Trump admits his crimes.

February 1, 2022

[Audio version here]

          Trump’s comments over the weekend continue to rattle the foundations of democracy—or not. In a curious divergence of reaction, many media outlets and commentators recognized the grave threat to democracy posed by Trump’s call for violence and his promise to pardon the January 6th insurrectionists. But other leading outlets treated the story as an afterthought, burying the story below reporting on the outcome of the National Football League conference championships. The New York Times did not run a story about Trump’s statements on the front page of its Sunday or Monday editions. Instead, The Times relegated the story to the “Politics” section in its Sunday edition. Hmm. . . it seems that a president attempting to intimidate prosecutors by calling for “massive protests” (read: violence) seems like a story that transcends “politics” and relates to everything in America. At the very least, it’s a story more important than football playoffs, no?

          Trump’s comments over the weekend did not age well—in part because he released a post-rally written statement on Sunday that admitted the corrupt goal of his failed coup. In discussing the current efforts to amend the Electoral Count Act, Trump claimed that Pence could have and should have overturned the election. Trump wrote,

Actually, what they are saying, is that Mike Pence did have the right to change the outcome, and they now want to take that right away. Unfortunately, he didn’t exercise that power, he could have overturned the Election!

          Of course, neither the Constitution nor the Electoral Count Act grant the Vice President any authority to reject ballots—that power belongs to Congress. As one commentator noted, Trump’s written statement seemed like it deserved a headline in the NYTimes that said, “Trump admits he sought to overturn election illegally!” But it appears that the Times did not bother to report on that aspect of the story (at least, I could not find it after searching). For those you on Twitter, the most reliable source of reporting on this story is Professor Laurence Tribe. Follow @tribelaw on Twitter or click this link Laurence Tribe / Twitter. Let’s hope that Merrick Garland is following Professor Tribe for guidance rather than relying on the news section of the Times.

          [Update: Late Monday evening, the NYTimes finally posted a front-page story about Trump’s weekend comments. The reporting was included in an article about Trump’s request to Giuliani to persuade the Department of Homeland Security to seize voting machines after the 2020 election. See NYTimes, “Trump Had Role in Weighing Proposals to Seize Voting Machines.” More on that tomorrow.]

           Speaking of the plot to have Mike Pence overturn the election, the Select Committee on January 6th has taken testimony from Pence’s Chief of Staff, Marc Short. That fact bodes well for the fact-finding efforts of the Select Committee. Short attended virtually all of the critical meetings between Pence and Trump and can provide first-hand testimony regarding Trump’s overt acts to further a criminal conspiracy. Having testimony from Marc Short will likely result in a more accurate record than would emerge from testimony by Trump or Pence, both of whom would bob and weave to avoid damaging their future electoral prospects. Once again, we are relying on the Special Committee to learn the truth, when we should be presenting the evidence to a jury of Trump’s peers . . . . The clock is ticking, Merrick Garland!

Don’t believe those reports about an impending civil war.

          I spend a lot of time responding to stories that America is on the brink of a civil war because polls and surveys report that Americans believe the country is on the brink of a civil war. I was delighted to see someone else take on the overblown notion of a coming civil war. See Musa al-Gharbi in The Guardian, “No, America is not on the brink of a civil war.” I urge you to read the entire article, which is filled with insight and analysis sorely lacking in most articles on the subject. Al-Gharbi’s article will help recalibrate your B.S. detectors so that you can make it through the next four years despite constant predictions of doom.

          Musa al-Gharbi is the Paul F. Lazarsfeld fellow in Sociology at Columbia University. One of the primary causes of the (supposed) coming civil war is belief in the Big Lie. Mr. al-Gharbi writes that evidence demonstrates that respondents understand that surveys are political weapons in the disinformation war. So, they give answers intended to influence the media narrative that will emerge from the surveys:

          [R]espondents regularly troll researchers in polling and surveys – especially when they are asked whether or not they subscribe to absurd or fringe beliefs . . . . Within contemporary rightwing circles, a rhetorical embrace of the big lie is perceived as an act of defiance against prevailing elites. However, many academics and pundits do not seem to be in on the joke.

Mr. al-Gharbi backs up his statements with studies and data (included in the article). He then turns to (gasp!) empirical evidence and common sense:

          The number of people who are willing to rhetorically endorse some extraordinary belief tends to be much, much higher than the subset who meaningfully behave as if that claim is true. . .  . Event organizers were expecting, “hundreds of thousands, if not millions” to take part in the January 6 uprising. . . .  Even if just 1% of those who purportedly believe in the big lie had bothered to show up, the demonstrations would have been hundreds of thousands strong. Instead, they only mustered 2,500 participants.

