Monthly Archives: July 2018

Donald Trump, Polls, Tribalism

If it looks like a Blue Wave is coming, Republican voters will double down to suppress it

“Mr. Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45% in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the highest mark of his presidency and up 1 percentage point from June….

Underpinning Mr. Trump’s job approval was support from 88% of Republican voters. Of the four previous White House occupants, only George W. Bush, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had a higher approval rating within his own party at the same point in his presidency.”

Donald Trump appears to be defying gravity:

When it comes to polling, Mr. Trump has proved paradoxical.

“Welcome to the latest and most daring of Donald Trump’s high-wire acts, in which the president increases his degree of difficulty and manages yet again to stay on his feet,” said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

These survey results point to the greatest threat to a Blue Wave election that flips the House from Republican to Democratic control in November. Wave elections are powered by the amped up enthusiasm of voters in one party and the deflated spirits of voters in the other party. Both factors contribute. (Let’s set aside for another time various definitions of ‘wave election.’ For the purposes of this post, just suppose that we’re considering something simpler: Whether or not the Democrats will retake the House in 2018. Of course a host of factors, not just emotional highs and lows, generate election victories. And a host of factors, including events that will take place between now and November 6, will influence the results this fall. Put aside these complicating factors for the purposes of this discussion.)

Donald Trump’s support is ‘paradoxical’ because, on the one hand, surveys show he is highly unpopular (“Mr. Trump’s overall approval rating continued to rank among the lowest of any modern president at this point his first term, and the poll turned up warning signals for him.”) and he persists in acting as president of a factional government: he is focused on his base (not unusual), but (unlike previous post-World War II presidents), he is making few if any moves to attract support from voters not already on board with him. Much of what he says and does appears by design to alienate folks who aren’t part of his base – which “increases his degree of difficulty,” as Yang observed.

On the other hand, focusing virtually exclusively on the base is working for him on at least one level: His support, as measured by polling, shows that he has an extremely high “own party” approval rating. (In polling at the 500-day mark, approval from his own party exceeded every previous president, going back to Truman at the beginning of the polling era, with the single exception of the 43rd president, when Americans rallied ’round the Commander in Chief following 9/11.)

Paradoxical though it may be, Trump’s strategy is to focus on riling up his base – and the way to do that is often to deliberately provoke the opposition. A headline in this morning’s Washington Post featured a quotation from Paul Ryan (on the proposal to revoke security clearances of Trump critiques). Said the Speaker of the House: “I think he’s just trolling people.”

I agree. I believe this is a deliberate strategy. Like the popular campaign chant, “Lock her up!” (which Jeff Sessions heard and repeated this morning while addressing a crowd of conservatives), this is another case of trashing longstanding institutional and governing norms. And that’s the point: Trump vents, critics jump, and his base rallies behind him.

The result – as the Wall St. Journal/NBC News poll suggests – is an extraordinary level of support from the GOP base, at a time of general presidential unpopularity. This is something we haven’t seen before.

Republicans are doggedly sticking with Trump, even as his overall approval numbers are at historic lows.

There have been mixed signals regarding the likelihood that we are heading into a wave election, or even a more modest result that will bring a Democratic majority to Congress.

All kinds of things can – and will – happen between now and election day, but at this stage, the greatest threat to Democrats flipping the House is the possibility of sky high Republican turnout for an unpopular and divisive president.

November 21, 2018 update: Donald Trump succeeded in generating the “sky high Republican turnout” I referenced in this post. But there just weren’t enough of them to hold back the Blue Wave: “Trump’s Base Isn’t Enough.”

Donald Trump

That was the week that was (or wasn’t), but definitely shouldn’t have been

A brief review of an extraordinary week for U.S. diplomacy and the American presidency:

Sunday, Donald J. Trump on Twitter: “Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!”

Monday, during the Trump-Putin news conference: “My people came to me — Dan Coats came to me and some others — they said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin; he just said it’s not Russia.

I will say this: I don’t see any reason why it would be …”

And moments later: “So I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. And what he did is an incredible offer; he offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators with respect to the 12 people. I think that’s an incredible offer. Okay?”

Tuesday, the walk back: “… I thought I made that clear yesterday, but having just reviewed the transcript of yesterday’s press conference, I realized that there is the need for further clarification. In a key sentence in my remarks, I said the word ‘WOULD’ instead of ‘WOULDN’T.’ The sentence should have been: ‘I don’t see any reason why it WOULDN’T be Russia’ — a double negative.

I think that probably clarifies things pretty good by itself.”

But, while his written statement expressed confidence in U.S. intelligence agencies, he stressed that Russian actions had no effect on the 2016 election and suggested that Russia might not be fully culpable: “So I’ll begin by stating that I have full faith and support for America’s great intelligence agencies, always have.

I have felt very strongly that while Russia’s actions had no impact at all on the outcome of the election, let me be totally clear in saying that — and I’ve said this many times — I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place. It could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.

There was no collusion at all, and people have seen that and they’ve seen that strongly.”

Wednesday, at a press availability before a cabinet meeting:

Q: “Is Russia still targeting the U.S., Mr. President?”

A: “Thank you very much. No.”

Q: “No?! You don’t believe that to be the case?”

A: “No.”

Two hours later, Sarah Huckabee Sanders offered an alternative account of what reporters heard.

When she was questioned about the “incredible offer” made at the summit by Putin – Robert Mueller could travel to Russia to interview with Russian officials the 12 recently indicted GRU (military intelligence agency) spies, if the U.S. would send its former ambassador, Michael McFaul and other Americans to Russia for interrogation by Putin and company – which was widely condemned, she held open the possibility that Trump would agree to Putin’s offer: “The president is gonna meet with his team and we’ll let you know when we have an announcement on that.”

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert was more dismissive: “I can’t answer on behalf of the White House … but what I can tell you is that the overall assertions that have come out of the Russian government are absolutely absurd – the fact that they want to question 11 American citizens and the assertions that the Russian government is making about those American citizens. We do not stand by those assertions.”

Thursday, another walk back from Ms. Sanders – this time on the incredible offer: “It is a proposal that was made in sincerity by President Putin, but President Trump disagrees with it. Hopefully President Putin will have the 12 identified Russians come to the United States to prove their innocence or guilt.”

Friday, Director of National Security Dan Coats is in the midst of an onstage interview at a security forum in Aspen when Andrea Mitchell advised him of “breaking news” – a tweet from Sarah Sanders announcing that Vladimir Putin is coming to the White House in the fall.

“Say that again. Did I hear you?”

Upon hearing confirmation, amid laughter: “Okaaay. That’s going to be special.”

The nation’s top intelligence official had known nothing about another summit.

The interview offered even more unsettling news: Four days after the two hour meeting between Trump and Putin – with no other American present except for an interpreter – neither the Director of National Security, nor any other U.S. diplomatic or intelligence professional, knew the agenda or the substance of that conversation, or any agreements that the two men had made.

In contrast, by this time Putin had briefed Russian diplomats on the one-on-one meeting and lauded a number of “useful agreements” the two men made. Anatoly Antonov, the Russian Ambassador, had said that his country was prepared to move forward to implement the “important verbal agreements” concerning arms control, among other issues.

At this stage, on the American side, only Trump was privy to what had been discussed and what agreements had been made.

These events led to this exchange on “The 11th Hour with Brian Williams,” July 20, 2018, with Williams and John E. McLaughlin (who had 30 years experience in intelligence and counter-terrorism in the CIA):

Williams: “I have to ask you your reaction to finding out that our D of N I is unaware that an adversary has been invited to Washington, say nothing of others of our allies who have yet to receive their first invitation of this presidency.”

McLaughlin: “Well, Brian, you know, my reaction sitting there in the audience today was, you know, our government has slipped out of gear. It is not functioning normally. And that would not happen – I’ve served seven presidents – that would not happen in any other administration. And it shows that the President was not prepared for the Helsinki summit and is now improvising again.”

Monday, July 23, 2018 update: “Trump has now walked back his walk-back on U.S. intelligence and Russia.”

(Photo: Reuters / Kevin Lamarque; source: The Nation.)

Donald Trump, Polls, Republicans, Tribalism

The President sided with the enemy and his base stuck with him

“To state it baldly: the United States was attacked and the President sided with the enemy in his Helsinki remarks.”

This observation, by John McLaughlin, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and its former Acting Director, followed an extraordinary week of U.S. diplomacy and unprecedented conduct by an American president.

McLaughlin served in the CIA under seven presidents, from Richard Nixon through George W. Bush (including Ronald Reagan, pictured above at the Berlin Wall). He spoke in a thoughtful, low-key manner. By all appearances he is hardly prone to making questionable claims or besmirching American presidents.

It’s unlikely that many avid supporters of President Trump heard his remarks, because he made them during an interview on MSNBC (“The 11th Hour with Brian Williams,” July 20, 2018). This circumstance, along with the fact that he was voicing criticism of the President, makes it likely that Trump’s base would discredit the observation – never mind McLaughlin’s 30 years of public service in U.S. intelligence.

An Axios/Survey Monkey poll asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump handled his press conference with Putin?”

Although only 40% of respondents expressed approval, among Republicans 79% approved.

A Washington Post-ABC poll taken several days later asked, “Do you approve or disapprove of the way Trump handled his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week?” and recorded these results: 33% approval overall, but 66% among Republicans.

