do other members of the Trump White House agree with Kelly? What about Congressional Republicans? How can the NYT not be interested in answering these questions? After all, if Kelly is correct, almost nothing else should matter to voters. Surely, Republicans and Democrats can agree that if Trump is a fascist, would rule like a dictator if he could, and really doesn’t understand the Constitution, no American should vote for him–regardless of his policy positions. Who would disagree with this? Therefore, answering these questions should be a top priority for the press.

The crazy thing thing is that the press already has mounds of evidence that support Kelly’s claims–not just from other officials who worked with Trump, but from Trump’s own words and actions. Indeed, the NYT’s editorial board recently provided a list of examples. (Also, see this Bulwark article.) And yet the story has largely vanished from the front pages. Yes, the press has done the reporting over the years–the information is out there. But by not featuring it prominently and regularly (like Hillary’s emails) the press signals that the story is not important (or, at best, or par with other issues, which ultimately weakens the seriousness of those claims). The treatment of these claims allows voters to view these claims as opinions that need not be taken seriously—allowing some voters to explain away the remarks (e.g., Kelly just doesn’t like Trump, etc.) In the Times editorial board piece above, here’s what they say,

Donald Trump has described at length the dangerous and disturbing actions he says he will take if he wins the presidency.

His rallies offer a steady stream of such promises and threats — things like prosecuting political opponents and using the military against U.S. citizens. These statements are so outrageous and outlandish, so openly in conflict with the norms and values of American democracy that many find them hard to regard as anything but empty bluster.

We have two words for American voters: Believe him.

Believe him? If they want voters to believe him, they should be running big headlines on the front page.The layout should signal that this story is more important than any other with regard to the election. The story should dominate the news cycle up until the election. But that’s not happening, and it seems like a dereliction of duty by the press.

(On a related, chilling note, the LA Times and WaPo were going to endorse Harris, but both papers (owners) have decided not to do this. This is not just a failure of the press, but also suggests that both owners are taking Trump’s authoritarian threats seriously.)

2024-2025 Rainbow Wahine Volleyball

I’ve been watching several of their games this season, and I wanted to jot down some thoughts. First, this team plays ugly. Bad passes on serves, hitting errors, and other mistakes—this team commits too many of them. Additionally, at times their block seems non-existent. And yet, they’re 6-1. If they were a high school team, I would guess their opponents just played worse–making a lot more errors. But that’s not the impression I’m getting.

So what explains their winning? Defense–i.e., digs–seems like the biggest reason for their success. This is a really scrappy team, at times reminding me of Japanese teams. If you want to see some good digs and long rallies due to defense, this is a team to watch. On the other hand, with good defense, I would expect better passing on serves. They’re passing can get really shaky at times, even from Ikenaga or Levya. (Levya has been an impressive freshmen, and in time could be special.)

Tough serves and good play in timely moments are probably the other reasons they’ve won. For example, against Oregon State, after an almost non-existent block in the early part of their match, their block game alive. In terms of serving Levya seems like a best server. (Ikenaga has been solid as a server, too, and follows Levya in the serve rotation, creating what looks like a solid one-two punch.)

With the way they play I’m not sure how long they can keep winning. I feel like they will get destroyed by really good teams, based on the way they’ve been playing. On the other hand, this team hangs in there (They’ve had a lot of 4 or 5 set games), and they shouldn’t be too rattled when going through rough patches during a match.

One other thing I want to mention–the coaching, particularly in terms of substitutions and making adjustments. Coach Robyn will pull Kate Lang and put in Jackie Matias at surprising moments. Against Oregon State, Ah Mow-Santos took out starting middle Jacyn Bamis pretty early in the match and put in Maddie Way, a shorter (5′ 11″) freshmen, who hadn’t played much (if at all). It seemed to be a good move, as Way provided a good spark for the team.

Now, while I do think the play has been inconsistent and ugly, they do have a lot of new players (while losing really good ones). It may take times for this team to gel and clean up their game. They have shown grit and fight, though, and that makes them worth cheering for.

“How can any meeting between Trump and Harris be a ‘debate’ if Trump has already made clear that he rejects the foundations of the American system of government?”

That’s a quote from a recent Atlantic post from Tom Nichols, and it gets to the absurdity of the debate for me. The policies of either candidate are secondary if one of the candidates doesn’t respect the rule of law, the Constitution or even facts. Briefly touching on the latter to go into the former seems wrong to me. Doing so implies that a candidate that rejects key beliefs and norms for a liberal democracy is a viable candidate. Maybe it’s just me, but I think that’s absurd, and the press sending this is message is a major failing on their part.