Meanwhile, the press is desperate to turn any move that Trump takes into a sign that he is moderating and beginning to understand his role as President. The appointment of Reince Preibus as Chief of Staff was taken to be a sign that Trump was beginning to moderate and "learning how to govern". For example, the Wall Street Journal hailed Preibus' appointment, saying that it was "a selection that suggests the Republican is interested in a more conventional approach to governing after his insurgent campaign." Needless to say, the announcement of Preibus' appointment came second in the press release from the Trump campaign to the announcement that the white nationalist Steve Bannon would be Trump's senior adviser and strategist. This was then spun by some in the media that, like FDR, Trump was setting up competing blocs of power within his administration.
Masha Gessen, a journalist very familiar with autocratic governments, wrote about the six rules for surviving autocracy in a recent article. It might behoove the media to actually pay attention to the first two which I quote here:
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says. Whenever you find yourself thinking, or hear others claiming, that he is exaggerating, that is our innate tendency to reach for a rationalization. This will happen often: humans seem to have evolved to practice denial when confronted publicly with the unacceptable...
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality. Consider the financial markets this week, which, having tanked overnight, rebounded following the Clinton and Obama speeches. Confronted with political volatility, the markets become suckers for calming rhetoric from authority figures. So do people...
A perfect, yet tiny, example of what Gessen refers to in these two rules involves Trump's statement when he emerged from his meeting with President Obama in which he declared that he might be interested in keeping some of the popular features of Obamacare. Specifically, he mentioned allowing those under the age of 25 to stay on their parents' insurance and preventing insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. Some in the media leapt on this as a sign the Trump would not be as extreme in governing as he was in the campaign. But, as Jonathan Gruber points out in an editorial today in the NY Times, Trump can actually keep those features but still destroy Obamacare and deny health insurance to millions. Without the other features of Obamacare, insurers could either deny insurance coverage entirely to someone with a pre-existing condition or price the coverage at a level that would be unaffordable. In fact, as Gruber points out, this would actually take us to a point where we would be worse off then we even were before Obamacare. At least back then, insurers would not insure for the costs of the pre-existing condition but would insure for other, unrelated medical costs. It is possible under Trump's proposal that that option would just not exist.
We are seeing a similar story play out with the question of whether the GOP will eliminate the filibuster. I have read multiple stories describing Mitch McConnell as interested in the traditions of the Senate and maintaining the rights of the minority. The New York Times wrote about McConnell a few days ago, saying, "Mr. McConnell is what is known on Capitol Hill as an institutionalist, a strong believer in the traditions and practices of the Senate. He was very critical of the decision by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who is retiring this year, to rally his party into limiting filibusters against nominees in response to Republican delaying tactics. Mr. McConnell has said repeatedly that it is crucial to American democracy to respect the special rights of the minority party in the Senate, and that it would be a mistake to limit the filibuster, since the decision could backfire if his party fell out of power." Perhaps the Times might want to consult Gessen third rule:
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
The idea that Mitch McConnell has any interest in the traditions of the Senate that do not devolve to his and his party's benefit is pure fantasy. As the above quote indicates, Reid's stance on judicial filibusters was in response to unprecedented Republican obstruction on judicial appointments. That followed on McConnell's unprecedented use of the filibuster when he was in the minority. And was subsequently followed by the unprecedented step in the history of our nation of not even giving a President's Supreme Court nominee a hearing. The idea that McConnell is an institutionalist is simply laughable and the author is simply deluding himself and us with is willful ignorance of the traditions and norms of governance that McConnell has already destroyed. That does not mean that McConnell will repeal the filibuster - he may find it more useful to let the Democrats use it and then clobber them about their obstruction in the 2018 midterm elections when Democrats have many tough seats to defend. But I know that, whatever decision he makes, it will not be because he respects the traditions of the Senate and traditions and norms of governance that have existed for years.
As Gessen stresses time and again in her article, the natural instinct for people and the press is to consistently look to normalize the situation. Her fourth rule reminds us to fight against that instinct and temptation.
Rule #4: Be outraged. If you follow Rule #1 and believe what the autocrat-elect is saying, you will not be surprised. But in the face of the impulse to normalize, it is essential to maintain one’s capacity for shock. This will lead people to call you unreasonable and hysterical, and to accuse you of overreacting. It is no fun to be the only hysterical person in the room. Prepare yourself.
Let us hope all of us, especially the media, can remember this rule as the Trump administration plays out. And that we can all resist the temptation to think that any of what is going on should be described as "normal". Please read Gessen's entire article - I have a feeling we will have to refer back to it often in the years ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment