On Wednesday, the dysfunction of congressional Republicans plumbed new depths: Senate Republicans blocked a procedural vote to advance funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Supporting each of those nations is in America’s vital interest. Failing to do so undermines global order and brings America closer to active confrontation with Russia, China, and Iran, at least.
The defeat was expected because Donald Trump wants to continue the crisis at America’s southern border to advance his partisan political interest. But the move also advanced the partisan interests of another politician—Vladimir Putin. Like Trump, Putin is temporizing, biding time in the hope that the clock will run out on Ukraine’s resources to resist Russia’s invasion. In Donald Trump's world, the hierarchy of interests is Trump first, Putin second, and America last.
The notion that Trump has re-ordered the national interests to put America last is not mine. It belongs to Thomas L. Friedman, who wrote an op-ed in the NYTimes, The G.O.P. Bumper Sticker: Trump First. Putin Second. America Third. (Accessible to all.)
Friedman writes,
There are hinges in history, and this [aid bill] is one of them. What Washington does — or does not do — this year to support its allies and secure our border will say so much about our approach to security and stability in this new post-post-Cold War era.
Will America carry the red, white and blue flag into the future or just a white flag? Given the pessimistic talk coming out of the Capitol, it is looking more and more like the white flag, autographed by Donald Trump.
“Trump First” means that a bill that would strengthen America and its allies must be set aside so that America can continue to boil in polarization [and] Vladimir Putin can triumph in Ukraine . . . .
A meme is developing that asserts that the GOP has surrendered to Trump. While that may be true, the deeper truth is that Trump has delivered the GOP into the hands of Vladimir Putin. The GOP is no longer serving the interests of the Americans who elect Republicans to Congress but instead acts as a skulk of useful idiots who unwittingly advance Putin’s interests.
Just ask Tucker Carlson, the poster boy for MAGA’s Putin Caucus. He traveled to Moscow to interview Putin because Carlson believes that major media outlets have not reported the truth about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Tucker Carlson believes that Putin will “tell the truth” about Russia’s invasion.
Remember that time when Putin assured the world he had no intention of invading Ukraine? See CBS News (2/24/22), Putin attacked Ukraine after insisting for months there was no plan to do so. Shortly after issuing those denials, Putin brutally attacked the civilian populations and infrastructure in Ukraine and kidnapped hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian children. The International Court of Claims has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for the war crime of unlawful transportation of children from Ukraine to Russia.
It is that Vladimir Putin—the fugitive war criminal and inveterate liar--that Tucker Carlson is preparing to lionize in an interview that will be lapped up by useful idiots who skitter at the mere arching of an eyebrow by Trump. As Trump prolongs a crisis at the US border and delays aid to Ukraine, he is serving Vladimir Putin’s interests first. Commentators are right in asserting that a megalomaniac has engineered a hostile takeover of the GOP—but it is not Trump. It is Putin.
How should we react? Should we despair? Should we shrink from another story that seems to turn the world on its head? No. We need only recognize that the rot in the GOP is beyond repair and that electing Joe Biden is a necessary condition to preserving democracy.
There is no gray area in the 2024 election. A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin. A vote for RFK Jr. is a vote for Putin. A vote for No Labels is a vote for Putin. Staying home is a vote for Putin. A vote for Joe Biden is a vote for Democracy. It’s that simple.
The Supreme Court’s hearing on Colorado’s disqualification of Trump
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Colorado’s disqualification of Trump from the primary ballot. You can listen to the oral argument live by tuning into a variety of public sources. See Constitution Center, How To Listen To Donald Trump’s 14th Amendment Case at the Supreme Court.
As we approach the hearing, there is a torrent of superb legal writing about the issues and possible outcomes. I admit that I have been overwhelmed by the volume of the analyses and find myself changing views hourly about the precise contours of my preferred outcome.
But the most helpful commentary I have read was recommended by a reader. It is Timothy Snyder’s reflection on his Substack blog, Thinking About . . . , Law or Fear. This beautifully written essay provides clarity and confidence as we approach a historic decision by the Supreme Court.
Snyder notes that many people resisted the notion that Trump could be disqualified. Objections varied, but as Snyder notes, for many, “It didn’t feel right” that a state could bar Trump under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Others feared the reaction of red states or MAGA extremists if Trump were excluded from the ballot. But as Snyder notes,
[F]ear is a poor counselor; it is certainly a poor legal counselor. When we are afraid, we are no longer seeking reasons to make the right decision; we are seeking excuses to do nothing.
Snyder also notes that what might seem abnormal—removing a candidate from a ballot—is actually normal:
The existence of Section 3 reminds us of another sense of the word “normal”: what we should do.
It is abnormal . . . to be an oath-breaking insurrectionist. It should be normal . . . to react in a decisive way when we face oath-breaking insurrection.
Section 3 is constitutional self-defense, enabling us to handle a difficult problem of the twenty-first century: what to do with people who are elected to office and then use that office to destroy the rule of law.
Finally, Snyder notes that the seemingly radical remedy of Section 3 disqualification is a tailored remedy that applies to a narrow group of candidates:
One thing that helped was the realization that Section 3 defines a qualification for the presidency.
Of all of the qualifications for presidential office, not having been an oath-breaking insurrectionist is, let us say, the least demanding.
Section 3 targeted a very specific group of people: not all insurrectionists, not all oath-breakers, but very precisely oath-breaking insurrectionists.
If you are anxious about the hearing in the Supreme Court and the possible consequences of disqualification, Snyder’s article is a good resource to help put the controversy in context. More importantly, he will convince you that the right result—the normal result—is to disqualify an oath-breaking insurrectionist.
Immigrants contribute to the economy and the tax base—a LOT!
The Congressional Budget Office released on updated report on the estimated deficit over the next ten years. Many factors put upward and downward pressure on the deficit. Of particular note is the role that immigration plays in economic activity and tax revenues. The CBO Director writes the following in his report to Congress:
In our projections, the deficit is also smaller than it was last year because economic output is greater, partly as a result of more people working. The labor force in 2033 is larger by 5.2 million people, mostly because of higher net immigration.
As a result of those changes in the labor force, we estimate that, from 2023 to 2034, GDP will be greater by about $7 trillion and [tax] revenues will be greater by about $1 trillion than they would have been otherwise. We are continuing to assess the implications of immigration for revenues and spending.
Conversely, the aging population in America puts upward pressure on deficits—a demographic factor that can be offset by—wait for it—immigration. So, next time someone tells you that “immigrants” are a drain on the American economy, you can tell them that immigrants will contribute $7 trillion to GDP and $1 trillion to tax revenue over the next ten years.
Concluding Thoughts.
Yesterday’s newsletter was packed with significant stories—some positive, some unsettling. Several readers commented about the length, density, and emotional burden of the news (and the newsletter). It was an unusual day, to be sure. Although it brought multiple developments of historic significance, their consequences will take months or years to unfold.
Don’t collapse the slowly evolving future into a single moment. And remember that the future is contingent. We can affect its outcome. Yesterday’s developments were mile-markers or pivot points, not penstocks that channel us to a pre-ordained conclusion. We have agency and control over what happens next. What we do matters.
Although Wednesday was filled with noise and urgency, it was mostly fallout from the events on Tuesday. So, I will cut short this newsletter to give us all a break. We are in this for the long run. We need to pace ourselves. Thursday will bring another momentous event—the argument before the Supreme Court on disqualification. But like other such events, it will take time for the consequences to unfold—and longer still to understand its ramifications. In the meantime, we have work to do. Let’s keep at and not be distracted.
Talk to you tomorrow!
In response to calls from Robert and others to communicate with the NYT about my dissatisfaction with the paper's Trump coverage, I did submit a comment, got a reply, and responded. This is the rather lengthy, complete interaction, for everyone's consideration.