          So, to the extent that prophets of doom use surveys to predict doom, respondents are trolling pollsters because they want to affect the media narrative. As Mr. al-Gharbi notes, asking people to express opinions about speculative future events is inherently unreliable. Instead, look at what they do. As Mr. al-Gharbi notes, 74 million people voted for Trump, 50 million people believe that Biden stole the election from Trump, but only 2,500 showed up in response to Trump’s explicit call to “Stop the Steal.” The fact that 2,500 Trump supporters showed up is bad, but let’s not lose sight of the 73,997,500 who stayed home.

The latest Gallup poll on party identification.

          A reader sent a note asking me to consider and respond to an op-ed by Christopher Caldwell in the New York Times, This Poll Shows Just How Much Trouble Democrats Are In. Caldwell grabs a snippet of information from a Gallup poll and uses it as an excuse to retread every challenge faced by Biden in his first year. As always, if you only focus on the bad news, it is easy to paint a grim picture.

          I suggest that you skip Caldwell’s alarmist article and read the uderlying polling results and analysis from the Gallup, U.S. Political Party Preferences Shifted Greatly During 2021. The takeaway is that there were large swings in party identification in 2021—as one would expect. There was a huge swing away from GOP identification in early 2021 (a historical outlier) followed by regression to the mean. (No surprise there.) And, of course, it is no secret that Biden’s popularity suffered over the summer because of the resurgence from Delta variant and the biased media reporting over the withdrawal from Afghanistan. The landscape at the end of 2021 looks like it did at the beginning of the year, with Democrats losing some (but not all) of their historical advantage. Is that bad news? Yes. It is disastrous? No. Here are relevant passages from the conclusions by Gallup:

Overall in 2021, an average of 29% of Americans identified as Democrats, 27% as Republicans and 42% as independents. Roughly equal proportions of independents leaned to the Democratic Party (17%) and to the Republican Party (16%).

In early 2021, Democratic strength reached levels not seen in nearly a decade. By the third quarter, those Democratic gains evaporated as Biden’s job approval declined. . . .

The final monthly survey of 2021 showed the parties at roughly even strength, although that still represents a departure from the historical norm of the Democratic Party’s having at least a slight advantage in party affiliation.

          As I wrote in response to the reader, the polling does not seem to add much to what we already knew: Biden is having a tough time in the polls. What is new is Mr. Caldwell’s headline, which honors the time-worn tradition in the news game, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Excellent reference materials for Swing Left chapters and other groups organizing for the 2022 midterms.

          Over the weekend, I appeared by Zoom at the San Gabriel Valley Swing Left (SGV-SL) organizing meeting to make a few remarks. The presentations and information prepared by SGV-SL were exceptional! They were uplifting, fact-based, organized, and motivational. If you are running a group and are looking for ideas on how to educate and motivate your volunteers, check out the link here: San Gabriel Valley Swing Left Annual Kickoff Meeting. If you would like to contact a representative of SGV-SL about its materials, email Donna Jaffee.

Concluding Thoughts.

          During these challenging times, some Democrats are feeling dispirited, exhausted, and beaten-down. Others make the radical choice to remain optimistic and hopeful despite the seemingly endless stream of bad news. As to those who remain hopeful, bless you! You are serving as a model—and perhaps as a lifeboat—for those around you, whether you know it or not.

A reader sent an interview of Rebecca Solnit by John Nichols in The Nation, Rebecca Solnit Is Not Giving Up Hope. Ms. Solnit is an extraordinary essayist who is currently writing for The Guardian. (I have recommended several of her articles in the last two months.)

          Nichols interviewed Solnit about her recent book (Orwell’s Roses (Viking)). During the interview, Ms. Solnit acknowledged that she was “seeing bitterness and burnout” among those on the left. She then discussed her personal decision to remain hopeful after Trump’s election:

I said when Trump was elected, . . . “I take personal responsibility for hope, and I’m not giving up now.” I think a lot of people on the left believe they were personally appointed to be in charge of despair—or cynicism—and how to spread it, judging by how they conduct themselves or how they clobber people with it.

Having hope as your assignment is kind of great: You’re looking at who’s heroic, at what we’ve achieved, at what’s possible . . . .

          So, if you are the member of your group who is modeling hope, that is a gift—to you and to others. I like the fact that Solnit discusses “having hope” as “an assignment” because it conveys the sense that remaining hopeful is both a choice and an obligation that must be accepted by those willing to meet the challenge. Remaining hopeful can be hard—but it is always easier than surrendering to imagined fears and catastrophes that may never materialize. Yes, times are tough, but we are tougher. Take personal responsibility for hope—which is the surest way to prevent bad-actors or cynics from taking charge of it for you.

          Talk to you tomorrow!