The Concentric Circles Of Trumpism

Thursday Mailbag: Pardons ... Immunity ... David Hogg

Thanks again for your questions, readers. Please keep ‘em coming.

(Photo by: Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Nancy: What do ordinary Trump voters think about this chaos, the ongoing shitshow? Do they know much or anything about it? Our neighbors at our weekend place in Suffolk County, Long Island (home of EPA killer Lee Zeldin) are hardcore GOP supporters and Trump fans/Hillary haters who explained their vote in November by saying 1. They wanted to prevent an imaginary tax from destroying their small business 2. They objected to the ginned up campaign by Democrats about « women losing their rights » How to find out what ordinary Trump voters, not sycophants, are thinking?

I like to think of Trump supporters as inhabiting concentric rings. In the inner-most ring are the true diehards. Maybe 20-30 percent of the population. Basically the fascist rump of the country. The middle ring comprises low-information voters who have been voting Republican their whole lives and do so by rote. And in the outermost ring, you’ll find people who understand at some level that Trump is a bad guy, but thrill to him as a tribal leader, or like his vibe, and so they glom on to various talking points and hallucinations to justify their bad decisions to themselves and others. Outside of these circles you’ll find swing voters (some of whom have voted for Trump) and Democratic partisans—but these are “Trump voters.” Your neighbors strike me as classic outer-ring Trump voters. And they’re the only kind that might be broadly reachable.

I obviously can’t speak to your neighbors per se, but check out the comments from the Texas Manufacturing Outlook Survey I posted here. I suspect many of the respondents are also the kinds of people who felt a kind of cultural affinity for Trump, or convinced themselves he’d be better for business. Now they’re finding out the hard way, and they’re telling us what they’re thinking.

As

Paul Krugman

and I discussed on Politix this week, Trump’s first term floor of about 38 percent approval may have been elevated by the strong economy he inherited and claimed credit for. It’s at least reasonable to wonder whether that floor will fall as reality sets in and people in the outer ring exit the coalition. Perhaps a quarter of the country will never leave him—they’d rather rule an impoverished, fascist America than participate in a prosperous American democracy. And it’s very hard to get people like your neighbors to admit to a mistake. But Trump seems determined to test their stubbornness.

Jacob Crites: I’d be curious to hear about the merits of the establishment backlash to David Hogg’s primary-challenge…um, challenge. It seems to me Dems have lost the art of persuasion, and articulating the value of democracy itself. So I think Hogg encouraging citizens to become candidates is a great way of accomplishing that, and reminding complacent Dems that votes should be earned, not expected. But I’d be interested in your take!

The Democratic Party’s extreme institutional antipathy to primary challenges is, on one hand, a totally explicable and normal way for a party to be, and, on the other hand, self-serving and outmoded. It simplifies things for party officials, insures against the risk of losing the incumbency advantage—and contributes to the Democrats’ harmful, blindingly apparent ossification. To sell their view of things, they argue primary challenges are a drain on resources, divide the party, and air dirty laundry that can be detrimental in general elections. It’s not that there’s no merit to these concerns, but it’s like the cost half of a cost-benefit analysis, viewed purely through the lens of what makes life easier for the Democratic Party as an institution, rather than what’s best for the country.

By contrast, even before Donald Trump ran for president, the institutional GOP wanted to tamp down on primary challenges, but was losing control of things, as outsiders successfully primaried incumbents in all kinds of states. A decade on, Trump uses the threat of primary challenges to discipline Republican members even in closely contested seats. And the result is…Republicans control every branch of government.

But that shouldn’t be read to imply that primary challenges are good as a rule. Republicans have blown a lot of winnable races by ousting successful office holders and replacing them with kook candidates. It’s only this hubris that has saved us from larger Republican majorities and more Republican governorships. So the key is to foster a culture on the broad left that is competitive but also non-indulgent. Does anybody (other than maybe Nancy Pelosi and her understudies) now think it was bad that AOC primaried Joe Crowley?

I have no particular brief for Hogg. What makes his idea appealing to me, as I understand it, is that (unlike some of his progressive forebearers) he doesn’t advocate for fielding progressives to challenge moderate or conservative Dems (only for them to lose in purple or red territory). The idea is for regular citizens to challenge long-serving safe-seat Democrats, and, in so doing, clear out some stale underbrush. This is, on paper at least, a viable-if-risky way to make the party younger, more dynamic, and better at fighting—and it could work, so long as the field is open, not plowed for challengers who pass various divisive policy litmus tests. It interrupts the process by which a politician (like, say, Dick Durbin) serves for way too long, only to be replaced by someone almost exactly like Dick Durbin, just 10 or 20 or 30 years younger.

That said, I totally understand why the DNC doesn’t want Hogg doing this while serving as an officer. It’s ridiculous when you think about it. Hogg isn’t the Donald Trump of the Democratic Party. The quickest and most legitimate way to mix things up would be for Democratic voters to nominate an outsider for president, and for that person to clean house at the operative level and change party culture. Not for an operative to go rogue.

When I say I think Democrats should be less fearful and resentful of primary challengers, I mean they should stop closing ranks around bad members and dead weight just because they happen to be incumbents, stop threatening retribution against operatives and organizations that advise primary challengers, and things of that nature. That’s much different than saying the DNC, or operators inside of it, should set up outside PACs, pick and choose who should be challenged, and put them on blast in their states and districts. That’s a recipe for chaos and self sabotage, and we won’t like it if the precedent gets turned on independent-minded members by some future Rahm-like operator. Why not just step down from the DNC and run the operation independently?

Fortify Democracy: Do you think that now is the time that Democrats start playing offense on constitutional theory (in the same vein as the parallel track that “DOJ in Exile” is pursuing for collecting evidence of Trump Administration crimes)? That is, Democrats should be advancing bold constitutional theories that align with the spirit of the Constitution—its underlying principles of democracy, accountability, and justice—rather than being constrained by narrow (and made up) textualism or originalism that often serves conservative judicial activism. The main one that I think about is the presidential pardon power. Much of the commentary suggests that this power is absolute, but we should be rejecting that framing because a functioning organizing document for a government, like the constitution, wouldn’t allow a president to pardon themselves or promise pardons at the end of their crime-spree administration. Instead, they should be arguing that corrupt intent voids this if not all executive powers—even where text is silent. (Maybe something like: A pardon issued with corrupt intend is void; the pardon power is for reconciliation, not obstruction.) If the Founders feared kings, they’d never support a president erasing their own crimes. The same would be true for the Citizens United decision. Democrats should be openly and vocally saying that it was wrongly decided with max confidence, because the unit of influence for elections is the vote. We get one vote per person. Corporations are not meant to vote in elections, neither are foreign states that push funds through donations. The corporate free speech argument is wrong (and made up) because it fails the basic fairness test: is it fair that a collective that bundles money (corporation) is free to spend $1 billion in influence activities versus your $1? Further, we should be arguing that the rights of individuals takes priority over those of corporations. The constitution is an organizing document for the minimum rules for our society, and that is unquestionably about people's rights.

I love the thrust here, not least because I’m working on a piece about the value of organizing to circumscribe the pardon power and official acts immunity doctrine, or at least wield the idea as a wedge issue against Republicans.

As to the specific question of whether the pardon power can be interpreted as inherently circumscribed—not nearly as far reaching as the constitutional law consensus holds—there might be a very narrow inroad. Specifically, I think liberals and legal elites can and should argue that self-pardons are unconstitutional; Democrats should freely warn that a future DOJ will not honor self-pardons. No one can be the judge in their own case; a pardon is something granted, not bestowed upon oneself. These are solid legal and constitutional arguments, and common sense.

Beyond that, I think the Constitution gets in the way, and not just because the judiciary is overrun with Trump sympathizers and loyalists. The text just doesn’t leave much wiggle room: “[the president] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

But that doesn’t mean Democrats have to resign themselves to the idea that Trump can pardon his cronies and deny us all recourse forever and ever. Consider an analogy to when Trump fired James Comey in a failed effort to end the Russia investigation. That ended Comey’s FBI career irreversibly. But it didn’t create a black box around the matters Comey was investigating, or the question of why he was fired. Robert Mueller took over where Comey and DOJ left off, and investigated the decision to fire Comey. If Mueller, and later Merrick Garland, had more mettle, Trump would have faced multiple obstruction charges stemming from the Russia investigation, including for firing Comey with corrupt intent. Comey would still have been fired! The corrupt nature of the firing wouldn’t have magically restored him to the FBI directorship. But there would have been accountability for the corrupt deed.

Now, imagine that on January 20, 2029, as part of some quid pro quo, Trump pardons Elon Musk for any and all official actions he took in his role as a special government employee. That would probably cover some criminal activity that would then be basically impossible to criminally charge. And the execrable immunity doctrine would make probing and prosecuting Trump’s difficult. But it wouldn’t necessarily protect Trump from an investigation of whether, say, he granted the pardon in exchange for a bribe. He charged for that. Musk, too.

I think Dems are pretty close to where you want them to be on Citizens United. More generally, they should feel completely comfortable railing against the corruption and illegitimacy of the court, and call many other decisions into question. If we live to see the Supreme Court expanded, these would be the cases that would get overturned. From Heller to Trump v. U.S.

But I don’t think Democrats should embrace the kind of instrumentalism that landed us in a neo-Lochnerite, right-wing juristocracy for 20 years, until Trump seized the power back to create a presidential dictatorship. In theory they could establish a Federalist Society knock off filled with operative-lawyers willing to argue that the equal-protection or privileges-and-immunities clause requires the government to provide everyone health care, and then hope the Supreme Court imposes Medicare for All on the country 40 years from now. But as a general rule, I think we should try to deconstitutionalize politics, and make the democracy more nimble and responsive. If the demand for universal health care becomes overwhelming, by all means amend the Constitution to make the right explicit. But well short of that: eliminate the filibuster, add states, expand the courts, etc., then pass good legislation and implement it well.

Jonathan Rabinowitz: I was going to ask about the prospects for student-loan reform under a proximate D administration, then I got a little blue from thinking that such an idea would get shouted down by folks who argue that Ds need to focus on voters who don't have or want a college education. How do concerned citizens get out of this box and back to a position of broad support for bettering yourself through higher education?

The policy side of this is a little out of my wheelhouse, but I think the old social compact held up because concerned citizens (parents, teachers, etc.) would tell children, “if you work hard and go to college, you’ll lead a more prosperous and fulfilling life”—and the promise was true. Then we had a bad job market for years and years (which perversely drove more people to incur student debt) and it became untrue, or at least less true. The discourse and debates around student-loan forgiveness stem largely from that generational failure. And so the way to get it back is to take steps to make it true again, and make people believe it.

Trump’s policies are doing us no favors (degrading universities and scholarship, making the country poorer and more blue collar); but if his failures mount he might one day serve as a cautionary tale we can tell young people about hucksters with a vested interest in keeping the country under-educated. Beyond that, we want leaders who will make college more affordable (rather than something people have to go into debt for, hoping the debt will eventually be forgiven) and who govern well, so we don’t suffer through lengthy periods of labor-market slack that leave many graduates stranded. A long-term project to say the least!

Hannah (she/her): I'll take you up on the expanded-question invitation and ask about travel, albeit through the lens of politics.

I'm thrilled you're headed to Portugal, and I'm also super curious your thoughts on international travel for American citizens right now.

International travel inherently places a great deal of trust in your home country. You're placing a great deal of trust in your government, your State Department, and border security upon your return. I'm a completely private citizen without any real public-facing self and even I'm concerned about placing my safety in these entities for the sake of international travel.

I've read that The Atlantic has alerted their reporters on protective steps to take for re-entry for anyone whose reporting has been critical of the administration. I believe it was the AARP (!) who recently released a piece alerting people of their rights regarding their cell phones upon re-entry. It's all so alarming; and I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on it all, especially as you're someone who's not only very critical of the administration but also quite clear-eyed about the realistic risks of where this is all easily heading.

When I talk to friends and family about stuff like this I try to emphasize the important distinction between vigilance and fear. I don’t want citizens to begin acting on fear of their own government, because if they become unwilling to do leisurely things like travel recreationally, fearing harassment upon return, how willing will they be to march in the streets?

But vigilance isn’t synonymous with fear. Even pre-authoritarianism, it was worthwhile for people to know and exercise their rights. And today it’s worthwhile for people to understand how they can avoid common abuses of power. It isn’t an exercise in fear to learn and teach others about the difference between an administrative and judicial warrant, it’s an exercise in vigilance.

The customs question is similar. So I will travel unafraid. I intend to leave my computer at home, because I don’t want to get sucked into work while on vacation, or accidentally leave it in a hotel safe. But I may travel with a burner phone—not because I’m fearful, but because I wouldn’t want to compromise privileged communications, or have to surrender my powered-off phone indefinitely. I may also decide: fuck it—I have the resources and platform to make it a pain in the ass for them if they mess with me upon return.

David Stafford: "…answer to the question, ‘why do Democrats suck so bad at messaging?’ but the mailbag-length answer is that too many of them (including the leaders) are poll-driven rather than poll-informed. If you’re poll driven, then you ignore visceral outrages—unless polling happens to be on your side."

Does this apply to the transgender issue? It seems polling marks this as an issue where the Dem leadership is wildly out of synch with the public opinion we need to court. My read is that progressives cannot depart from their virtue signaling on this issue. Being the good guy trumps winning at the ballot box.

I’m going to assume for the sake of this answer that you specifically mean the transgender-sports issue, because that’s the edge-case where Dems sometimes end up on the wrong side of public opinion. And to answer the specific question, I think my critique does apply to the trans-sports issue. Polls tell them one thing, their consciences and activists tell them another, so they serve up mealy mouthed mush and hope to move on.

With that said, to lay out a better approach, I think we have to distinguish between the way politicians answer questions about the trans-sports issue, and the way they vote on trans-sports messaging legislation.

I admit I find myself flummoxed by the difficulty some members and candidates have discussing this. Republicans and journalists obviously pose the question as a false binary—yes or no on trans girls playing sports. But a nimble candidate, firm in their convictions shouldn’t need to accept the framing. What I’d say, because I believe it to be true, is that in some situations trans girls playing sports with cis girls will be unfair, and in some cases it won’t, and we should trust the communities where controversies arise to make the determination fairly, sensitively, and respectfully, treating everyone with equal dignity. We don’t need and shouldn’t want a law granting a blanket right or establishing a blanket prohibition, and we certainly shouldn’t want the president of the United States or other national politicians big-footing these communities, lecturing them about their decisions, or terrorizing their children.

One of the reasons we shouldn’t want to legislate here is that enforcing such a law would be a nightmare. Which brings us to voting. Unlike rhetoric, where the binary is false, a bill presents a true binary: yeah or nay. Voting no is the correct moral choice, but as you suggest it also allows Republicans to whip up shitstorms about Democrats voting to let boys play sports with girls. So it’s not enough just to vote no and try to hide from the issue. Democrats need to learn how to turn a yes vote into a liability for Republicans, or fight it to a draw. They could say, ‘I will never vote for Republican legislation to inspect children’s genitals.’ In the Senate they can hold a so-called “side-by-side” votes on legislation to prohibit the practice of inspecting children’s genitals for purposes of enforcing trans-sports bans. They could just learn to speak from the heart like this:

Being poll-informed, as opposed to poll driven, means, first, deciding what you believe. Then, if what you believe—on certain issues and in certain framings—places you on the wrong side of public opinion, figuring out ways to change framings, or move public opinion, or talk about the issues in ways that resonate and demonstrate conviction. That’s not what most Democrats do, in most cases.

AF: Do you think any part of the the right wing media (cable news, podcasts, etc) will ever turn on [Trump]? This would be more than the occasional handwringing or lamenting about certain things. A follow up is, does it matter? The current talking heads would just be replaced with new ones, perhaps.

We’ll be shocked one day by how many right-wing media figures were always against this.

More seriously, I think you see more than hand-wringing now from the right-wing financial press and from some neo-MAGA figures who thought Trump would cut their taxes and let them say “retard” and “pussy” and otherwise keep to himself. But as you suggest, talk is cheap. And angry anti-tariff op-eds in the Wall Street Journal aren’t the same as roadblock negative coverage and scandal-mongering on Fox News. The latter might actually break Trump. But we’re not seeing it, at least not yet. And even then, the question that really matters is: how would they cover something like an impeachment, or the broader question of Trump vs. the Democrats? We’ll know they’ve turned on him for real when coverage starts to turn and they start acting like life would be better if the Trump-era GOP self-destructed. Don’t hold your breath.

Nate: Ok, since you mentioned movies, I’ll ask - have you seen Warfare? And what did you think of it? I saw it a few days ago and have been turning it over in my head since. I can understand the critics who think it glorifies the Americans and elides the damage and suffering our involvement in Iraq caused, but I thought it’s single-minded focus on the actual minutia of war really highlighted in an understated way the pointlessness of the war and our involvement there. It also made me think about what the war did to our society - both for the veterans who suffered through this (and perpetrated the suffering of others), and for our society at large observing (or ignoring) this happening in a far-away country. Would be curious to hear your thoughts!

Warfare is on my list, possibly for this weekend! But I haven’t seen it yet. I wrote up some lengthy thoughts about Civil War, also by Alex Garland, about a year ago, and they touch on some of the same choices he seems to have made in this film. Happy to circle back after I do watch it to elaborate further.