1. Trump has apparently ordered staffers not to mention Nixon's name, which is of course hilarious but also telling. Trump is Nixon's heir and, one hopes, the twilight of Nixonism.
2. Nixon was the president that broke the New Deal coalition and initiated the modern lurch to the right but he was transitional figure & still kept some of the older big government programs. Subsequent GOP (and some Dems) have kept to the Nixon formula.
3. The linkages between Trump and Nixon are many. Trump's mentor Roy Cohn was an old Nixon ally in McCarthy era. Roger Stone -- of Nixon tattoo fame -- is Trump's oldest political crony.
4. Yet to bring up Nixon's name underscores Trump's weaknesses & limits. Say what you will about Nixon but at least he had an intellect: a devious one that also had some complexity. More here: thenation.com/article/politi…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. This is exactly right. Facebook & Twitter deserve no credit for finally banning Trump when they played so large a role (along with cable companies) in creating Trump. The regretful tears of Dr. Frankenstein are too little, too late.
2. The social media shut out of Trump in an emergency, after he fanned violence against Congress, is eminently defensible but it also highlights the dangerously oversized power these private organizations have in political life.
3. The capriciousness of the social media giants is striking. Trump has been doing incendiary & often racist speech long before he became president. And he wasn't banned for political and economic reasons. Now he's on the way out, they ban him.
1. Trump's retreat on the stimulus package (signing what he once threatened to veto) is further evidence that he's been (as Glassman & others have argued) a weak president in terms of legislation. Where does that leave the idea that he's also an authoritarian threat?
2. The critics of Trump-is-an-authoritarian-threat (most cogently @CoreyRobin & @moyn) have long pointed out that in terms of actually getting things done, or even persuading the public, Trump has been a singular failure. This is true but a weak president can still be dangerous.
3. As a reality show president, Trump's always been more interested in the symbolic part of rule (playing at leadership) than actually doing things. And the way he's performed the presidency has, in fact, broken new grounds in incitement.
1. This gets at why Trump's latest move is such a gift for the Democrats: they can either show Senate GOP is opposed to relief or get the $2000 per person (which would be good).
2. Beyond that, the current juncture opens up the possibility of wedging Trump away from institutional GOP, which would be good for Dems even after Trump leaves office.
3. Trump will have a lot followers even after Jan. 20th and it'll be good for Dems if he's mad at GOP and trying to sabotage GOP agenda.
1. The Intercept has a blockbuster report on the CIA running death squads in Afghanistan & its not getting much attention. Worth asking why. theintercept.com/2020/12/18/afg…
2. The combination of a volunteer army, low USA casualties & the fact that the war is being mainly conducted by CIA run militias means the public is tuning out Afghan news, even though the war itself is unpopular.
3. Unfortunately, there's little reason to hop for anything better from Biden. He might (one hopes) shut down the CIA death squads, but based on Obama era example, no one will be brought to justice. The forever war is likely to continue.
1. So, taking year end stock & am pleased that among the 150 articles I wrote, a few are worth revisiting. My best is this piece on Richard Hofstadter, which is also about why American liberalism fails to understand & effectively fight the radical right thenation.com/article/cultur…
1. There's a lot of commentary on Mank which re-litigates the old authorship dispute of Mankiewicz versus Welles, which I think is a disservice to both the film & to larger story of the making of Citizen Kane.
2. Screenwriter versus director, Mank versus Welles is a tired debate because like almost every film aside from Brakage-style independent movies all film is collaborative (and Brakage, to be frank, had a lot of help from his family!).
3. On the Mank/Welles credit, I think @tnyfrontrow is judicious: “Mankiewicz’s work was fundamental, and Welles’s revisions were transformative.” But of course the film was also made by more than just the writer & director: there's the whole rest of the crew.