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 December, NYT revealed that Elon Musk and SpaceX were failing to meet govt reporting protocol designed to protect state secrets while they haul in billions in Pentagon contracts.
This triggered three reviews, per NYT. One was from the Defense Department inspector general. 1/
It's time to ask: What's going on with those reviews into Musk/SpaceX's failure to meet basic reporting protocol linked to their billions in Pentagon contracts?
Dems tell me they fear these investigations might get killed under Trump. 2/
When Trump fired all those inspector generals, one of them was the IG for the Defense Department. He was examining whether Musk/ SpaceX were failing to meet reporting protocol to safeguard state secrets as huge beneficiaries of Pentagon contracts. 3/
It gets worse: Trump's Treasury Dept has a new letter spinning Musk's access to payment data as a mere "audit" that expands on work done during Biden admin. It's a sham. The letter simply ignores the biggest Qs about this scandal.
For instance, if Musk's access expands on a review started under Biden, why did Treasury Sec Bessent allow a member of DOGE to oversee it, rather than a career official?
Plus, Sen Wyden tells me former officials are unaware of any previous audit:
The most senior career official at Treasury was purged after protesting the access that DOGE officials had secured. Why would that have happened if this were an innocent expansion of a previous process?
The awful news that Elon Musk clashed w/top Treasury official in an effort to access govt payment systems raises a crucial question: Did Trump authorize this, or not?
I spoke to former Treasury and OMB officials, and they said Elon Musk accessing government payment systems could give him the power to selectively turn off payments. They described what this really means in very clarifying terms. See below:
The ugly celebration of mass deportations by Trump, the WH, and Karoline Leavitt is vile on its own. But it also has a purpose: It's a pretext for Trump to vastly expand his powers. That's what the "invasion" imagery is really about.
WH is pumping out imagery of migrants being marched on to military planes while claiming deportations "have begun." But crossings are down, and as @ReichlinMelnick notes, removals by plane go back years. The point is to portray a state of permanent war.
Here's the thing: The failure to deport people quickly enough isn't actually a serious national problem. GOPers and red areas expressing serious misgivings about removals, fearing economic disruptions. Pro-deportation hysteria will not be sustainable.
Good piece by @AdamSerwer identifying a key through line of Trumpism: Creating subordinate, inferior classes that are more easily subjected to persecution and abuse 1/ theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Adding to @AdamSerwer, another one of Trump's executive orders also does this: It effectively declares that by pronouncing us under "invasion," Trump is now unbound by Congress or statute in determining what to do w/the "invaders," as I reported. 2/
@AdamSerwer Relatedly, this is also an important nugget from @AdamSerwer: Some factions in the conservative legal movement are using the "invasion" rationale to invent a new way to undermine the guarantee of birthright citizenship. 3/
Scoop --> Republicans didn't intend this, but it turns out the Laken Riley Act gives Steve Bannon a big weapon against Elon Musk. Bannon tells me he'll use it to get MAGA AGs to sue to block H1B visas. Rs created a big mess for themselves here.
This also creates more MAGA splits. Bannon will demand bans of H1B visas from, say, India. But will Secretary of State Marco Rubio want that? If not, Bannon can get AGs to try to force him to.
Also: Tech industry lobbyists are worried, source tells me.