1) Comment to the NYT regarding a position of Public Editor, and the NYT coverage of Donald Trump:
I understand that currently the NYT has no position of Public Editor, and that this is under scrutiny. My opinion is that to the degree that a Public Editor would advocate for the Times to be more forward in addressing the unique circumstances now of a fascist (accurate characterization based upon actions and words) running for President, and the threat that poses to the country, I am very much in favor of creating such a position and filling it with a clear-eyed person who would advocate to favor openly acknowledging what Trump represents, and not dance around it and pretend that this is a race between two candidates who both respect law and the Constitution. The effort to be balanced and fair is accomplishing the opposite, tipping the balance in Trump's favor.
================================================
2) Reply from Aidan Gardiner, News Assistant, NYT:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for writing to us.
We are an independent newsroom that aims to provide our readers with a full picture of the world so they can make informed decisions about their lives. We do that by pursuing and presenting the facts without fear or favor.
It’s a bit tricky to directly address your concern because the term fascism is used by different people to refer to different things. Please know that even if our editors don’t liberally apply that term, they do take seriously neo-Nazis (and similar extremists, political violence (and threats of violence) and efforts to curtail the checks and balances that are key to democratic government.
Donald J. Trump has made clear that he wants to radically transform American government if he wins a second term. Our editors agree that coverage of these plans should be aggressive and given prominence in our report.
You may be interested in some of those articles:
The Retribution Presidency
Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent -- (front page)
Donald J. Trump and his allies are already laying the groundwork for a possible second Trump presidency, forging plans for an even more extreme agenda than his first term.
Trump, Quoting Putin, Declares Indictments ‘Politically Motivated Persecution’
Donald Trump’s threats for another presidency are deeply alarming, historians and legal experts say.
Fears of a NATO Withdrawal Rise as Trump Seeks a Return to Power -- (front page)
Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First -- (front page)
A New Trump Administration Will ‘Come After’ the Media, Says Kash Patel
If Trump Wins, His Allies Want Lawyers Who Will Bless a More Radical Agenda -- (front page)
Sweeping Raids, Giant Camps and Mass Deportations: Inside Trump’s 2025 Immigration Plans -- (front page)
Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025 -- (front page)
Trump Wanted to Fire Missiles at Mexico. Now the G.O.P. Wants to Send Troops. -- (front page)
Reasonable readers have argued that this should be the focus of our report every day, but we believe that we would then fail in our broader mission to address the varied questions and concerns of our wide and diverse audience.
One of those questions is, “How likely is it that Mr. Biden will thwart Mr. Trump’s re-election to the presidency?”
Americans expect a lot from their leaders and want assurance that they can live up to those expectations when we give them power. Voters have legitimate concerns about Mr. Biden’s age. (His peers are less strident.) Were we not to report on it and it became a deciding factor in the election, many readers would rightly turn to us and ask, “Why didn’t you let us know about this ahead of time?” In that way, his age seems newsworthy (as is Mr. Trump’s).
How best to distill the day’s events in these pages is always a judgment call, but know that these choices are made by thoughtful people, like our Standards team, which has grown to eight editors. Unlike the Public Editor, who worked independently in the Opinion department and gave retrospective analysis of newsroom missteps, our Standards editors work beside their newsroom colleagues and review their articles before publication.
But missteps persist even under the watchful eyes of the best editors because The Times remains, proudly, a human institution. (For what it’s worth, much has been made of our 2016 election coverage, but two Public Editors served during that time and Mr. Trump was still elected.)
"I don't think there can be a 'paper of record,'" said a former managing editor of ours, John Geddes. "The term implies an omniscient chronicler of events, an arbiter that perfectly captures the significance and import of a day in our lives. I don't work at that place. I work at a newspaper that exists in a world where there are constraints of time, resources and knowledge. The wonder of the paper is that knowing the everyday limits to our ambitions doesn't prevent us from trying to exceed them."
I hope this clarifies.
Aidan Gardiner, news assistant
[MY REPLY IS IN A FOLLOWING POST]
[THIS IS A COMPLETION OF A PREVIOUS PARTIAL POST MOMENTS AGO ABOUT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEWS DEPARTMENT OF THE NYT:
I replied TO MR. GARDINER OF THE NYT as follows:
Mr. Gardiner:
I thank you for your lengthy reply to my submission. I offer the following observations. I acknowledge that this is also rather lengthy, but I think these are worthwhile considerations, not tangential, and not a rant.
1) Fascism is well-defined and Trump's words and actions match the checklist perfectly. If the Times clearly defined the term, it would be able to use it in relation to Trump's words and actions and there would be no room for misunderstanding. As an absolute minimum, the adjective fascist should be applied to specific actions and wording, also well-defined.
2) Given the crystal clear explanation of Trump as a danger to democracy in the article "Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent", why would the homepage of today's online NYT mention Trump 18 times and Biden 5 times (of which only one headline is positive (EPA action to reduce pollution, mentioned twice), and three are horse-race articles that talk about “openings” and “shifts” and a “comeback”, clearly communicating deficiencies up to this point, and not any worthwhile accomplishments. Is the President not doing anything newsworthy that is serving the interests of the American people?
The 18 mentions of Trump included:
5 about his legal cases (two were entirely analysis - no specific event, and one of these was listed twice)
1 featured a "crackpot" legal theorist whose ideas would allow Trump to remain on the Colorado (and other) ballots
1 was in the weeds of whether a witness in Trump's fraud case perjured himself in that case, which is relevant only to the amount of damages the judge will impose
3 about his "MAGA Superpower" (same headline mentioned three times) - This editorial bewails that the average American knows "next to nothing" about what Trump's explicitly stated plans are for a second term - whose fault is that??? However, this was mostly polls and horse-race.
1 audio offering an explanation of his appeal, which never mentioned the word "cult" (an accurate and negative term, instead using the metaphor of "rock star", a positive metaphor).
1 Michelle Goldberg editorial about Poland resembling what Trump would turn America into. Sobering, yes.
1 Nevada GOP primary results (horse-race, talked about Trump as much as Haley, normalizing his campaign)
2 in the headline and subhead about Jimmy Kimmel's and other late-night hosts' clever one-liners, but they only talked about Trump
2 about the border and Biden's stance changing to "offense" (same headline mentioned twice) (Mr. Baker's article followed the false narrative claimed by Republicans that Biden wasn't doing anything about the border during his first three years, when the facts as to apprehensions and deportations are the opposite, and failed to point out that the increase in the number of undocumented border crossings is not a consequence of Biden's policies, and is a complex matter having to do with political instability, gang warfare and climate migrants)
1 about immigration and the "lump of labor fallacy" (an economic analysis from Krugman that lumped Trump in with Mitterand and Kurt Vonnegut as promoting an economic misconception)
None of these stories, not one, speaks to the issue of Trump as an existential threat to democracy, his fascist rhetoric and behaviors, his cult appeal, his calls for violence, etc., etc.
As a group, they normalize him as just another candidate.
In my view, an accurate rendering of the news would never normalize the pathology that is Donald Trump.
3) I searched the NYT for the phrase "Project 2025", and there were 10 articles in which it was mentioned, dating between 4/2023 and 1/29/2024. NOT ONE INCLUDED THE PHRASE "PROJECT 2025" IN THE HEADLINE, and not one of them was specifically about the document that lays it out.
I then searched for the phrase "Mandate for Leadership" (from the title of the 887-page book that lays out the policy recommendations for Project 2025), and I found TWO references to it. Neither names it in the headline.
One was in an interview by Ezra Klein (which was repeated in a list of book recommendations for the year 2023), where the reference is buried far, far down in the interview.
The other was in a 12/20/2023 editorial by Thomas B. Edsall called " 'I Am Your Retribution.' Trump Knows What He Wants To Do With a Second Term."
Even after a litany of petrifying possibilities that would be unreviewable and technically “legal”, according to numerous quoted legal experts, which in the aggregate would turn the U.S. into a near-totalitarian police state (have you read this article?), the strongest adjective Mr. Edsall could muster to describe this was "alarming."
It is no surprise that Americans know “next to nothing” about this frightening document.
In summary, it remains my view that the NYT has failed to sufficiently inform its readers about the nature of the threat that Donald Trump poses, or the explicit details of how this existential threat would play out and affect them.
I deeply appreciate whatever time and attention you are able to dedicate to our communication.
Regards,
Gary