Category: The Presidency

TRUMP’S ROAD TO TYRANNY IS PAVED WITH RESISTANCE

Nearly nine months into Trump’s presidency, there is but one saving grace: the early dystopian prediction that our democracy would be usurped by an authoritarian dictatorship has not occurred. Not for want of trying, mind you. Trump tweets, barks and snarls like a banana republic strongman, but when it comes to effectiveness, he more closely resembles a little old man behind a curtain, impersonating a wizard.

Those were some dark days after the November election. One publication declared the danger of pending authoritarianism to be severe. Another said the time was ripe for Trump to turn our democracy into tyranny. Two Harvard professors suggested the new president was positioning himself for an authoritarian takeover.

Our country is clearly at one of the bleakest moments in memory. The president has injected a despicable toxicity into our everyday lives, disrupting relationships, instilling fear in marginalized groups, dominating far too many of our waking hours. Trump’s got the fastest Twitter finger in the West, a cyberbully with nuclear codes. Life in these United States right now is anything but comfortable. Yet, an authoritarian Armageddon does not appear to be at hand. This president has been unable to get a single major bill through a Congress controlled by his own party. Heading toward the last quarter of his first year in office, Donald Trump is the opposite of a strongman. In terms of effectiveness, he has been a bastion of weakness.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly talked about how he, alone, could “drain the swamp” and return America to greatness. It sure sounded like a prelude to authoritarian rule. When he got into office, he started bonding with all of the ruthless strongman dictators around the globe: Russia’s Putin, Malaysia’s Razak,Turkey’s Erdogan, the Philippine’s Duterte, Egypt’s el-Sisi and Thailand’s Chan-ocha. Trump admired the ability of these despots to get things done, regardless of how many bodies had to be buried along the way. He wanted to be like them. And he might have been, except for three major differences between himself and his bully buddies: his tyranny mentors all had substantial military assistance and no significant legislative or judicial oversight. Trump, on the other hand, has had his baser instincts squashed by those same institutions.

Ironically, it was Trump’s affinity for the military that persuaded him to draw three former generals into his inner circle: Chief of Staff John Kelly, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Defense Secretary James Mattis. They have all struggled valiantly to pull Trump back from his odious moves. Their win-loss ratio has been uneven, but the effort has been a clear reversal of the military’s role with other totalitarian leaders. These generals are trying to contain the damage to our democracy. They reportedly spent the weekend trying to steady Trump’s hand on the North Korea crisis and urging him not to withdraw from a trade agreement with South Korea, at the very moment that such an alliance is so critical to our interests. When Trump taunted North Korea by tweeting that “talking is not the answer,” Mattis immediately issued a statement saying that “We’re never our of diplomatic solutions.” The defense secretary also deftly maneuvered around the president’s order to keep transgender people out of the military by tabling the policy while a panel of experts makes recommendations.

The generals are not alone. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn, among others, have publicly distanced themselves from Trump, a previously unheard of move by a cabinet member. Tillerson has done it repeatedly: on North Korea, Qatar, nuclear proliferation, climate change and Charlottesville.

Eliot Cohen, a state department official in the George W. Bush administration, told the Washington Post that these White House objectors are keeping the country safe. He said: “Very few of them are there because they love him. Some of them are thinking: ‘This is potentially a very dangerous time for the country. I will go in and do my best, in effect, to save the country.’”

The judiciary has also played a significant role in holding Trump back, much to his constantly tweeted chagrin. His Muslim travel ban has been repeatedly scaled back by different courts, as has his attempt to withhold funds from municipalities refusing to cooperate in apprehending undocumented immigrants. When the Boston Globe last counted in May, it found 134 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration, setting yet another record for this president. Congress, too, has stepped up to the plate to stop the president from numerous pursuits, thus providing a major block for the would-be authoritarian.

That leaves Trump with only one real club: the power of persuading the American people to support his agenda. It’s here that the Donald’s real weakness shines through the emptiness of his tough talk and tweets. Unlike every president before him, Trump has made no effort to expand his base, to move independent and soft Republican voters into the “strongly support” column. The hardcore, rabid rally-goers and white supremacist marchers are the only audience he cares about, hardly enough to move Congress in his direction. Trump’s approval ratings are at the lowest of his presidency. Not only that, 55% of voters say he is not stable and 58% call him reckless. Politico reported on a recent focus group of Trump voters where the conclusion was that even his base is losing patience. Participants described him with words like “chaotic”, “scary”, “tense”, and “embarrassing”.

Despite all that, Trump can and will cause more damage and pain in the days that pave his uncertain future. At this point, however, there is solace in mitigation. The democracy-protecting strictures put in place by the country’s founders are holding up just fine. They, and other key players in this drama, are keeping the 1776 dream alive. And the very essence of that dream is governance by, for and of the people, not by the whim of a tyrannical king.

WHITE RAGE IS NO FIX FOR DEEP PROBLEMS OF THE WORKING CLASS

The angry white power movement that helped propel Donald Trump’s ascendancy from provocateur to president rests on one truth and two lies. The truth is that the so-called forgotten and downtrodden middle class really has been seriously harmed and ignored. These are the lies: its travail was caused by non-whites, and Trump will make everything better.

Over the past decade, the “American Dream” that many of us grew up on has faded slowly into oblivion. Gone is the social compact by which hard work – with or without a college degree – delivered the good life, complete with home ownership, medical insurance, a retirement plan, and a spouse able to stay home to raise the kids and manage the household. There is a trove of economic data that paints a dismally bleak picture for middle America. Real wages keep falling. Good jobs are disappearing. Hope has morphed into anger.

Of course, this dream was always a white thing, at least in terms of attainability. Statistically, far more Caucasians got there than racial minorities, or women not married to a man. That explains the results of a recent poll that showed white men are far more angry about their economic plight than blacks, Hispanics, Latinos or women of any race. This, despite the fact that women and minorities are still at an economic disadvantage compared to white males. The idyllic middle-class life was built with decent paychecks issued mainly to guys who were white. When the jobs fueling this lifestyle started to disappear, the dream faded, leaving a thick residue of anger in its wake.

And along came Trump, the pied piper for angry white men. He wowed them with a simple two-note tune: America is overrun by people who don’t look like us; and, we need to bring back all the good jobs we lost. Here he is, waxing polemically with one-eighth of a run-on sentence during the campaign: “We’re going to bring back our jobs, and we’re going to save our jobs, and people are going to have great jobs again. . .” Unsurprisingly, he won the votes of white males without a college degree by a margin of 49 percentage points. And it’s been a love-and-anger fest ever since.

Those white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville may have been on the fringes of this movement, but they voiced the fears of many in their demographic by chanting, “You will not replace us.” In 1980, whites were 80% of the U.S. population. They are now at 63%, heading to under 50% by 2043. Of course, there is not a scintilla of economic evidence linking white economic malaise to an increase in diversity. But anger always breathes better with a bogeyman, particularly in authoritarian politics.

Still, Trump was on to something that most politicians ignored. The middle class’ economic pain was much more than aftershocks of the Great Recession. The lost jobs aren’t coming back. We are in the throes of a massive structural change, marked by an obscene income disparity, and a growing inability of ordinary folks to support themselves. The situation has gotten so bad that, for the first time in decades, the life expectancy of middle aged white Americans has started to drop. Earlier this year, Princeton University researchers attributed the trend to what they called “deaths of despair”. They identified four causes: stress of economic struggles, suicides, alcohol and drug overdoses.

Unfortunately for Trump’s base – and the rest of America – anger alone will not restore middle class vitality and viability, particularly misplaced anger. Nonwhites, whose economic woes are far worse than those of their Caucasian counterparts, are not to blame. Neither are trade agreements or globalization. Sure, NAFTA wreaked some havoc on our jobs, but that was more than 20 years ago. Most of that work is now performed by robots or other nonhuman technological processes.

Two Ball State professors examined manufacturing job losses between 2000 and 2010. They found that 13% were lost due to trade agreements and 87% through automation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the high-paying manufacturing sector accounted for 34.4% of the country’s jobs in 2000, but only 8.7% in 2015. Despite the dramatic loss of manufacturing jobs, productivity has remained relatively constant. That’s because more stuff gets made with fewer workers. The Brookings Institute says it now takes only six workers to generate $1 million in manufacturing output. The same level in 1980 would have taken 25 workers.

Simply put, the problem facing America’s working class is pervasive and systemic. The inertia of uncontrolled technology is redefining the world of work, and eliminating millions of good jobs. Tragically, nobody is doing anything about it. Plenty of people are thinking about it – economists, academicians, think tanks. Fixes like massive worker retraining, job creation, technology regulation and a guaranteed annual income are out there. But they haven’t gone beyond the pondering stage because most of our elected office holders have lacked the courage to seriously tackle this issue.

And that gave Trump an opening. Long fueled by anger himself, the Donald opportunistically saw what others wouldn’t: millions of outraged and forgotten people, fed up with negative balances and surrounded by folks who weren’t like them. Nobody seemed to give a damn about their plight. Then along came the star of “The Apprentice”, every bit as worked up, bitter and belligerent toward the ruling class as they were. Why wouldn’t they drink the Kool Aid?

Meanwhile, deaths of despair are now baked into the American Dream. Trump’s promise to bring all the great jobs back was nothing more than slick Willy Loman bravado. However, there is still time to rewrite the next act of this play. Are you listening, Democrats? It’s time to fill the Republican void with a smart, effective, Ted Kennedy-like program that will save the middle class. Mocking Trump’s failures is not sufficient. What we need is a sound legislative plan, an all-out campaign to replace despair with hope.

TRUMP ECLIPSES THE SUN & MOON IN SEARCH OF NAZI LOVE

Forget the eclipse. The biggest astronomical event of the past 10 days has been nothing short of a spectacular, once-in-a-lifetime sighting of presidential time travel. Some 72 years after this country and its allies defeated Hitler’s fascism, Donald Trump saddled up to the neo-Nazis. And, 152 years after Robert E. Lee’s Confederate army surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, effectively ending the Civil War, our president embraced and saluted those who fought to preserve slavery – past and present.

For us aging boomers, this has been a time warp from hell. We grew up with daily news of murdered civil rights workers and KKK lynchings, of frightened black children escorted by armed troops into previously all-white schools. We remember the pain, the fear, the hate. We also remember the powerful forces for change: Martin Luther King, Malcom X, Stokely Carmichael, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Very slowly, things got better. Bigotry never disappeared, but it seemed to move off center stage, and into the fringes and dark reaches of a netherworld most of us rarely saw.

Yet, there they were, more than a half century later, hundreds of them, all white and mostly male, marching through the streets of Charlottesville, waving Confederate flags and Swastikas, shouting vile chants against Jews, blacks, gays and immigrants. It was a convention of wickedness: the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, the so-called “alt-right” and white nationalists, all united in a common bond of white supremacy. Once confined to whispering their bigoted messages through code words and dog whistles, Trump’s election unleashed these hate mongers from their caves and ushered them into the daylight of a world unprepared for a relitigation of basic human rights, dignity and decency.

It was a rare moment of totally unambiguous moral clarity. The bigots represent an evil world view, long ago dismissed as despicable by decent people everywhere. A high school student council president could have easily delivered that message. Donald Trump, however, neither could, would, nor did. Those marchers are part of his cherished base, and he spent days entangled in linguistic gymnastics, trying desperately not to lose the love of those who hate.

