La Nausée

pepto

From the Huffington Post :

FBI Director James Comey revealed on Wednesday that the idea of the FBI’s actions affecting the outcome of the 2016 election made him “mildly nauseous,” subsequently causing lookups for the word “nauseous” to spike.

Merriam-Webster reports that searches for the word spiked 4,793 percent after Comey used the word during his testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

As Pepto Bismol sales explode today, Jonathan Chait enlarges on the consequences of Mr. Comey’s nauseating actions:

It is widely known that Trump — whose political profile over the decades has vacillated from liberal to moderate to populist, and supported and opposed abortion rights, higher taxes on the rich, and universal health care — does not care very much about political ideas. This explanation is true, but incomplete. The president also does not know very much about political ideas. And it is not merely the details of policy that he lacks. Trump has no context for processing ideas. He does not understand which kinds of ideas imply support for which kinds of policies, nor why political figures tend to believe what they do, nor why they agree or disagree with one another. He is capable of forming strongly held beliefs about people in politics, but he does so in entirely personal terms. Trump’s flamboyant, weird ignorance reveals a distinct pattern. He is not so much nonideological as sub-ideological.

It is common to attribute Trump’s protean identity as simple self-interest: He has aligned himself with whichever party seemed to benefit him at any given moment. And surely calculation plays a role. But it cannot explain all his puzzling statements about politics. Sometimes he expresses openness about unpopular policies his administration and party would never go for (like a higher tax on gasoline). Trump constantly relates questions about politics back to himself and his alleged deal-making genius not only because he’s a narcissist, but because the contest of political debate remains largely mysterious to him.

Many Americans share Trump’s lack of ideological sophistication. High-information voters tend to clump at the ends of the political spectrum. They may not have sophisticated beliefs, but their identification with one of the party coalitions is a tool they use to make sense of individual issues. Low-information voters tend to have a weak understanding of what the political parties stand for and how those positions relate to each other. These voters can be roughly categorized as “centrist” because they don’t line up neatly with one party platform or the other. But, rather than a consistently moderate outlook, they share a mishmash of extreme and frequently uninformed beliefs. Because they don’t understand the philosophical basis for disagreements, they assume the two parties ought to naturally cooperate, and tend to see partisan bickering as a failure and an indication of personal fault by politicians.

Trump thinks about politics like a low-information voter, which enabled him to speak their language naturally. His stated belief during the campaign that he could expertly craft a series of popular deals — “it’s going to be so easy” — appealed to low-information voters because it earnestly described the political world as they see it. …

Politics is a strange institution that forces committed professionals who have coherent philosophical beliefs to persuade voters who mostly do not. Barack Obama accomplished this in highbrow fashion. His characteristic political style was to incorporate the values of both left and right and try to technocratically synthesize the perspectives together. (“There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America.”) Trump accomplishes it in lowbrow style, by literally not understanding the source of the disagreement.

la nausee

Crazy Like a Fox, or Just Crazy?

crazy

That is the question posed by the headline over Tom Friedman’s column this morning. The column comes in three parts. All are interesting, especially the third.

Part the First: the Psychiatric Question

Friedman marshals (some of) the evidence:

You read all of Trump’s 100-day interviews and they are just bizarre.

Out of nowhere Trump tells us he would be “honored” to negotiate directly with the leader of North Korea, after weeks of threatening war. Out of nowhere he says he would consider a gasoline tax to pay for infrastructure. Out of nowhere he says he is considering breaking up the nation’s biggest banks. He also insists that his Obamacare replacement legislation contains protections for people with pre-existing conditions that it doesn’t.

There’s barely a dictator in the world for whom he doesn’t have praise. And he repeats a known falsehood — that Barack Obama wiretapped him — and tells reporters they should go find the truth, when, as president, he could get the truth from the F.B.I. with one phone call, and when pressed whether he stands by that allegation, answers, “I don’t stand by anything.”

Having, metaphorically, put the bullet in his mouth and rolled in around on his tongue for a while, Friedman can only bring himself to nibble:

Is this a political strategy unfolding or a psychiatric condition unfolding? I don’t know — but it tells me that absolutely anything is possible in the next 100 days — both good and bad. Trump is clearly capable of shifting gears and striking any deal with any party on any issue.

I have two observations, both of which arise from common sense and life experience.

First, if you are beautiful, you are probably inclined to think that being beautiful is the most important thing in the world. If you are really good at calculus, you may well believe that knowing calculus is the most important skill a person can have. In fact, being beautiful and knowing calculus are both good things, but life presents many circumstances to which neither beauty nor mathematical prowess is relevant.

Trump is not beautiful nor, I suspect, does he excel at calculus. Instead, the qualities which he possesses in unusual abundance—and which he therefore cherishes—are ignorance, low attention span, misdirection, prevarication, delusional clinging to false information that boots his fragile ego, and bluster. No strategy. Only tactics of highly limited utility.

Second, like Friedman, Aardvark is no psychologist. But I know that pretending to be crazy in pursuit of coherent goals is one thing, while behavior without any coherent explanation that looks like a psychological breakdown is something else.

