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
In this response to NYT/Joe Kahn fiasco, I try to pinpoint five conventions of political reporting that obscure the Trump threat and work against Kahn's own stated goal of informing voters.
First, the "two different realities on democracy" fallacy:
Second, the failure to clearly describe Trump's plan to cancel prosecutions of himself and other elements of his legal strategy as threats to the system itself, that is, as efforts to put himself above the law:
As an example of number 2, look how @nytpolitics today describes Trump's plan to end prosecutions of himself. NYT editors: Do you really think casual readers will grasp how abnormal/threatening to the system this is? Tell them what the stakes truly are.
Dems could also use the hearings to voice core principles: It's possible to call out antisemitism while also insisting it's not antisemitic to criticize Israel's war conduct. Or that one can call out violence while also condemning police overreaction.
Fox News propaganda about Trump's trial has taken on some serious North Korea vibes: It absurdly portrays him as exerting total mastery over the proceedings and even depicts his dozing off as an act of heroic defiance.
Trump has been posting video of Fox personalities gushing about what a huge winner the trial has been for him. But privately, NYT reports, he's raging at his lead lawyer, which suggests he doesn't actually think things are going too well for him. 2/
One Fox News personality even tried to push the idea that Trump's trial is good for him because it means he can't do rallies, denying the media an opportunity to "twist Trump's words."
Trump is Owning The Media and the media doesn't even know it! 3/
NEWS --> Prominent conservative Michael Luttig excoriates the right wing SCOTUS justices as "radical," predicting that in the 1/6 case, they'll protect Trump entirely.
“I now believe that it is unlikely Trump will ever be tried," Luttig tells me.
Also in our interview: Michael Luttig, who has strong conservative credentials, is harshly critical of the lines of questioning from Samuel Alito and the other right wing justices.
Luttig says a grant of immunity would "license all future presidents to commit crimes against the United States while in office with impunity."
Michael Luttig predicts that either a delay will enable Trump to cancel Jack Smith's 1/6 prosecution if he wins the election, or that SCOTUS will grant Trump immunity so he never even gets tried.
Liz Cheney just said something deeply troubling: If SCOTUS delays immunity ruling, voters might be denied critical info about Trump's conduct while the mob raged, which Jack Smith has. That would reward Trump allies for their coverup.
Jack Smith has testimony from top Trump advisers about how Trump acted *during the attack* that the 1/6 committee could not get. SCOTUS delay could keep that buried.
In this piece, a senior 1/6 committee staffer explains what this means. Deeply sobering:
Those who deny that 1/6 was an insurrection rely heavily on severing Trump's incitement of the mob from the procedural coup. But Jack Smith likely has evidence showing they are one and the same story. It would be scandalous if *that* remains buried.
Important but overlooked: Mike Johnson explicitly says he's acting on Ukraine because believes what our intel agencies say about the awful consequences of abandoning it.
That's a striking rebuke to MAGA's lies about the "deep state" and the war. 1/
“I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we’ve gotten,” Mike Johnson said, noting that Ukraine aid will stop Putin from expanding his conquest later.
Remarkably, he's saying that on these matters, the "deep state" is telling the truth. 2/