It was a huge turning point in this presidency. Trump has always been obsessed with branding, from luxurious high-rise condos, to wine, steaks, neck ties and bottled water. Let the history books note, with unequivocal clarity, that the Trump brand now stands for neo-Nazism, the KKK and white supremacy. Unlike all of the other political issues he has botched with his utter incompetence, petulance and arrogance, this one has legs. The president’s post-Charlottesville moment called for a simple, clear-cut, binary, which-side-are-you-on choice. Trump picked the wrong side. He will forever be the president who brought the Nazis, the Confederacy, and the KKK back from the dustbin of history. He will spend the rest of his life paying for that decision. Rest assured, it will be part of his obituary.

In fact, the ramifications of the president’s moral weakness and waffling have been mounting daily. For example:

• News magazines – in the U.S. and Europe – produced covers showing Trump in either a Nazi salute or some version of a KKK hood.

• Republican officials at every level have repudiated the President’s handling of the Charlottesville march, including at least 23 members of Congress and eight current or former GOP governors.

• So many major business leaders resigned from two presidential commissions over Trump’s remarks that he was forced to abolish both groups.

• All 16 members of the President’s Committee of the Arts and Humanities resigned, telling him: “Reproach and censure in the strongest possible terms are necessary following your support of the hate groups and terrorists who killed and injured fellow Americans in Charlottesville.”

• More than 15 large charities have canceled scheduled fundraising events at Trump’s Mar-a-Largo Club in Florida, all concerned with losing major donors as a result of Trump’s embrace of the hate groups.

• For the first time since the Kennedy Center Honors program started in 1978, neither the president nor first lady will attend, nor will there be a pre-show reception at the White House. That move was made after some of the honorees talked of boycotting the event because of Trump’s recent comments.

Of course, the country has been sharply divided over Trump since election day. Some saw him as the only hope for a very sick system. Others saw him as an emblem that went to the very heart of that sickness. Both sides made credible points. Workers and the middle class have been losing ground for decades, and their needs have been ignored by too many politicians – from both parties. One view had it that only an outsider like Trump could turn that around. The counterpoint: Trump was way too self-absorbed, inexperienced and rich to successfully navigate a meaningful redistribution of wealth. Or so the arguments went.

Charlottesville totally changed the game board. It removed all of the gray, leaving behind only black and white. As the late, great Pete Seeger sang, “Which Side Are You On?” There are no nice Nazis, vintage or neo. There are no good Ku Klux Klansmen. White supremacists spewing hatred toward Jews, blacks, gays and immigrants are worthy of nothing but our deepest scorn. What they represent is, simply and purely, evil. That’s one side. The other side, filled with olive branches for hateful hooligans bearing Swastikas, is the one that Donald Trump chose. That choice tarnished the White House so badly that repair can only come from a new occupant. Until that happens, more than a century of human rights’ gains hangs in the balance. Seeger’s question has never been so easy to answer. Choosing a side right now means moving forward or backward. It’s the difference between right and wrong.

FUELING FIRE & FURY: HOW TRUMP SPENT HIS SUMMER VACATION

It’s too early to tell for sure, but a former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard might have seriously messed with Donald Trump’s concept of what it means to win. More on that later, after a recap of the president’s winning ways of threatening nuclear annihilation.

A few days ago, I suggested in this space that President Trump, as a result of his inability to grasp the difference between a strategy and a tactic, had become the embodiment of what losing looks like. So, why doesn’t he do a course correction, or, in the parlance of organizational change, order a reset? The answer is simple: he is absolutely convinced that he is winning. A win to the Donald is any day that he can see himself as the most important and powerful man in the universe, the only person capable of solving the world’s problems through the sheer force of his strength and will. That, and the adulation of his base through constant public attention, is what winning is all about to this president.

Take nuclear war, for example, which Trump has latched onto like an obsessed teen with a new video game. Military expert Herman Kahn introduced us to the treacherous and dystopian world of nuclear bombast with a 1962 book called “Thinking about the Unthinkable”. Every U.S. president since then has spoken of nuclear devastation in measured and carefully chosen words. Not Trump. Nothing unthinkable to him about the prospect of obliterating millions of people.

With almost manic glee, he warned that North Korea will be “met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” Two days later, he became the first world leader to threaten war on Twitter, warning North Korea that the U.S. is now “locked and loaded”. Predictably, most sober-thinking adults in Congress were stunned and chagrined by the presidential war mongering. So were most heads of state, including our allies. North Korea responded with a threat to fire missiles at the U.S. territory of Guam, saying, “Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason (Trump) and only absolute force can work on him.”

As Armageddon anxiety set in, Trump basked in his own glory. He was, after all, winning. At least in his own head, the only venue that matters to him. He argued that millions of Americans are cheering him for his tough North Korea talk. “It’s about time that somebody stuck up for the people of this country,” he told reporters last week.

While North Korea readies its rockets for Guam’s shoreline, the island’s governor, Eddie Baza Calvo, used the right passwords to secure a soulful telephone exchange with Trump. “Mr. President, . . .” Calvo said in opening Saturday’s phone chat, “I have never felt more safe or so confident, with you at the helm.” It was another winning moment for the commander in chief, who quickly agreed with the governor. “You seem like a hell of a guy,” Trump said. “They should have had me (as president) eight years ago.” Despite the fact that that Guam’s existential fate rests in the hands of two would-be nuclear bombers, who together lack anything resembling a full deck, Trump had good news for the governor: “Eddie,” he said, “I have to tell you, you’ve become extremely famous. All over the world, they’re talking about Guam . . . your tourism, you’re going to go up like tenfold with the expenditure of no money. I congratulate you.”

That pretty much captures Donald J. Trump’s life story: get the name out there any way you can, build the brand, then monetize it. To our president, nuclear war is just another profit center. His tough talk is drawing attention, and that keeps his juices flowing. Trump reportedly spends hours a day glued to television news. For an attention addict, cable news is the fix that never ends. According to the Washington Post, the three top cable news networks rarely cover any subject other than Trump during prime-time hours. For this president, Trump-All-The-Time is winning.

