monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

There's no waking up from America's Trump nightmare

The events of this week have confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Oval Office is occupied by an ignorant, impulse-driven lunatic.

Just how much of a lunatic is President Donald J. Trump? So much so that he fired the director of the FBI in a fit of pique despite the fact that the FBI is conducting an investigation of whether and to what extent the president's own campaign colluded with Russian intelligence services to manipulate the election that landed Trump in the White House. If self-inflicted wounds can range from a paper cut to a bullet in the brain, this is something like the accidental amputation of a leg just above the knee: The victim can still get around, but he's undeniably and irreversibly hobbled, not to mention weakened by a near-fatal loss of blood.

But not even that gruesome metaphor manages to capture the extent of our president's distinctive form of self-destructive madness. There isn't a single office holder, political operative, experienced staffer, or journalist in Washington who wouldn't have grasped in an instant that firing James Comey under such circumstances would be massively harmful to the president's efforts to defend himself against the Russian allegations and could well open himself up to a credible (or perhaps more than credible) charge of obstruction of justice. Even bomb-thrower extraordinaire Stephen Bannon understood it!

But not Trump, the most clueless man in Washington, who thought he would be cheered by Republicans and Democrats alike. Trolling around for someone to back him up, the president did what any impulse-driven lunatic would do: He reportedly turned for counsel to the one person who just might be as certifiably delusional as himself. In this case, that was Roger Stone — a man who also just so happens to be under investigation by the FBI.

Comey may have made some pretty massive mistakes over the past year, but as he exits public life, let's give him the honor of providing the definitive summation of this week's farcical events. According to The New York Times, Comey told associates that in his judgment the president was "outside the realm of normal," even "crazy." Amen, brother.

Thankfully, America's constitutional system of government provides a means of saving the country (and the world) from having to endure 44 more months with President Queeg at the helm. As the president's most tireless online antagonists repeat hourly, Trump would seem to be a prime candidate for impeachment and/or removal from office, if not under Article II, Section 4, then using Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, which provides a means of removing a president on grounds of impairment ("unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office")

wish I could believe it. But alas, there is still no evidence — no evidence at all — that Trump's term will be cut short. It remains, and shows every sign of remaining, a fantasy.

The choice to initiate impeachment proceedings, let alone the act of voting for removal from office, is not automatic. You could be excused for thinking otherwise from perusing the flurry of tweets that regularly refer to how some statement or action by the president is bound to jumpstart the process. "Obstruction of justice! Just like Watergate! You're going down, Mr. President!"

If only it were that simple. Seeking to remove a sitting president from office prior to the conclusion of his term is a supremely political act. And the demoralizing fact is that there is no political will to undertake such an act against President Trump.

When Nixon faced impeachment, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and it was a far less polarized era in terms of both ideology and partisanship — one in which powerful Republicans were willing to speak out against the president when he acted to obstruct justice. This was also long before the advent of news outlets explicitly designed to push a political line, when the mainstream media (a handful of TV networks, newspapers, and weekly newsmagazines) monopolized the distribution of information to the electorate — and these outlets were uniformly skeptical of the president's increasingly desperate defenses of himself and his administration.

Things are profoundly different now. The two parties are more polarized than at any time since the Civil War. The president's own party controls both houses of Congress, and the vast majority of Republican voters support the president — in large part because many of these voters have cut themselves off from legitimate news sources and now receive the bulk of their information from propaganda outlets like Fox News, talk radio, and websites that specialize in gratuitous and cowardly displays of anti-anti-Trumpism that automatically deflects criticism of the president.

But don't take my word for it. Just look at the helpful list The New York Times has compiled of responses to Comey's firing among lawmakers. As I write, 136 Democrats or independents have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor or its equivalent. The number of Republicans who have done the same? Zero. The number of Democrats who have called for an independent investigation? Eighty-five. Republicans? Five. While a grand total of 40 Republicans have gone so far as to express "concern," more than twice that many (90) have offered support for the president or refused to comment one way or the other.

That is not the behavior of a party even tip-toeing in the direction of turning on its president.

And perhaps most unsettling of all, the dynamic is powerfully self-reinforcing. The more it is Democrats alone who criticize or denounce Trump's words and actions, the more Republicans can dismiss the response as an expression of ordinary partisan animus, which nicely confirms Republican voters in their tendency to view everything the other party does as a politically motivated witch hunt.

Until something breaks through this partisan wall and begins to change public opinion among rank-and-file Republicans, Trump will stay right where he is.

Of course Democrats can and should work hard to take control of both houses of Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. That could open up more possibilities beginning in 2019. But recall: Removing a president from office under Article II requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate, while the 25th Amendment requires a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. It's hard to imagine any series of events that would deliver that kind of electoral sweep to the Democrats in either chamber, let alone both.