A second question, “Overall do you think Trump went too far in supporting Putin, not far enough, or handled this about right?” While 40% said too far, only 14% of Republicans agreed.

(It’s possible that strong criticism from Congressional Republicans and other GOP leaders – between the two polls – dampened the enthusiasm of grassroots Republicans.)

What’s going on? Ronald Reagan, the perennial icon of Republicanism, is widely credited with winning the Cold War against “the Evil Empire.” Among Republican elites – with only an exception or two, such as California’s Representative Dana Rohrabacher – revanchist Russia, circa 2018, is hardly more trusted than was the U.S.S.R. Have Republican voters had any reason – apart from taking a cue from Trump – to look favorably on the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin?

Of course not. This poll reflects contemporary political tribalism. Trump voters – which include huge majorities in the mainstream Republican Party – are in his corner come what may.

In her book, Political Tribes: Group Instinct and the Fate of Nations, Amy Chua writes about the human instinct to bond – and exclude – and about how groups shape who we are and how we act toward others. The group identities that people are most tightly bound to are ethnic, regional, religious, sectarian, and clan based.  Group loyalties lead people to “seek to benefit their group mates even when they personally gain nothing. They will penalize outsiders, seemingly gratuitously. They will sacrifice, and even kill and die, for their groups.”

In successive chapters on U.S. foreign policy failures (in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq), Chua looks at tribal loyalties –the ethnic Chinese vs. the Vietnamese, the Pashtuns vs. numerous other clans in Afghanistan, and Sunnis vs. Shias in Iraq – which dominated the conflicts (even when American leaders were completely oblivious to these divisions) and frustrated U.S. military, political, and economic objectives.

In each of these situations, a “market-dominant minority” – the Chinese, Pashtuns, and Sunnis, respectively – held sway over the poorer majority population, creating anger and resentment. “Market-dominant minorities are one of the most potent catalysts of political tribalism.”

The American blindness to group identities abroad is true as well of social divisions in our own country – at least it has been until recently, as political polarization has come to be a defining feature of our national life. It has become harder to overlook, especially since the election of Donald Trump in November 2016. And, as awareness of tribalism in developing countries has increased, many have seen a similar dynamic in the U.S. with rising economic inequality and a growing gap between the richest Americans and the rest of us. This picture is complicated, as Chua notes, by the existence of not one, but two white tribes in this country – on opposite sides of the cultural issues that divide us.

Much post-election analysis and discussion has focused on competing theories of the Trump vote as it relates to working class white folks (whose strong turnout in a number of states Clinton expected to win instead put Trump over the top). Was it racism or economic hardship that moved these voters?

After watching Trump’s campaign – and hearing from his voters – many have pushed back against the idea of economic distress as an explanation, as Chua observes. She writes:

“But to see the divisiveness in today’s America – and the forces that brought about Trump’s election – as solely about racism, while ignoring the role of inequality, misses too much of the picture. Even putting economics aside, it misses the role played by white-against-white resentment and antagonism.”

For the purposes of this post, we need not resolve this issue – race or economics – to conclude: tribalism, not sweet reason or logical consistency or respect for facts, has kept Trump’s base behind him – even when events have cast doubt on the measure of his loyalty and his devotion to protecting and defending our country.

July 23, 2018 update – Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll:

“Mr. Trump’s job approval rating rose to 45% in a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, the highest mark of his presidency and up 1 percentage point from June….

Underpinning Mr. Trump’s job approval was support from 88% of Republican voters. Of the four previous White House occupants, only George W. Bush, in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, had a higher approval rating within his own party at the same point in his presidency.”

(Photo: Ronald Reagan speaking at the Brandenburg Gate on June 12, 1987.)

Donald Trump, Polls, Republicans

Reason to believe, reason to doubt

“Across Poplar Bluff, a struggling town of 17,000 in a remote pocket of southeast Missouri, many residents are reluctant to criticize Trump as they grapple with the prospect that their community could be one of the trade war’s first casualties,” reports Jenny Jarvie for the Los Angeles Times.

The second largest employer in this small Missouri city, Mid Continent Nail Corporation, which employs more than 500 residents, laid off 60 assembly line workers last month – a direct result of a 25% tariff on steel imports from Mexico imposed by the Trump administration.

Residents have been rattled by this turn of events, but not enough to shake their support for Trump.

A machine programmer – and Trump supporter – at the factory says, “I support him 100%. In fact, I’d like to shake his hand. He’s doing a great job.”

A 12-year employee at Mid Continent, who still supports Trump, says, “Most workers are behind Trump, no matter what.”

The president of the local chamber of commerce said, in declining to comment about the president or his trade policies, “You won’t get a lot of people speaking around here.”

While folks fear losing their jobs and perhaps their homes, they continue to credit Trump with looking at “the big picture” and doing the right thing about trade.

At a time when Trump commands the loyalty of 90% of Republicans, this is just another data point. Although his overall approval remains historically low relative to recent presidents, at the 500-day mark, Trump’s “own party” job approval rating trailed only one president – George W. Bush, following 9/11 – in Gallup polling since World War II.

Link (and larger graph): Trump’s 500-day coup of the GOP, Conservatism – Jonathan Swan, Axios

In Butler County in November 2016, Trump received 79.2% of the vote, compared to Clinton’s 17.6%. A key to Trump’s victory were a handful of campaign promises he made that conflicted with conventional conservative views (and the well-established positions of the Republican Party and its donor class). In most instances, he caved once in office – and followed Republican orthodoxy – but he hasn’t done that with free trade and U.S. manufacturing jobs. And voters in Poplar Bluff credit him for that.

Missouri is a red state. In Butler County, more than 92% of residents are white. Fewer than 12% have college degrees. The median household income is $36,302. So, voter preferences are not surprising. But in 2012, Barack Obama received a higher level of support (25.8%) in Butler County against Mitt Romney (72.5%), than did Clinton against Trump. The Democratic ticket lost 1,327 voters in 2016 compared to 4 years earlier.

It’s likely that virtually no Trump voters in Poplar Bluff could list a single Clinton pledge directly related to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs or the economic anxieties felt in small cities and towns across the Midwest. In contrast, they remember that it was Bill Clinton who gave us NAFTA.

And virtually all remember Hillary Clinton’s statement during the campaign that half of Trump supporters were a “basket of deplorables.”

(Photo from Google Maps.)

 

 

 

 

Democracy, Donald Trump

“Is this the most divided you have ever seen the United States?”

Jamie Dupree, a reporter whose career began during the Reagan administration, reports hearing that question frequently.

His response: “My answer is always – no, this is not the most divided that our country has been, even in my lifetime.”

He points to events of 45 to 50 years ago (1968-1973).

I was a freshman in college in 1968, a year the nation experienced two political assassinations – of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy; the My Lai massacre; and brutal clashes between protesters and the police at the National Democratic Convention in Chicago, which paved the way for the election of Richard Nixon.

The nation was engulfed in the Vietnam War abroad and protests in the streets at home. In 1970, National Guardsmen fired on protesting students at Kent State University, killing four of them. (Dupree’s post features a soundtrack of Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s “Ohio,” with a photo montage from that year to illustrate the social chaos the country was experiencing.)

We don’t have half a million troops fighting a war in Southeast Asia today with high casualties and a military draft. We don’t have the level of violence in the streets that we had 50 years ago. So Dupree’s conclusion that we are less divided today than we were then is not unreasonable.

Nonetheless, this conclusion leaves something out. Since the late ’60s and early ’70s, our politics has become much more tribal. We are more separate than before in many ways. And in 2016, we elected the first president in my lifetime who, in Jonathan Bernstein’s words, “doesn’t even attempt to be president of the whole nation.” Even Nixon, who kept an enemies list – but kept it private, often spoke to the country as a whole and sought to appeal to – and to represent – both independents and Democrats, not just the Republican base.

Donald Trump began his political ascent as the chief proponent of the birther theory – intending to delegitimize his predecessor in the White House. His political rallies in 2016, and the Republican National Convention that nominated him, featured frenzied chants of “Lock her up!” directed at his Democratic opponent.  So (although for many months following his election, pundits predicted, and often professed to see, a pivot – the turning point where Trump adopted the norms and mores of recent – and distant – presidents) his approach to governing has been of a piece with his campaign. It’s either all-in with Trump; or excluded and excoriated.

The 45th president has, in effect, championed factional government. (Josh Marshall makes this point.) He has done so very deliberately and for all to see.

The phrase, “factional government,” is something we are accustomed to hearing applied to unstable regimes, or where opponents control separate regions – in the Middle East, for instance. When sectarian divisions exist, and there is no shared conception of the national interest, then insular, zero-sum tactics predominate. When one faction gains the upper hand, however precariously, disfavored groups – and a common, overarching public good – suffer.

The concept of factions has a special place in American political thought. James Madison – who feared that democratic society could be ripped apart by factionalism – wrote, in Federalist 10: “By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

The stubborn refusal of our president to embrace America whole – all of our citizens; our country’s abiding national interest; what we share in common, not what divides us – sets this era apart from the divisive years that Dupree recalls.

(Post revised July 13, 2018 to introduce Josh Marshall’s reference to factional government.)

(Photo from video montage – CSN&Y’s “Ohio.”)