Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

“Donald Trump is the least racist person I know.”

— David Duke

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

This article is part in a weeklong series on President Trump’s first year in office.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are professors of government at Harvard University who had the fun idea of releasing a new, unfortunately relevant book, How Democracies Die. (For those who find the title too sanguine, Die is written in such large letters on the cover that you have to open the book to see who wrote it.) Inside, you will find a depressingly thorough accounting of the ways in which democracy has withered at various times in various countries over the past 100 years. Much of the book focuses on things like norms breached and then disappeared; concerted attacks from anti-democratic forces on crucial institutions; and the rise of political partisanship.

Levitsky and Ziblatt are not entirely pessimistic, because they believe there are things that can be done to rescue democracies on the brink. (See below.) But they leave readers in no doubt that they should be worried about the state of American democracy. I spoke by phone with Levitsky and Ziblatt recently. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed whether you need a well-thought-out plan to be a strongman, what America still has going for it, and why the Mueller investigation might be a stress test that American democracy cannot pass.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

President Trump, having clearly spent the morning absorbed in the careful study of immigration issues, just unleashed this thoughtful and considered policy prescription:

We must have Security at our VERY DANGEROUS SOUTHERN BORDER, and we must have a great WALL to help protect us, and to help stop the massive inflow of drugs pouring into our country!

The notion that a wall will stop the influx of drugs is a fantasy, but the real point here is that Trump is doubling down on his rejection of a deal reached by a bipartisan group of senatorsthat would protect the “dreamers,” because it didn’t give him enough concessions, including on the wall. That rejection makes a government shutdown more likely.

But now, thanks to an important new report in The Post, we have learned much more about how and why he rejected this compromise. And it’s grounds for serious pessimism about what comes next.

The Post report confirms that despite Trump’s denial of the “shithole countries” comment, Trump did, in fact, privately conclude that the deal would result in more people coming to the U.S. “from countries he deemed undesirable.” This shows that Trump rejected the deal (as I argued) because it does not do enough to reverse the current racial and ethnic mix in the U.S.

But it gets worse: The Post also reports that Trump was originally favorable towards the deal, but the anti-immigration hardliners around him intervened, on the grounds that it would supposedly be “damaging” to Trump and “would hurt him with his political base.” This included (unsurprisingly) Stephen Miller and even (disturbingly) chief of staff John Kelly. After that, The Post reports, Trump began telling friends that the agreement was “a terrible deal for me.”

This is dispiriting to learn, because in reality, the deal actually makes substantial concessions to Trump. The deal would offer legal protections to the dreamers — people who were brought here illegally as children — in exchange for ending some types of family-based immigration (dreamers will not be able to petition for their parents to get legal protections, so they aren’t rewarded for bringing their kids here) and cutting in half the amount of visas the lottery system awards to people from historically lower-immigration countries.

Though they pretend otherwise, these are both meaningful sops to the restrictionists. For the vast majority of lawmakers, the argument here is not over whether to protect the dreamers — Trump himself supports doing this — it’s over what Trump should be given in exchange for agreeing to it. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that as many as 500,000 parents of dreamers who might otherwise have tried to gain legal status probably would not be able to under this deal, according to the group’s senior policy analyst Julia Gelatt.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

WASHINGTON — Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, was subpoenaed last week by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to testify before a grand jury as part of the investigation into possible links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The move marked the first time Mr. Mueller is known to have used a grand jury subpoena to seek information from a member of Mr. Trump’s inner circle. The special counsel’s office has used subpoenas before to seek information on Mr. Trump’s associates and their possible ties to Russia or other foreign governments.

The subpoena could be a negotiating tactic. Mr. Mueller is likely to allow Mr. Bannon to forgo the grand jury appearance if he agrees to instead be questioned by investigators in the less formal setting of the special counsel’s offices in Washington, according to the person, who would not be named discussing the case. But it was not clear why Mr. Mueller treated Mr. Bannon differently than the dozen administration officials who were interviewed in the final months of last year and were never served with a subpoena.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

If someone punched you in the nose, what would you do? Does your answer change if he has a nuclear bomb? What if you do, too?

President Trump’s war of words with North Korea over its ever-improving nuclear program is a battle dictated by the tenets of game theory. Each side postures, responds and anticipates, trying to convince the other that it’s willing to fight and unwilling to back down. So far, it has been only a war of words.

But last week, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing unnamed officials, that “U.S. officials are quietly debating whether it’s possible to mount a limited military strike against North Korean sites without igniting an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula.” The limited strike, the article says, would target a North Korean facility as punishment for one of the country’s nuclear or missile tests. South Korea says that Trump told its president that the Journal’s report was “completely wrong,” and that there would be no military strike while the two Koreas were in ongoing diplomatic talks.

But despite Trump’s reported denial, the plan, which is nicknamed the “bloody nose” option, has prompted a fierce debate about its merits. And while it would change the state of play, it is also consistent with a “game” where convincing your opponent of your intentions is paramount.

 

[Michael Scally MD]