But wait, David Duke and his fellow neo-Nazis may have inadvertently punctured the contours of the Donald’s delusional winning loop. Duke, the former KKK wizard, and hundreds of angry white supremacists violently took to the streets in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday. Remember those poor forgotten white guys Trump championed on the way to the White House? The Charlottesville disaster was all about them. One person was killed and 19 others were injured. While political leaders of every stripe immediately decried the protest’s bigotry and racism, Trump, the Twitter insult king, was at a loss for words to describe the repugnant evil of white power nuts, many wearing Trump’s Make-America-Great-Again caps, staging a violent rampage on Virginia streets.

For the first time in his life, Trump tweeted with delicately selected words. He condemned violence generally, but avoided specific criticism of his own supporters, that shrinking base that keeps him “winning” by cheering his tough rhetoric. Even his stilted messaging drew this Twitter response from former Imperial Wizard Duke: “I would recommend you take a good look in the mirror & remember it was White Americans who put you in the presidency. . .” One neo-Nazi web site praised the president for his reaction to the Charlottesville riot: “Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. . .No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good.”

This must leave the president highly confused. He rains down insults on his own party’s congressional leaders. He uses graphic imagery to threaten a nuclear holocaust. And he believes he is winning because his base cheers his toughness. But now, part of that base – sheet-wearing bigots and red-caped goons – have slithered out from behind their rocks in answering Trump’s clarion call to make America white again. A stunned and saddened nation looks at pictures of Charlottesville’s death and destruction, waiting for their president to renounce these domestic terrorists. But how does a man renounce part of himself, part of what he created? If he does, who will cheer for his madness? And without their cheers, what becomes of his winning? Forget nuclear war. For Donald Trump, this is the new “Thinking about the Unthinkable”.

TRUMP’S GUIDE TO LEADERSHIP: THE ART OF THE HEEL

Donald The Swamp Drainer is now fully enmeshed in the morass of governance, but none of the ensuing noise and chaos has led to a single dollop of drainage. If this guy has anything even remotely resembling a strategy, on any issue, it has to be the best kept secret in Washington. All we’ve seen in the first 200 days of this presidency is a bizarre jumble of impulsive, sophomoric tactics that have done absolutely nothing to advance his agenda.

A theory emerged during the 2016 campaign that, instead of being loony, Trump was a brilliant four-dimensional chess player, always strategizing multiple moves ahead of his opponents. The concept has the same level of evidentiary support as the flat earth and faked moon landing propositions. Take a quick look at the Donald’s recent chessboard navigation.

Trump:

• Publicly threatened a number of Republican senators with various forms of retaliation if they didn’t vote to repeal Obamacare. Not surprisingly, Trump didn’t win their votes and the bill went down in flames. Senators’ job security rests with voters in their home state. Caving in to a public threat is not an image that curries favor with the electorate.

• Said the Senate healthcare vote made Republican leaders “look like fools” and promised to stop funding the lawmakers’ own medical insurance if they didn’t cancel their August recess and try again to repeal Obamacare. The Senate recessed and left town within 48 hours of the president’s threat and name-calling.

• Announced suddenly via Twitter that transgender people will no longer be allowed to serve in the armed forces. This was supposedly a Trump “strategy” to end a squabble over whether the military should pay for trans-related medical costs. That disagreement, which reportedly was well on its way to resolution, is holding up a spending bill that includes funds for Trump’s Mexican wall. Paralysis quickly ensued from the president’s transgender ban tweet, and nothing has moved since – on either the ban or the wall.

• Attacked, loudly and repeatedly, the Russian sanctions imposed by the Obama administration for Moscow’s interference in last year’s election. Congress, controlled by Trump’s own party, responded by passing veto-proof legislation enhancing the sanctions and specifically prohibiting the president from altering them.

• Ridiculed and demeaned his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, in an attempt to get him to resign so he could replace him with someone who would either control or fire Robert Mueller III, the special counsel investigating possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia’s election tampering. Sessions refused to resign. The Senate initiated a parliamentary maneuver that prevents Trump from making a recess appointment during the current congressional break. There is also a bipartisan push for legislation that would allow Mueller’s removal only on approval of a federal judge.

Every day – every tweet – brings more examples. There isn’t a single strategy to be found in Trump’s arsenal, only a limited repertoire of tired, angry, bullying tactics, the same kind of shtick he used to throw at Rosie O’Donnell and Cher. A very prophetic 5th century BC military strategist, Sun Tzu, wrote, “Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” Trump likes to announce phony victories – initial passage of healthcare in the House, release of his own budget that has gone nowhere, etc. – with the phrase, “This is what winning looks like.” Well, Mr. President, right now, this is what losing looks like: all tactics and no strategy; the noise before defeat.

I came across Sun Tzu’s wisdom early in my career as a union negotiator. I had just verbally pulverized an opponent at the bargaining table. I had done my research and really had the goods on this guy. I let everything fly, humiliating and embarrassing him in front of his peers. Before I could take a bow, my mentor whispered into my ear, “Now what? You just destroyed him, but how is that going to help us reach a contract settlement?” That’s when I first read Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War”. My insults were an empty tactic, totally lacking any strategic connection to the goal of negotiating a decent agreement. That painful memory came rushing back yesterday, after it was reported that the president warned his unhinged North Korean counterpart that “threats will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” So, now what? What’s the next move on the road to world peace?

And so it goes with Trump. He knows no art of the deal when it comes to leading our country. Other than the late Don Rickles, nobody has ever achieved success by lobbing insults at people. Yes, the president’s hard core base loves it. They adore Trump for his anger, and his total disregard for civility and respect in dealing with the swamp dwellers. They cheer him for it at his rallies, and then chant, “lock her up,” and other golden oldies. Some of them will stay with their angry guy all the way to the end, even if the swamp is never drained. To them, Trump is like a country-western crooner, singing the same old sad songs that somehow make them feel better, even though their lives are no less wretched when the concert ends.

Yet, polls show that Trump’s ineffectiveness in enacting his promised swamp drain is bringing his numbers down in every category, including his treasured demographic of white men without a college education. The New York Times reported Sunday that many key Republicans are already maneuvering for the 2020 presidential election with the belief that Trump will not be the party’s candidate. Regardless of what happens three years from now, it’s hard to see how this president can hope to successfully govern with no strategy beyond a string of angry tweets. A devoted and enraged base, in the low 20% range, screaming “fake news” at an occasional rally, is neither a strategy nor a mandate to govern.

A COLLEGE GROUP FOR TRUMP TO BOND WITH: RAPISTS

If you are a male college student accused of sexual assault, your good bro, Donald Trump, has your back. Yes, this administration seems to have finally found itself a friendly constituency in academia. For those poor partying frat boys, forced to parse the word “consent” in the middle of an all-night kegger, help is on the way.

Remember how President Obama took on the issue of campus rape? Disgusted to learn that one in five female college students had been sexually assaulted, the former president made the subject a keystone of his domestic agenda. He ordered the Department of Education to launch investigations into the way schools were dealing with the problem. Under threat of losing federal funds, those institutions became far more aggressive in handling sexual assault complaints. All that is about to change.

Enter Trump’s Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her recently appointed leader of the department’s Office for Civil Rights, Candice Jackson. They are on a mission to roll back many of the Obama era policies designed to make campuses safer for female students. The duo spent time last week hearing from alleged sexual assault perpetrators, who insisted they did absolutely nothing to justify their expulsion. DeVos and Jackson also met with representatives of a white male advocacy group called the National Coalition For Men. The NCFM believes there is a huge problem of women lying about being raped by men.

Although Jackson, head of the Education Department’s civil rights office, is herself a rape survivor, the men’s rights lobby couldn’t have found a more kindred spirit. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Jackson dismissed the complaints of more than a dozen women accusing Trump of sexual assault or unwanted advances, calling them “fake victims”. She was equally dismissive of rape complaints from women college students, saying that “90% (of the accusations) fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up and six months later. . .she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.’”

DeVos agrees with Jackson that the pendulum has swung way too far in favor of the accusers. They want to reverse course. The Education Department has jurisdiction because Title IX of the Civil Rights Act prohibits sex discrimination at any school receiving federal funds. Under the Obama administration, the department issued 19 pages of guidelines for colleges to use in investigating sexual assault and harassment charges. It also warned the schools that their failure to comply could result in a loss of federal funding. Under the Obama guidelines, schools were urged to use a “preponderance of the evidence” test in adjudicating sexual misconduct complaints. It’s the same standard of proof used in most civil litigation. Basically, it means the party with the strongest evidence prevails.

The men’s rights advocates, however, insist that students should never be expelled and have their lives ruined by what they regard as a low standard of proof. Their solution is for colleges to turn sexual assault complaints over to the criminal justice system and take no independent action. It’s an absurd suggestion. First of all, this is not an either-or situation. A student who is raped can – and should – file complaints with both the school and the police. They are separate systems, with different interests and outcomes. To get a rape conviction in court, the state needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a high standard of proof is justified on the basis that the government is seeking to take the defendant’s liberty away. It’s a different story when it comes to colleges and universities trying to maintain a safe learning environment. Schools routinely expel students if the weight – or “preponderance” – of the evidence shows they committed, say, plagiarism. Do we really want to treat sexual assault as a less egregious campus offense than copying a term paper from Wikipedia?

The ugly truth here is that a rape culture reigns supreme on many campuses, fostering the unfortunate belief that sex-while-intoxicated inherently implies consent. It does not. But many prosecutors shy away from taking such cases before a jury. A he-said-she-said prosecution, laced with an alcoholic haze, is often a tough sell for a jury. All the more reason for colleges to expel students when the weight of the evidence – a bar lower than that of a criminal court – shows that they engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct. Otherwise, a decision not to prosecute means the accused attacker remains on campus.

We have always used dual tracks in dealing with actions that may violate the rules of a workplace or university, as well as the law. And the levels of proof have always been different. We have this unalienable right to liberty, and it can be taken away only upon the highest standard of proof. The right to hold a job or attend a specific school is not so unalienable, and while nobody should be fired or expelled without proof of wrongdoing, the test for that proof is not necessarily the same as that used in a criminal court. A student caught selling drugs on campus, or stealing equipment from the biology lab, is likely to be kicked out of school, regardless of whatever criminal action may be taken. Sexual assault should be treated no differently.

Yet, the men’s rights lobby is pushing a seemingly receptive Trump administration to tell colleges to take no disciplinary action for sexual misconduct until, and unless, there has been a criminal conviction. That might play well for Trump’s base of supposedly forgotten, angry and trod-upon white men. It is nothing short of a nightmare for any student looking for a safe place to learn.

TRUMP’S ONLY SUCCESS: LOWERING THE BAR FOR PRESIDENTIAL BEHAVIOR

If there is a twelve-step program for superlative dependency, someone should throw Donald Trump an intervention. Can you imagine his first support group meeting? “Hi, my name is Donald, and I’m a hyperbole abuser. In fact, I am the most marvelous, magnificent, outstanding hyperbole abuser who was ever born.” Needless to say, his road to linguistic recovery will be long and winding.

According to the Donald, every person he has hired or appointed is absolutely fantastic, even those he later fired or forced to resign. He claims (incorrectly) to have signed more legislation in his first six months than any other president. He once gave an unremarkable, but relatively gaffe-free, speech to a joint session of Congress. He claims it was the best oration ever uttered in the House chamber.

The same is true on the flip side. Trump never experiences run-of-the-mill adversity. It’s always horrendously horrible, beyond all compare. In what had to have been the absolute least uplifting commencement address on record, Trump told Coast Guard Academy graduates in May that he is the world’s most mistreated pol. Here’s how he characterized his allegedly unparalleled plight: “No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.” Never mind that other politicians – at home and abroad – have been assassinated, kidnapped and imprisoned. Donald has to endure CNN and Saturday Night Live. Cue the violin section. Boo hoo. Boo hoo.