Donald Trump is overwhelmingly likely to remain our president through the end of his term. God help us all.

David Frum‏Verified account
@davidfrum
One conclusion from the week’s events: Mike Pence is more orderly and disciplined than Trump, but no more respectful of truth & legality

David Frum‏Verified account
@davidfrum
This isn’t remotely like Watergate. During Watergate, honorable people in government resigned rather than be associated with improper acts.

Maternal Mortality Is Rising in the U.S. As It Declines Elsewhere
Deaths per 100,000 live births

But perhaps most important, we saw once again how conservatism, with its belief in ordered liberty, is being eclipsed by something different: Loathing those who loath the president. Rabid anti-anti-Trumpism.

In a lamentably overlooked monologue this month, Mr. Limbaugh embraced the new reality in which conservative ideas and principles had been displaced by anti-liberalism. For years, Mr. Limbaugh ran what he called the “Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies.” But in the Trump era, he told his audience, he has changed that to the “Institute for Advanced Anti-Leftist Studies.”

With Mr. Trump in the White House, conservative principles were no longer the point. “How many times during the campaign did I warn everybody Trump is not a conservative? Multiple times a day,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “How many times have I told you: ‘Do not expect Trump to be a conservative? He isn’t one.’ ”

He went on to emphasize that the campaign was not about conservatism, because that’s not what Mr. Trump is about.

That was a remarkable admission, but it is also a key to understanding what is happening on the right. While there are those like Sean Hannity who are reliable cheerleaders for all things President Trump, much of the conservative news media is now less pro-Trump than it is anti-anti-Trump.

The distinction is important, because anti-anti-Trumpism has become the new safe space for the right.

Here is how it works: Rather than defend President Trump’s specific actions, his conservative champions change the subject to (1) the biased “fake news” media, (2) over-the-top liberals, (3) hypocrites on the left, (4) anyone else victimizing Mr. Trump or his supporters and (5) whataboutism, as in “What about Obama?” “What about Clinton?”

For the anti-anti-Trump pundit, whatever the allegation against Mr. Trump, whatever his blunders or foibles, the other side is always worse.

But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents. Mr. Trump’s base is unlikely to hold him either to promises or tangible achievements, because conservative politics is now less about ideas or accomplishments than it is about making the right enemies cry out in anguish.

Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters don’t have to defend his specific actions as long as they make “liberal heads explode,” or as Sarah Palin put it so memorably, “It’s really funny to me to see the splodey heads keep sploding.” If liberals hate something, the argument goes, then it must be wonderful and worthy of aggressive defense. Each controversy reinforces the divisions and the distrust, and Mr. Trump counts on that.

For many in the conservative movement, this sort of anti-anti-Trumpism is the solution to the painful conundrum posed by the Trump presidency. With a vast majority of conservative voters and listeners solidly behind Mr. Trump, conservative critics of the president find themselves isolated and under siege. But, as Damon Linker noted, anti-anti-Trumpism “allows the right to indulge its hatred of liberals and liberalism while sidestepping the need for a reckoning with the disaster of the Trump administration itself.”

This is also a much sounder business model than airing doubts about the president. Conservative media is, of course, a business that relies on ratings, and few things generate ratings more quickly than bashing liberals. In this case, it is a far better business model for talk show hosts to play down Mr. Trump’s failures while piling on his enemies.

The ad hominem argument is rightly regarded as a logical fallacy because it substitutes personal attacks for a discussion of the argument someone is making. But on many talk shows, including Mr. Limbaugh’s, nearly every argument is ad hominem. Instead of offering statistics and building a case, it is easier to simply make fun of a Trump critic like Representative Maxine Waters, or shrug off a negative report because it came from the “lamestream media.”

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of airtime on conservative media is not taken up by issues or explanations of conservative approaches to markets or need to balance liberty with order. Why bother with such stuff, when there were personalities to be mocked and left-wing moonbats to be ridiculed?

What may have begun as a policy or a tactic in opposition has long since become a reflex. But there is an obvious price to be paid for essentially becoming a party devoted to trolling. In the long run, it’s hard to see how a party dedicated to liberal tears can remain a movement based on ideas or centered on principles.

But the real heart of anti-anti-Trumpism is the delight in the frustration and anger of his opponents...Mr. Trump’s most vocal supporters don’t have to defend his specific actions as long as they make “liberal heads explode....few things generate ratings more quickly than bashing liberals.

The ad hominem argument is rightly regarded as a logical fallacy because it substitutes personal attacks for a discussion of the argument someone is making. What may have begun as a policy or a tactic in opposition has long since become a reflex.

...most of the conservative media fell into line