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
Unreal: To sustain his "genocide" of "white farmers" lie while meeting with the South African president, Trump used a photo of war deaths in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
I looked into this a bit more. It's worse than it first appeared. 1/
First, note that the printout Trump used to humiliate Ramaphosa came from a conservative blog post, which used an image from a Reuters video about DRC. Perhaps an aide Googled "white farmers" and "South Africa," found this, and gave it to Trump. 2/
But there's something darker here. Even as Trump used this image of the dead from the DRC war to push a fake "genocide," Trump has suspended foreign aid and refugee resettlement in ways that are hurting countless humanitarian victims of that REAL war! 3/
Amazing: Trump grew angry over a Biden-era program with the word "equity" in its name, so he ended it. But a key part of the program was sending money to red states to expand internet access in rural/MAGA country. Now they might not get it.
Trump saw the word "equity" in the name of this Biden-era program, so naturally he decided it must be serving undeserving minorities, giving him an opening to demagogue about it.
A funny thing about this saga: Many red state governments had submitted proposals in hopes of accessing this federal money. I looked at the proposals. They are in no small part about using this money to expand high speed internet into rural areas.
The dumbest thing about Trump's desire to manufacture dolls in the US is that many of the jobs would be bad ones: Connecting plastic body parts to torsos, attaching nylon hair, etc.
Everybody is talking about Trump's doll lunacy from the consumer side of the equation. But we should also talk about it from the labor side. Are doll manufacturing jobs something we want at massive scale? No, not really. Here's what this would look like:
If tariffs are designed to create high-quality US jobs, weakening unions and gutting regulatory oversight will work against that goal, especially in something like the doll industry, with its high-volume, repetitive tasks involving synthetic materials.
Now that Trump has openly admitted he could bring back Abrego Garcia whenever he wants, his lawyer tells me he will use discovery to determine which officials are advising Trump to defy the Supreme Court.
“[Trump] has now said...he could easily bring Abrego Garcia back...but he’s been told not to...we’re going to...find out exactly which government officials gave him that instruction."
Another attorney for the Abrego Garcia family says Trump's lawyers "appear to be obeying Stephen Miller and not the Supreme Court. Miller himself should be deposed under oath in federal court to determine his role in this ongoing affront to due process.”
Trump is trying to bludgeon us into accepting the tactics and imagery of fascism: Forced disappearances, renditions to foreign gulags, the ritual humiliation of hated enemies within.
That's why it's so crucial that the middle is rejecting it.
Anyone watching Stephen Miller on TV for 5 seconds can see that he and Trump are trying to acclimate voters into accepting rampant lawlessness as a fundamental feature of American life. That's why it's so good to see independents/moderates rebelling:
I looked at a lot of polling and found that independents are tilting in particular against the lawless stuff from Trump that involves basic questions of fundamental fairness, due process, and the rule of law.
What's crucial here is that Trump is bleeding independents on immigration *both* in terms of generalized disapproval *and* on the lawless specifics. Look at these numbers:
Note that all these issues turning independents against Trump involve questions of fundamental fairness, due process, and the rule of law. The imagery of rampant lawlessness tends to be the sort of thing that alienates those voters.