Brief response to the @nytdavidbrooks column people are dunking on. His device (imagining the view from those at the bottom of the social order) is fine. Egalitarian liberals agree meritocracy is corrupted/distorted. But his core argument about the Trump indictments is flawed. 1/
There's a lot in the column, but I want to focus on the claim that “people in less-educated classes" feel under cultural “assault” from elites and see Trump as "their warrior against the educated class.”
This formulation erases the non-white working class from the equation. 2/
In 2020, 53% of Biden voters didn’t have a college degree, vs. 46% who did, per Pew. Yes, that's more lopsided for Trump (31-70). But the Dem anti-Trump coalition has a *lot* of the “less educated class” in it.
The two coalitions don’t look that different in this regard. 3/
Notably, Biden won a huge majority of *nonwhite* voters without a college degree.
Even if you grant there’s been some erosion among the nonwhite working class, the clear pattern is still that the anti-MAGA coalition has *tons* of “less educated” (nonwhite) voters in it. 4/
Also, as @NGrossman81 points out, income breakdowns of the voting also tell a very different story than the one Brooks is telling. 5/
Brooks applies this frame to the Trump indictments: Those prone to “distrustful populism” see them as “another skirmish in the class war between professionals and workers.” He fudges on whether he’s talking about Trump supporters, so let’s assume he really means “workers.” 6/
But there's a problem with Brooks' formulation: In the new NYT/Siena poll, a plurality of no-college voters overall thinks Trump committed serious federal crimes, 43-39. Yes, white no-college voters think he didn’t. But nonwhite no-college voters think he did by 53-25. 7/
And a bare plurality of non-college voters overall — 46-45 — say Trump threatened democracy in the lead up to 1/6. Yes, white no-college voters say he was just exercising his right to contest the outcome. But nonwhite no-college voters say he threatened democracy by 57-29. 8/
As I’ve argued (h/t @yeselson @erikloomis), simplified depictions of elite/no-college cultural schisms are totally divorced from today's realities. *This* merits more elite punditry! 9/9
Remarkable: Trump's planned migrant prison camps are hitting deep resistance in red areas. In Virginia's partly rural Hanover (+26 Trump) opposition is intense. GOP leaders in other states are opposed.
These vast prison camps would allow for the detention of 80,000 more migrants, doubling Trump/Miller's capacity for deportations. Yet resistance is breaking out in red Virginia, reddish parts of New Jersey, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Utah, and more. 2/
Stephen Miller is employing state terror in service of the open goal of shifting the ethnic mix of the country. In numerous ways he's doing this at the expense of public safety.
First, his grandmother has written an unpublished history of some of his ancestors' immigration to the US. We are publishing it online for the first time. They were attacked in terms similar to those he uses today.
Some news on Trump's doling out of most refugee slots to white South Africans: Two former State Department officials tell us basic protocols designed to determine whether this group actually merits protection have simply been scrapped. It's just whim.
Remarkable how brutal the ruling against Trump on Abrego Garcia truly is: It details malicious abuses of power all throughout. Trump and Stephen Miller were testing their ability to spread lawless state terror. But the court held the line. 1/
News --> The commander who oversaw Pete Hegseth's alleged killing of two boat bombing survivors is now likely to come in and face questions from House Armed Services Committee, ranking Dem Adam Smith tells me.
Pete Hegseth denies he gave the order to kill them all. But even some Republicans now appear to be demanding answers, so Frank Bradley, who oversaw bombings, is in talks with House Armed Services about coming in.
NEWS --> BBC confirms to me that they did edit a line out of historian @rcbregman's speech. It called Trump "the most openly corrupt president in US history."
BBC also confirms this was done on the advice of lawyers. So Trump's threats worked.
Today @rcbregman posted a transcript of his Reith Lecture showing that the version that BBC aired removed the line about Trump's world-historical corruption.
BBC emailed me: "we made the decision to remove one sentence from the lecture on legal advice.”
@rcbregman Trump is the most corrupt president in US history, and the openness of his corruption is an essential feature of it. It's extra bad that this comes as the Defense Department punishes Sen Mark Kelly for correctly warning against breaking illegal orders.
Remarkable: Rep Chrissy Houlahan, one of the Dems Trump called for executing, tells me her office literally filled out a Capitol Police threat report listing "the president" as the person making the threat.
One reason she and other Dems did the video about Trump's illegal orders is that they're hearing from inside the military and intel services of actual live fears that they're being given unlawful commands: