Tag Ron Elving

Here’s another reason I couldn’t work for this president

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

The first reason, of course, is that he would never ask me to.  Or more correctly, the deeply cynical and hyper-efficient Christian nationalists, and the vacuous and power-hungry suck-ups who run his administration, would have no use for me since I am not on board with their plans to turn back time to an America where white men alone are in charge of everything, women are meant to serve the men even when they are put in positions that seem to carry authority, and anyone not from their tribe – nationally. ethnically, religiously, or otherwise – knows better than to cause trouble.  (You don’t really think TFG himself came up with all these ideas for government “reforms,” do you?  He’s focused mainly on self-aggrandizement and financial corruption.)  The second reason is I could never keep my mouth shut long enough about the national embarrassment that is the Republican-controlled Congress and their complete abrogation of their responsibility to be a check and/or balance on the Executive branch to win Senate confirmation.

And the third is, it’s got to be just too exhausting, what with all the work they have to do to constantly kiss his ass and to flex for the public to show what big strong masculine manly men they are.  Here are two shining examples from just the past few days.

In more than fifty years of paying attention to the operations of the federal government I never once before saw anything meant to be so stupefyingly ego-massaging, while also as appallingly degrading, as the televised opening of a Trump Cabinet meeting, at which each member is expected to publicly slather the boss up one side and back down the other with excessive praise for some imagined achievement, all as he sits by with a canary-eating grin to feign embarrassment and gratitude for the unsolicited praise.  Imagine, if you will (if you can), how the titans of industry and government who agreed to serve in this administration, even when they had little to no respect for TFG himself, were silently thinking that they now knew what it must have been like for Prometheus to be chained to that rock.  Since then our government leaders have suffered no shortage of sickening superlatives any time they are called upon to describe Trump’s abilities, his wisdom, his patriotism or his leadership.  Now some of them have been called on to measure their praise of the president in another way.  Another, very weird way.

Will Marco Rubio’s humiliations never end? Recent photos show the secretary of state, whom Donald Trump dubbed “Little Marco” at a campaign rally almost exactly one decade ago, clomping around in shoes that are far too large for his feet. They’re black and freshly shined, an otherwise appropriate choice for a political leader a few heartbeats away from the presidency, but with a gap around his heels that could fit a sizable tube of lip gloss in a pinch.

The shoes cut an absurd figure, like a little boy pretending to be a businessman in Daddy’s oxfords. And they’ve got to be hideously uncomfortable. If you’ve ever walked a mile in the stiff leather dress shoes of someone bigger-footed than you, you know the blisters, toe stubs, and awkward gaits that can come as a result.

But a little fashion faux pas and a touch of foot pain are a small price to pay for pleasing the temperamental king of the GOP. As the Wall Street Journal reported this week, Rubio’s shoes came as a gift from the president, who has taken to bestowing his favorite brand of shoes on Republican lawmakers, right-wing A-listers, and the men who work in his administration. A pair of affordable Florsheims has become Trump’s go-to token of appreciation for his bro gang—or, depending on how you look at it, a mandatory uniform signaling the loyalty of his acolytes.

Having to wear the same stupid shoes to every White House meeting because your self-obsessed boss wanted you guys to be matchy-matchy is embarrassing enough. But the particular circumstances of Rubio’s shoes are downright pathetic. As Vice President J.D. Vance recalled at an event in December, the Journal reported, he was meeting with Trump, Rubio, and an unnamed third politician in the Oval Office when the president accused Vance and Rubio of having “shitty shoes.” Trump asked them all for their shoe size; Vance made sure to put in the record that he’s a size 13, while Rubio claimed to be an 11 and the third man a 7. The president then launched a sideways insult at the guy with the daintiest feet: “You know you can tell a lot about a man by his shoe size.”

That the “locker-room talk” president would place an inordinate, genital-related premium on a man’s foot size was surely no surprise to Rubio, who has risen in GOP influence in direct proportion to his willingness to contort himself to Trump’s exact desires. It does not seem out of the realm of possibility, then, that Rubio would inflate his own shoe specs to impress Trump with his masculine bulk.

You can imagine the gears in Rubio’s brain whirring as he sat across the Resolute Desk from Trump. If he shared his actual shoe size, the president might scoff at his presumably small penis. If he lied and offered a larger number, he’d end up shuffling around D.C. in Daddy’s big-boy shoes for the rest of time. The correct answer was clear: Rubio’s pee-pee reputation had to remain intact, whatever the cost to his feet.

(snip)

Perversely, Rubio’s gaping shoes might do more to please the president than any pair of ample-sized feet ever could. Humiliation is exactly how Trump prefers to test the fealty of those in his employ. If you want to be in the president’s orbit, you’d better pretend it’s the pinnacle of artistic excellence when Lara Trump belts out a nasal Tom Petty cover at the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve party. You’ve got to smile and choke down your Big Mac on Air Force One, even if you’ve made your name as the clean-eating guy. As the vice president, you’re supposed to graciously nod as Trump calls you incompetent, accuses you of being a buttinsky, and says you’ll never be his successor. Every time Trump makes these people lie to themselves or endure a public shaming, he weakens their sense of self and their public image, reducing their worth to their proximity to him.

Regardless of how they used to do things in whatever world they came from, the men of Trump World know they are now expected to be confrontational with the news media.  Aggressively confrontational, whether or not either aggressiveness or confrontation is appropriate.  Always.  It is part of the lesson Trump learned more than fifty years ago from the infamous New York City lawyer Roy Cohn, whose mantra when it came to any dispute was: never apologize, always fight back with greater force, and never admit you were wrong.

Even though he catered to the New York City newspapers in his business career, Trump the politician and president has always accused journalists – all journalists – of being against him.  Unless they are sucking up to him (yes, I’m looking at you, Fox News, Newsmax and some others) and/or inventing new ways to curry favor, any journalist who dares acknowledge provable reality and ask a non-fawning question is “the enemy of the people.”  Now, Trump didn’t invent this strategy, and there are plenty of conservative Americans who don’t believe impartiality is really a thing, who view any negative story as evidence of opposition rather than the result of regular old honest reporting.  We know that all of establishment journalism is not against this president, nor were they nor will they all be against any other president.  It is not their job to be “for” any president or elected official, but to ask questions and report news for the benefit of the readers, listeners and viewers.

That does not mean that there can be no complaints about how a story is covered.  Not all journalism is perfect…most of it is not perfect, probably.  And Trump is only the 47th president ever to complain about stories written about his government.  (I assume.)  In his case, the complaints are usually not that any particular story is inaccurate, but that it is insufficiently flattering of him.  What is different now is that this president accuses those who do not flatter him of committing treason.  And his top broadcasting regulator is busy showing how tough he can be with “the media” but forgetting everything he should have learned about the First Amendment last September.  Back then he was pressuring a television network to discipline a talk show host for expressing an opinion that Trump didn’t like or agree with; now, he is blatantly, unconstitutionally threatening to use the power of the government to put the offenders out of business.

Brendan Carr of the Federal Communications Commission, issued an explicit warning to broadcast television networks on social media, writing that “hoaxes and news distortions” could lead to the revocation of licenses for local stations, a threat that Mr. Trump said he was “so thrilled to see.”

(snip)

Previous White Houses also complained about domestic news coverage of American intervention in the Middle East. But this administration’s attempts to shame, and in some cases punish, journalists for straightforward reporting on the war has engendered comparisons to the demands of foreign authoritarian leaders.

(snip)

The licensing threat from Mr. Carr, the F.C.C. chairman, raised eyebrows in part because the agency has been traditionally viewed as independent. As a regulator, Mr. Carr has government tools at his disposal to punish media organizations, though the process for revoking a broadcast license is onerous and can take years. On Sunday, the Democratic minority leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, called his comments “vindictive, fascist stuff.”

Mr. Carr made his remarks on a day when he was seen speaking with Mr. Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., according to CNN. Mr. Carr was criticized last year for implying that he might retaliate against ABC for on-air comments by Jimmy Kimmel, the late-night host, who was then temporarily suspended by the network.

To Trump and Carr, and Pete Hegseth and Karoline Leavitt and all the others crying about their bad press this week: toughen up, snowflake.  (Maybe, don’t do those things that people are criticizing?)  And, seriously, what part of the government “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” don’t you understand?

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice…

Pat Ryan Leave a comment

The “supercommittee” admitted defeat; it won’t have a blueprint for reducing the nation’s deficit (stories here, here and here).  Is this a bad thing?

Some have argued, no: the first direct result of getting no plan from this committee is that the law which authorized it will now automatically cut $1.2 trillion from defense and non-defense spending over ten years starting in 2013, and that may end up giving us more deficit reduction than we’d have gotten otherwise.  No way to know for sure, of course, but it makes sense.

I mean, there’s no reason to believe that the same members of Congress who thought nothing of threatening government default for political gain this past summer were likely to come to any agreement now, not when the party that controls the House (and virtually controls the Senate with the threat of filibuster) is still holding its breath threatening to turn blue rather than be responsible and discuss the best ways to increase revenue as part of the answer (along with spending cuts and overall economic growth) to getting the federal budget on a healthy path.  None at all.

To believe otherwise would mean, first of all, believing that the sheep people lined up behind Speakers Boehner and Limbaugh have any goal more important that the defeat of President Obama.  They don’t, unless it is the personal destruction of Obama, and anyone unlike themselves.  Second, it means they would have to have the backbone to say no to the no-tax extremists and the campaign contributors.

I read an interesting article making the point that we’re foolish to think that our elected representatives will do anything that makes sense for us, because they’re in place to serve their bosses: namely, the minority of the population who actually vote in the primaries, and the even smaller percentage of the people who pay the bills through campaign contributions both above and below board.  (By the way, read Michael Moran’s piece setting the stage for his blog The Reckoning.)

The other thing to watch out for right now, though, is the cowardly Congress finding a way to back out of the deal it made with itself!  No Congress can pass a law that would prevent a future Congress from unpassing that law; just because it set itself this deadline and mandated future budget cuts as a penalty for failing to meet that deadline can’t prevent the next Congress from overriding all or some part of the threatened budget reductions, and that’s entirely possible for a group that already can’t say no to anyone (which is a big part of what got our budget in this mess to begin with).

Give some thought to Moran’s suggestion: in times of crisis, what if we take control away from politicians and give it to people who know what they’re doing?

A real super-committee – a real committee not only empowered to take the steps necessary to right the American economy, but competent to do so – would include 12 serious thinkers. They might include policymakers like former Fed Chairmen Paul Volker or (the suitably contrite) Alan Greenspan, economists of left and right like Stanford’s John B. Taylor, Yale’s Robert Schiller, NYU-Stern’s Nouriel Roubini, plus a few representatives of labor, small business and capital – let’s say Robert Reich, Joseph Schneider of Lacrosse Footwear, and Warren Buffett, just for kicks. No investment bank chairman, please, and no one facing reelection.

Can you imagine this group failing to come up with a solution? Can you imagine any of them worrying more about the next election than the future of the world’s largest economy? Certainly, they would clash – perhaps over the same tax v. spending cut issues. The difference: they would understand better than any member of Congress that no solution is far worse than a less-than-perfect solution.

This is our time

Pat Ryan 2 Comments

To call for sacrifice, the president will have to be willing to make a sacrifice himself.  Obama can offer his own political career. He can put his reelection on the line. He can make the 2012 election a national referendum on doing the right thing.

Evan Thomas, Newsweek, Nov. 13, 2010

George Bernard Shaw suggested that “If all the economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion.”  I prefer the rephrasing (source forgotten) that if you laid all the economists in the world end to end, they’d still point in every direction.  Like me, trying to figure out what to make of the budget compromise in Washington, D.C.

President Obama and the Senate Republican leadership agreed on a two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the highest-earning Americans, in exchange for a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary reduction in payroll taxes.  Is that good or bad?  Sounds like it’s good for the highest-earning Americans and the people who’ve used up their state unemployment benefits, at least.

Do you go with the argument that Obama is too reasonable for his own good, and that although he gave in on something he wanted in order to get something else he thought was more important right now, he’ll eventually have to say no to his political opponents or he’ll never get what he needs to deliver on his promises?

How about the argument that Obama’s emulating President Clinton by siding with “the people” rather than with one party or against the other, hoping that in two years the people will hate both parties enough to vote for him?

There’s no guarantee Congress will sign off on the deal: do you wonder about the fact that the GOP leadership doesn’t have all its ducks in a row to support this compromise, precisely because it will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars, especially one leading quacker who supported Tea Party favorites over establishment Republicans in the last election and might have some sway over new members?  Is it at all concerning to you that the White House finds it necessary to “warn” Democrats that not supporting the compromise could revive the recession?

Are you persuaded by the argument that this compromise, in which neither side made a truly painful political concession, means that no one in Washington is really serious about doing anything about the deficit right now?

I’m persuaded by Clarence Page’s conclusion that both sides are putting off the bloody fight until spring, when they’ll have to make a decision on raising the national debt ceiling—nothing focuses the attention quite like impending doom.

Whether the big fight happens then, or sooner or maybe later, I think I’d like to see what Evan Thomas suggested: that Obama take a stand—and yes, stake his presidency—on a call for Americans to make the necessary sacrifices to save ourselves from catastrophe.

…being honest about the real choices is the only way Obama can break through the noise and chatter. It is also absolutely necessary to save the country from very hard times ahead, or at the very least a steadily declining standard of living. Obama needs to start by explaining the mess we’re in.

Presidents have an ability to go to the people and ask us for what we wouldn’t choose to give.  And Americans stand up for their country, and for each other, in the face of a common enemy, whether we voted for the guy in the White House or not.  This could be our time to find out who the real patriots are, if only our leaders are strong enough to ask us to stand up.