Actually, Trump, in many ways, is the most Teflon president in modern history, a rare superlative he’s likely to reject. Throughout the campaign, and during the first six months of his presidency, he got by with more atrocities, flubs and mistakes than any of his predecessors. Who else could have mocked John McCain’s war record, belittled a Gold Star mother and revealed a proclivity for sexual assault, only to go on and become president? Trump entered the office with an expectations bar set so low a Trinidad limbo dancer couldn’t shimmy under it.

Let’s take a close look at just one class of White House transgressions, and compare the repercussions for Trump with those of his predecessors. Numerous presidential tongues have taken bad slips when it comes to declaring a person’s guilt or innocence. This can be quite problematic since the government’s prosecutorial arm – the U.S. Justice Department – serves under the president’s command. Legal experts, including Harvard’s Noah Feldman, say it is an impeachable “abuse of authority” for a president to accuse someone of committing a crime without evidence. It has happened not infrequently over the years. And, in every instance prior to January 20, 2016, the gaffe provoked an immediate dustup of criticism, usually followed by some sort of presidential mea culpa.

In 1970, President Nixon said Charles Manson was “guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders.” Since Manson’s trial had just gotten underway, the president’s declaration of guilt caused considerable pandemonium. Nixon apologized and walked his premature verdict back. In 1980, President Carter accused former attorney general Ramsey Clark and nine other Americans of a crime for defying his order to stay out of Iran. Carter’s declaration of guilt triggered a huge political blow up. Harvard’s Laurence Tribe called his remarks “a terrible blunder.” In 1988, President Reagan stunned his staff when he declared that Oliver North was not guilty in the Iran-Contra scandal, days after a grand jury indicted North on 23 charges. In 1998, President Clinton drew heavy criticism for saying that he didn’t think there should be a plea bargain in the Unabomber case because the defendant, Theodore J. Kaczynski, “if he’s guilty, killed a lot of people deliberately.” In 2009, President Obama opened a week-long media frenzy when he said the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department acted “stupidly” in the arrest of a black Harvard professor who was trying to get into his own home. Obama also took flack for implying that the alleged architect of the September 11 terrorist attacks would be found guilty and executed, should he be tried in U.S. Courts.

Trump, of course, soars far above the separation of powers concept, moonlighting as a wannabe Judge Judy. He pronounces someone’s criminal guilt on a near daily basis. Using Twitter as his gavel, the Donald dispenses his verdicts with terms like: “guilty as hell”, “totally illegal” and “so illegal”. The president has dispersed imaginary convictions for Hillary Clinton, her former campaign manager, John Podesta and his brother Tony; Obama and his former national security advisor, Susan Rice, and his former attorney general, Loretta Lynch; and recently fired FBI director James Comey. Just this morning, he accused his own attorney general and the acting FBI director of ignoring Hillary Clinton’s unspecified and unproven “crimes”. Unlike his predecessors, Trump has managed to issue these totally bogus claims of criminality against his political opponents with total impunity. In fact, they have become a staple of his presidency, akin to an innocuous proclamation for, say, National Condiment Appreciation Week.

Aside from a couple of obscure blogs, like the one you’re reading, there has been no public clamor about Trump bludgeoning his opponents with presidential criminal convictions. Yet, a single similar transgression by previous presidents kept the chattering class in a constant scold for days. This is just one of many ways in which this president has been held to a far lower standard than those who preceded him. There is an abundance of deficiencies that would invite rapt attention to any other president, but where Trump gets a pass. Like his speeches with the prosaic quality of a telephone book, his five-word sentence fragments that are utterly without meaning, his inability to know just what it is he doesn’t know, and his innate lack of intellectual curiosity.

Unfortunately, there is a lesson here for future presidents: If you want to deflect attention from your inherent inadequacies, be sure to collude with a foreign adversary, obstruct justice and tell lots of lies. Nobody will notice the other foibles.

FROM NIXON TO TRUMP: A PASSAGE FROM TAPES TO TWEETS

The Donald’s sly hint of a White House taping system a few weeks back was enough to cast a nostalgic aura of excitement over the nation’s capital. Those of us in the political junkie geezerhood delight in finding Watergate imagery in the growing muck of Trump’s folderol. Our blissfully aging crowd, after all, remembers only too well how Tricky Dick hoisted himself on the petard of his own surreptitious recording system, an electronic treasure trove of every syllable uttered in the Oval Office, some slurred beyond recognition.

Nixon’s own tapes brought him down, but more importantly, they were a gift that kept on giving. For decades to come, transcripts and MP3 files of virtually every private presidential conversation in the Nixon White House were periodically released. The final installment – 340 hours of tape – was made public in 2013. As a result, we were treated to the horrifying-but-compelling opportunity to see the unvarnished version of the 37th president, long after his death. It was not pretty.

For example, this Nixon gem from a 1971 Oval Office diatribe: “The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. At the present time they steal, they’re dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life.” (As opposed to the “Negros,” Nixon went on to postulate, “who shun conventional family life.”) Now, that’s obviously not the public persona any sane political operative would want to advance, thus the beauty of the Nixon tapes. They let us eavesdrop on the private utterances of a president, it turned out, we barely knew. So when Trump teased that the FBI director he had just fired better hope there were no tapes of their conversations, many of us lit up over the prospect of a whole new batch of presidential recordings.

Alas, another dream shattered. Trump later said he had no such tapes, although he left the door slightly ajar, saying that someone else might have wiretapped his office. Obama, maybe. Then again, it doesn’t matter. You don’t need a hidden tape recorder to know the real Donald Trump. All you have to do is follow him on Twitter or listen to his rally speeches. This is a man who captured the presidency by shouting and tweeting the kind of crude, profane, hateful stuff other politicians wouldn’t whisper to a trusted aide. Nixon had been dead for 20 years before the world heard his less-than-generous thoughts about Mexicans. We knew where Trump stood on that issue way before he became president. Here’s what he tweeted in June of 2015: “Druggies, drug dealers, rapists and killers are coming across the southern border.”

We learned in 2001 that Nixon, 30 years earlier, had made it clear to his staff that he did not want women in important jobs. Here’s his private remark: “I’m not for women, frankly, in any job. I don’t want them around. Thank God we don’t have any in the Cabinet.” Trump, on the other hand, came to the White House with an exceedingly transparent position on women. In addition to boasting about his proclivity for grabbing them by their lady parts, there is this analytical tweet from 2013: “The Miss Universe Women totally blow away the Victoria’s Secret Women.” Trump hasn’t placed many women in his cabinet, but he sure packed his swim suit competition with them.

Presidents, of course, serve as the country’s military commander in chief, and have to make many tough decisions with respect to warcraft. Rarely, however, do they speak about the loss of life and limb in crude “locker room” fashion. So, there was shock when the Nixon tapes relayed the president’s reaction to a report that a million pounds of bombs had been dropped on North Vietnam: “A million pounds of bombs! Goddamn, that must have been a good strike. I tell you the thing to do is pour it in there every place we can…just bomb the hell out of them.” No need to wait for the posthumous release of secret Trump tapes to hear the Donald’s lack of elegance in describing military strategy. He spent most of the campaign boasting about his desire to “bomb the shit out of ISIS.”

And then there are the courts, a not infrequent nemesis for the executive branch. Yet, out of respect for the founders’ notion of separation of powers, presidents typically refrain from publicly attacking the judicial branch. Thanks to the Nixon tapes, however, we eventually learned of his reaction to a Supreme Court decision denying the government’s request to stop the New York Times from publishing the “Pentagon Papers”, classified documents detailing serious military mistakes in the Vietnam War. Said Nixon at the time: “. . . I was so damn mad when the Supreme Court had to come down. Unbelievable, wasn’t it? You know, those clowns we got on there, I tell you, I hope I outlive the bastards.” Trump, of course, has never hidden his disdain for judges, particularly those who rule against him. During the campaign, he called a judge assigned to a suit involving Trump University a “hater” and a “Mexican”. As president, he tweeted this about one of the judges who ruled against him on his travel ban: “Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!”

This Nixon-Trump story of then and now has two morals. One is that, in this great country of ours, every child has the opportunity to become president when they grow up, no matter how uncouth, obstinate or unbalanced they may be. Secondly, we have finally evolved to the point that we can observe our president’s abhorrent behavior in real time. No need to wait for 30-year-old tapes to find out he was nuts.

JUNIOR’S RUSSIAN TALE: DOSTOYEVSKY IT’S NOT

As we soaked up this week’s news of Donald Junior’s induced transparency, and his eagerness for the Russian government’s promised Hillary dirt, we were treated to a music video link featuring beauty pageant contestants, a Russian pop singer and a cameo appearance by Donald Senior. This is what happens when we elect a president whose only experience in foreign affairs was running the Miss Universe competition.

Watergate never produced this kind of entertainment. Oh, it had its share of amusing characters; Bebe Reboso and Donald Segretti come to mind. But neither could have held a candle to Rob Goldstone, the rotund tabloid-journalist-turned-music-publicist, who has the face of a disgruntled carnival worker. The Daily Beast once described Goldstone as a frequent host of “vodka-soaked parties (for) younger acquaintances” at New York’s Russian Tea Room. His credentials were just upgraded from the Tea Room to the Russian election tampering investigation that has transfixed all of American politics.

(Since tracking the characters in this emerging melodrama can be as confusing as trying to follow a Chekhov play, here’s a quick cheat sheet: Goldstone represents Emin Agalarov, the Russian pop singer. Aras Agalarov, a Russian oligarch, is Emin’s father. He helped sponsor the 2013 Miss Universe pageant, held in Russia and then owned by Donald Trump. Aras also partnered with the Donald on plans for a Trump Tower in Moscow, a project currently on hold, a rare Trumpian nod to optics.)

So in this week’s episode, Junior, after insisting that he never once, in his capacity of working on his father’s presidential campaign, had contact with the Russians, changed his tune a bit and told the New York Times that he had, in fact, met with a Russian lawyer in June of 2016,but insisted it was about adoptions. The next day, Junior altered his story again and acknowledged that Goldstone had offered him a meeting on Emin’s behalf, with a Russian lawyer who had dirt on Hillary Clinton. But, he insisted, the information was not from the Russian government and didn’t amount to anything. By the next day, the Times had obtained copies of an email string between Junior and Goldstone. In it, Goldstone laid out the narrative: Aras received word from the Russian prosecutor that he wanted to get incriminating information about Clinton to Trump. Junior said “love it” and set up the meeting. He tweeted copies of the emails as soon as the Times told him they were going with the story. That got Junior an attaboy from Senior, who congratulated his first born for being so transparent.

All of this, of course, has inevitably dusted off that old Watergate term, “smoking gun”. There were, after all, numerous false or premature sightings of that mythical weapon before Nixon threw in the towel and helicoptered out of the White House for the last time. Most historians say the real smoke didn’t leave the revolver until Nixon was caught on tape ordering the CIA to get the FBI to drop the investigation of the break in. In the current case, several media outlets (here, here and here) declared the imbroglio over Junior’s Russian email exchange a “smoking gun.” Others ran it with a question mark (here and here).

The only smoking gun I see right now is the one Junior used to shoot himself in the foot. As for Senior, don’t count him out just yet. It’s way too early. I respect the legal scholars who found inferences of a criminal conspiracy and violation of campaign finance laws in the emails. But we are talking about a guy who was elected president after admitting on tape that he sexually assaulted women. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Yet, the landscape of this scandal changed dramatically with the email reveal. At a bare minimum, the reference to the Russian “government’s support for Mr. Trump” objectively decimates the President’s characterization of the investigation as a “witch hunt.”

I suspect there are more smoking guns to come, with or without a question mark. What’s needed to end this madness is not necessarily definitive proof that Trump and the Russians cooked the votes and stole the election. The endgame is far more likely to accrue on the basis of cumulative disgust with an out-of-control whack job of a president who represents a clear and present danger to the Republican Party. The out-of-control and whack job standards were met some time ago. The Republicans, unfortunately, need to feel a little more Trump pain before reaching the cut-your-losses stage.

Yet, the needle seems to be moving, slowly but surely, in that direction. Congressional Republicans have stopped trying to defend Trump. That’s a huge change from the early days of this administration. Their default position is to say nothing, except in those outlandish instances where the president, in words or deeds, goes more bonkers than normal.

The Donald’s strategy, if it can be called that, seems aimed exclusively at holding his hardcore fan base, the folks who believe the New York Times isn’t real and that Junior’s transparency is. In the end, that will not be enough to save him. As personally gratifying as cult worship is for a maniacal leader, it rarely ends well for them. (See Jim Jones and David Koresh.) Sooner or later, Congressional Republican leaders will see this president as a pariah, to their cause and to their political futures. That’s what will trigger the endgame, and build an exit strategy for the 45th president. That is the ultimate smoking gun. Disposing of it will be the closest this Congress ever gets to gun control.

TRUMP’S TWITTER FIREWORKS: HOW LOW CAN HE GO?

To nobody’s surprise, Donald Trump’s first shot at presiding over an extended Independence Day celebration has been singularly unique. Other presidents have used the occasion to wax eloquent about American exceptionalism, the dignity of freedom and the inherent goodness of democracy. The Donald dispensed with such trivialities in order to address one of the core issues of our times: Mika’s bleeding facelift.

It’s been a bombs-bursting-in-hot-air kind of holiday weekend. One minute, Trump was calling MSNBC co-host Mika Brzezinski “low I.Q. Crazy Mika” and claiming she was once “bleeding badly from a facelift”. Then he took on her co-host and fiancé, Joe Scarborough, tagging him with the moniker “Psycho Joe,” and alleging that he once begged the president to have a National Enquirer story on the couple’s then-unannounced romance killed. As the weekend progressed, he sent out a doctored video that purported to show himself assaulting a CNN broadcaster. Then he went before a faith rally at the Kennedy Center to assert his superiority over the reporters who cover him. Falling far short of John Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you . . .”, Trump offered this prosaic little ditty about the news media: “I’m President and they’re not.”

Politicians of every stripe weighed in quickly. Even Republicans were critical of the president’s unpresidential behavior. House Speaker Paul Ryan, specifically addressing Trump’s comments about the MSNBC hosts, said, “Obviously, I don’t see that as an appropriate comment.” Republican Sen. Ben Sasse had this message for the president: “Please just stop. This isn’t normal and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.” His colleague, Sen. Lindsey Graham offered this: “Mr. President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America.”

Anyone who has ever dealt with a deeply troubled family member – an abuser, addict or even someone traveling through the pain of dementia – will recognize what we are going through right now in our broader American family. Normalcy is constantly changing, expanding to include behaviors once thought abhorrent or unimaginable. Over time, they become routine through the process of repetition and escalation. It’s exhausting to constantly react to bizarre, out-of-control behavior. You do it in the beginning, but it gradually becomes more common; not more acceptable, just more known and, to some extent, anticipated. Yet, every so often, no matter how accustomed we’ve grown to this devolving normalcy, a new version of the grievous conduct presents itself, nudging us, once again, to ask, “What on earth has our life come to, and what can we do about it?”

Our reaction to the president’s holiday weekend binge of verbal abuse and indecency is not a result of rational, linear processing. It’s not that he hit a new low; he has said and done much worse. But every once in a while in this deeply abnormal environment we find ourselves in, Trump’s maniacal behavior strikes a new responsive chord, reminding us that we can never, under any circumstance, accept this conduct as normal. No matter how used to it we have become. And that’s a good thing, because it lifts us out of the numbness that repetitive acts of abject abnormality tend to create.

One of the more telling moments in this latest episode came when Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked by reporters for a reaction to the Mika/Morning Joe flap. Now, contemplate this situation. White House spokespeople over the years have been forced to account for a lot of presidential behavior, from Watergate to Iran-Contra, from Monica Lewinsky to the Iraq War. Now comes a question never before proffered to a president’s press rep: deeply personal and hurtful remarks about two television personalities shared with 33 million Twitter followers. Here is how Sanders responded: “The American people elected a fighter. They knew what they were getting when they voted for Donald Trump.”

It may have been the most straightforward, honest response ever issued by the Trump press office. Buyer beware, indeed. We knew Donald Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women, just because he could. We knew he was mean, that he delighted in calling women “fat pigs”, and body shaming Miss Universe contestants. We knew he encouraged violence at his campaign rallies. We knew he said vile, hateful things about blacks, Mexicans, Muslims and anybody who got in his way. Shame on us for electing him.

But think about this for a minute. When the person in charge of promoting the president’s image, of presenting him in the best possible light, reaches for the you-knew-what-you-were-getting into-when-you-voted-for-him defense, rock bottom is not too far away. It’s a creepy guy line from way back. Ask any marriage counselor or family court judge. As a reporter in the 1970s, I covered the opening of a new shelter for battered women. There was a sign on the wall that told this story: “A snake was hit by a car. A woman picks him up, feeds him, and gets him to a full state of health. But then he bites her, injecting her with his deadly poison. On her death bed, she asked, ‘After all I did why me?’ The snake responds, ‘You knew I was a snake when you picked me up.’”

The fact that we allowed this snake to be elected and inaugurated as our president, will not take away the venomous sting he is inflicting on the psyche and soul of this nation. And it won’t take away his culpability. In an act of patriotism for the country we love, we must be vigilant for every rattle and snakebite to come. As disheartening and unsettling as that may be, it is an opportunity to strengthen the resistance and to remind people that meanness, cruelty, obstinance and solipsism are not building blocks for America’s greatness.