Part the Second: What Has Saved Us Thus Far

Friedman writes,

In his first 100 days, allies and adversaries saved Trump and the country from some of his most extreme, ill-considered campaign promises. His foreign policy team stopped him from tearing up the Iran nuclear deal and moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Friedman expatiates with other examples. Please read for yourself.

Part the Third: What Will Save Us

Friedman continues,

As for the next 100 days, who will protect us? Myself, I am not counting on the Democratic Party. It’s too weak. On the issues I care about most, I’m actually counting on California. I believe California’s market size, aspirational goals and ability to legislate make it the most powerful opposition party to Trump in America today.

It’s an interesting point. I won’t quote further, because you can read it in toto, if so inclined.

I’ll just close by observing that, though a Right Coast person, I have spent a lot of time on the Left Coast. (Dr. Aardvark’s family and all that.) And every time I go there, I see something strange, or I experience an unusual atmosphere, and I am reminded of the Chinese saying, 天高皇帝远, Heaven is High and the Emperor is Far Away.

In Friedman’s telling, this is a really good thing.

 

An Increasingly Confused Mental State

Recently I posted on the topic, I Actually Think His Mental State is Deteriorating. This morning, Morning Joe and his merry band—surely not Aardvark followers—picked up on the very same point. The Andrew Jackson/Civil War madness. The Duterte White House invitation. The anticipated honor of talking to Kim Jong Un. The utter incoherence on his health care message. The catastrophic interview with John Dickerson.

This man is not well.

He was not well to begin with. Now that he’s losing, losing, losing, he’s breaking down.

All Hat, No Cattle

'Lord, we thank thee for the bounty we're about to receive.'

From Talking Points Memo, interspersed with appropriate commentary:

Trump got close to nothing in the funding bill meant to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. He ended up crying uncle or “no mas” on virtually all his demands.

Let’s go down the list.

The EPA was slated for massive cuts – roughly 31%. It will retain 99% of its funding. [All booster, no payload.]

Trump demanded funding for his border wall. He didn’t get any. [All foam, no Dos Equis.]

Trump wanted to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. It’s getting $2 billion of additional funding. [All lime and salt, no margarita.]

Funding is included for the Obamacare subsidies Trump has threatened not to pay. [All sizzle, no steak.]

There’s no provision for “defunding Planned Parenthood.” [All bark, no bite.]

There’s no language to defund “sanctuary cities.” [All fart, no poo.]

TPM goes on to note that,

Far from the terror to the North he appeared to be, Mexicans are concluding that Trump is low energy. …

None of this is terribly surprising. Trump presented himself as the consummate alpha-male ball buster, someone who speaks and embodies the ethos of domination his most ardent supporters instinctively crave and believe in. In practice, he’s repeatedly adopted what might be termed the preemptive fail, not only talking tough but failing to achieve his aims but actually jumping ahead of the process and unilaterally backing down or saying a metaphorical ‘nevermind’ before the supposed confrontation even arrives. As the Mexicans seem to have concluded Trump is less a threat than a bullshit artist who caves easily and is best either ignored or treated with a stern, disciplined and unafraid response.

No, Aardvark is Not Writing Headlines for Politico, and Other Miscellany

bigly

I didn’t write it, but I should have:

The good, the bad and the bigly

Trump’s early presidency in photos.

‘They Thought the Man Had Gone Bananas’

How Europeans reacted to Trump’s attack on Sweden.

Well, this should finish pissing off everybody:

Trump Weighs Breaking Up Wall Street Banks, Raising U.S. Gas Tax

Vasari’s reaction to the Lincoln post:

If only Trump had been prez instead of Lincoln.

I guess he’s appealing to his base. But it could backfire. Some of that base have such fun with the war. Gone With The Wind would never have been filmed. Lost jobs. Confederate flag makers–a whole industry wiped out. Jobs lost. Bad.

I Actually Think His Mental State is Deteriorating

Washington (CNN) President Donald Trump discussed the origins of the Civil War in an interview airing Monday, asking, “Why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?” …

Trump was analogizing his insurgent 2016 presidential campaign to that of former President Andrew Jackson, whom he has praised repeatedly, when the conversation turned to the Civil War. Trump suggested the former president might have averted the conflict and began questioning the reasons that war broke out.

“I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little bit later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart. And he was really angry that he saw what was happening, with regard to the Civil War. He said, there’s no reason for this.”

Trump continued, “People don’t realize, the Civil War — you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question. But why was there a Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?”

Trump’s comments about both the war and Jackson disregard key historical events. Slavery was the underlying issue fueling the fight over states’ rights that ultimately led to the Civil War. The federal government tried to avoid a conflict for years, most notably with the Compromise of 1850. As president, Jackson, a slaveowner, famously led the forced removal of 17,000 Cherokees across the country, which resulted in the deaths of thousands.

Jackson died in 1845, 16 years before the Civil War began.

Trump’s remarks immediately received backlash — starting with Chelsea Clinton, who tweeted that the reason the Civil War happened is a “1 word answer: Slavery.”

A tip of the hat to Lobo Loup for the tip.