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
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:
Trump's boat bombings in the Caribbean just got worse. An internal DOJ memo says the victims are waging war on the US, but per NYT, it extensively cites the WH's *own claims* to this effect as evidence!
The memo purportedly justifying these murders also contains a lengthy section that lays out arguments defending the actions of those carrying out the strikes. In short, it *preemptively* defends them from potential prosecution later.
Ever since the bombings began, a big Q has been: Do those carrying them out fear they're being given illegal orders? The official overseeing them recently resigned with no explanation, prompting Dems to ask if he'd concluded bombings are illegal. 3/
This has gotten lost: Abigail Spanberger won big after vowing to RESCIND Glenn Youngkin's executive order directing local cooperation with ICE and voting AGAINST the anti-immigrant Laken Riley Act. Yet she gained bigly with working class.
Remember when Ruben Gallego preened around over his support for the Laken Riley Act, and pundits treated him as having the magic key to Dems' working class woes?
Well, Spanberger voted against it and erased GOP gains with working class and among Latinos:
Some Dems and pundits overread Trump's win. They looked at dissatisfaction with the border and discerned a seismic cultural reaction to immigration levels inside the country. The former was real. The latter is a mirage.
Remarkable: In Virginia and New Jersey, Spanberger and Sherrill erased the GOP edge among working class. Per exit polls, each got 50% of noncollege voters, big gains over previous contests.
Anti-Trump politics appeals to working class, too!
The results decisively refute need for false choice between "anti-Trump" and affordability. In exit polls, Spanberger and Sherrill both got 50% of noncollege voters, and both got *huge* majorities of nonwhite noncollege voters. Reverses Trump gains bigly: