A credible allegation of attempted rape against Brett Kavanaugh may or may not lead Senate Republicans to slow their furious, reckless rush to cement a far-right five-man majority on the Supreme Court on behalf of Donald Trump
But you can be certain that Trump himself won’t abandon Kavanaugh.
That’s because what’s at issue here is an attack on a woman — in the context of a presidency that has been misogynistic to its core.
As the Nation’s Katha Pollitt wrote a few days after the 2016 election, “Trump and his followers have normalized the demeaning of women, even in its coarsest, crudest forms.”
Trump himself bragged about assaulting women in the infamous grab-them-by-the-pussy tape. And he has consistently treated women as objects.
Isolated women are valued – but as decoration, or as a way of defending against accusations of sexism. (Or, in the case of his daughter Ivanka, both.)
Kavanaugh was Trump’s master stroke against women. Under a veneer of respectful behavior, he was a sure bet to be the fifth vote to undermine minority rights in general, and women’s reproductive rights in particular.
Kavanaugh’s disrespect for women’s autonomy over their own bodies was on full display during his Senate confirmation hearings – not by virtue of what he said, but by virtue of what he didn’t say. Despite hailing a number of other Supreme Court precedents, he said nothing about Roe v. Wade definitive enough to contradict previous expressions of skepticism.
And despite his homage to his very accomplished mother, and his record of hiring women clerks, he showed no empathy for women in general.
If Kavanaugh’s treatment of women (or a woman) is his downfall, it could be a harbinger of what’s to come. At least that’s the argument that noted feminist author Jill Filipovic makes in Vice today.
Although it seems like ages, it was less than a month ago that Trump’s longtime fixer Michael Cohen pled guilty to making illegal payments to Trump’s mistresses — a crime in which Trump was an unindicted co-conspirator.
As Filipovic writes: “That was the clearest indication yet that Trump committed an illegal act during his campaign, and it had nothing at all to do with backroom deals with Russia.”
And coming up: Trump’s required answers to question in a defamation lawsuit from Summer Zervos, a former contestant on his reality show The Apprentice who says Trump sexually assaulted her in 2007.
Will Kavanaugh face a reckoning? Will Trump? If not, it will just make it that much harder to repair the damage the Trump era has done to the cause of women’s rights.
As Pollitt wrote, “the tremendous amount of collective work it took to create and maintain even the minimal norms of civility and respect for women has been undone. It won’t be so easy to rebuild those norms.”
Nine years after the end of its run at the Washington Post, White House Watch is back as an independent website.
Despite the abundance of Trump coverage, I see two ways it can add value above the din:
By relentlessly putting Trump’s incremental actions in their proper, alarming context as an ongoing, corrupt assault on pluralism, shared truths, and core liberal democratic values; and
By convening an ongoing online dialogue about what we need to do once Trump is gone, with an emphasis on strengthening our democracy and curbing executive branch powers that have grown unchecked.
We can’t allow this to become the new normal. So how do we restore pre-Trump expectations? And having learned some very painful lessons, how do we apply them to rebalance and reenergize our democracy?
I don’t have the answers, but I’m excited about asking the questions and reporting what I hear.
In addition to multiple postings using the latest news as a point of departure, I’ll do my own reporting and interviews. I’ll talk to experts about the weakening of the checks and balances intended to protect us from tyranny, and how to strengthen them. I’ll review literature on key topics, especially related to the violation and restoration of norms. I’ll experiment with online annotation of articles, essays and white papers. Depending on the site’s budget, there could be podcasts and even teach-ins.
I’m also intent on offering a megaphone to the growing community of groups and individuals already focused on the work of restoring and protecting core democratic principles. The endless scandals, outrages and distractions of the Trump era have robbed them of the national attention they deserve. White House Watch will work with them on internet time to inject their important perspective into the daily political discourse.
The original White House Watch resonated more strongly with readers than anything I’ve done since.
To do it again, though, I’m going to need your help. Please participate. That means brainstorming about the subjects at hand. It also means telling me what the site can do better and needs to fix, or change.
Spread the word. Share widely. And please consider supporting White House Watch through donations of money or services. White House Watch has a hybrid business model that includes some institutional support and some private support, so If you’re a like-minded group, let’s work together. Please donate here, or email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Books and op-eds have lately been helping the public more fully grasp just how dysfunctional, deceitful and amoral the Trump White House is. But the daily news stories (unless they are about those books and op-eds)? Not so much.
Consider the formulaic, not particularly enlightening coverage of Trump’s assertion Tuesday (followed by a tweet Wednesday) that his administration had done a great job helping Puerto Rico after it was ravaged by Hurricane Maria.
This was really a Trump doozy, not just outrageously, objectively wrong — even crazy — but redolent of so many of Trump’s most horrible characteristics: racism, lack of empathy, cluelessness and/or mendacity, and narcissism.
And, for good measure, it cast considerable doubt on his placating platitudes about how prepared his administration is for a massive hurricane currently bearing down on the Carolinas.
The New York Times story was a huge missed opportunity, relying on a slightly snarky tone and stenography instead of putting his comments in their appropriate context.
Here’s the lede, by the profoundly talented and extraordinarily accomplished Frances Robles (so I blame her editors):
President Trump patted himself on the back Tuesday for an “incredibly successful” job done in Puerto Rico, where the government estimates that nearly 3,000 people died as a result of Hurricane Maria last year.
The first real pushback, after two more paragraphs of Trump stenography, is a nitpick about Trump’s misleading mention of a ship-based military hospital.
It isn’t until the eighth paragraph that we get, in the form of a quote from a third party, to the point that should have been made explicitly at the top:
“If he thinks the death of 3,000 people is a success, God help us all,” said Carmen Yulín Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, in a post on Twitter.
And nowhere in the story does it explain how many of the deaths were due to negligence, what precisely that negligence was, or why Trump might have neither cared much about Puerto Rico to begin with or now thinks it was a success.
The Associated Press story was a word salad of uncontextualized stenography, leading up to a “you decide” nut graph:
The administration’s efforts in Puerto Rico received widespread criticism, and he battled with Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz. But after visiting the island last September, Trump said that Puerto Ricans were fortunate that the storm did not yield a catastrophe akin to the havoc wreaked by Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast.
In a report published last month, George Washington University researchers estimated that the devastation wrought by Hurricane Maria had led to 2,975 excess deaths in the six months after the storm. The government of Puerto Rico has embraced the estimate, which the researchers arrived at by comparing the number of deaths after the hurricane to typical death rates and adjusting for a range of variables.
And they noted that an after-action report from FEMA had acknowledged some degree of fault.
But it was nevertheless a pretty listless story.
Let’s be real: To pretty much anyone who has the least idea of what happened in Puerto Rico, or what’s going on in Trump’s head, the only human reaction to what Trump said about Puerto Rico is a double-take.
And here’s where CNN, for a change, really shone. Instead of trying and failing to cram a double-take into the formulaic he-said-she-said incremental newspaper story, CNN’s folks reacted like human beings.
Right after cutting away from Trump’s live remarks, CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin brought on White House correspondent Kaitlin Collins and expressed appropriate incredulity.
Three thousand people died according to this most recent George Washington University study and the administration’s response is still under fire. Where is this incredibly successful even coming from?
That’s the question a lot of people are going to have after hearing the President’s comments there…. [T]he President looking back at Puerto Rico saying that it was an unsung success, that it was very successful, talking about the praise they received after that hurricane hit for the administration’s response. Which frankly, Brooke, just isn’t the case here. It’s actually been widely criticized because, of course, at first the death toll was in the dozens, and then it was raised to roughly 3,000 people who died there in Puerto Rico.
Half an hour later, CNN’s Jake Tapper drilled down in a conversation with CNN political commentators Angela Rye and Amanda Carpenter that hit all the right notes. Enjoy and learn:
Tapper: Obviously, when it comes to this pending storm, we’re all hoping for the best and hoping the Trump administration does everything it can do.
But the president saying that Puerto Rico was an unsung success, when the latest official government death toll from the government of Puerto Rico—and let’s remember these are American citizens—that’s a U.S. territory—is 2,975 dead. That is an unsung success.
Rye: No, it’s an unsung inaccuracy…. [N]ot to mention the number of people and families who had to relocate completely off the island, not to mention the fact that their economy is now on life support, and electricity is not all the way functioning, it’s far from a success.
And the fact that Donald Trump today would spend more time singing his own praises, rather than really leaning into a conversation with people in leadership there to figure out how they can really overcome and really have a success story for this particular storm, I think is very telling.
Tapper: Do you think, Amanda, that there are — President Trump doesn’t have the people around him who tell him, hey, by the way, don’t say that about Puerto Rico, it’s not a success, and they just upgraded the death toll to 2,975, that’s not a success, it’s embarrassing?
Carpenter: Perhaps, but I also think there’s probably people in the White House that have given up on trying to message the president.
I mean, look at his performance when he actually went to Puerto Rico. He is throwing out paper towels like he’s Santa Claus giving out goodies.
And I think this is part of the warped approach that he has towards disasters. He views it as an opportunity to hand out money and goodies for which people should be grateful to him. And he doesn’t understand the devastation and the fears.
And, honestly, if he thinks Puerto Rico is a success, I’m a little nervous. That makes me more nervous about Florence coming in.”
Cohn, a Wall Street veteran, tried to tamp down Trump’s strident nationalism regarding trade. According to Woodward, Cohn “stole a letter off Trump’s desk” that the president was intending to sign to formally withdraw the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea. Cohn later told an associate that he removed the letter to protect national security and that Trump did not notice that it was missing.
CNN has now posted the letter itself, dated September 5, 2017, as reproduced in Woodward’s book.
So, is this an example of Trump’s advisers saving him from unwittingly causing disaster and mayhem? Hardly.
For one, it’s been conflated with another Woodward anecdote, this one dating to January 19 (so the day before Trump’s inauguration?) at which Trump questioned the massive military presence in South Korea. “We’re doing this in order to prevent World War III,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis reportedly told him.
Even in that case, Trump’s questioning, while ridiculed by Washington insider and “adult in the room” Mattis, is actually not ridiculous at all. Jeff Faux raised the same question in The Nation just last March in his article “Why Are US Troops Still in South Korea, Anyway?”
“Citizens of our democracy looking for an answer soon find themselves lost in a fog of babble about America’s ‘vital interests.’ ” Faux wrote. He concluded that the U.S. military presence isn’t needed to defend South Korea, and by posing a threat to North Korea heightens tensions rather than lowers them.
But back to the actual letter, formally withdrawing the United States from a trade agreement with South Korea.
You will note that it is labeled “Pre-decisional/Deliberative” — so it wasn’t the copy Trump would actually have signed. And it doesn’t claim to end the trade deal — it provides 180 days notice, and includes an offer to negotiate.
Indeed, Trump had, a few months earlier, proudly announced his intent to end the Korea trade agreement right away — with no notice. In an April 2017 interview with the Washington Post, Trump called it “a horrible deal” that has left America “destroyed.”
His expressions of concern were hyperbolic — no surprise — but not entirely inaccurate.
As Lori Wallach, Public Citizen’s trade guru, explained to CBS Marketwatch(right around the time Cohn was whisking the letter off Trump’s desk), “The Korea agreement is the most dramatically failed of the free-trade agreements based on the model started by NAFTA.”
The data is brutal. Despite promises from George W. Bush and Barack Obama about how amazing it would be for U.S. workers, the U.S. trade deficit with Korea almost doubled in the agreement’s first five years. U.S. agricultural exports actually declined while a deluge of Korean cars were sold on the U.S. market.
Wallach had warned as much five years earlier, calling the deal “a job-offshoring, unsafe-import-flooding, ‘Buy America’-killing, food-safety-undermining, drug-price-rising, foreign-corporate-treasury-raiding, financial-deregulating trade agreement” that benefited giant multinational corporations most of all.
Flash forward to six months after Cohn took the letter off Trump’s desk: The administration announces a series of revisions to the Korean trade agreement, calling it “a major win for American workers and American businesses.”
But their net effect is laughable. Renegotiations left key issues that might have made a difference unaddressed, such as the elimination of job outsourcing incentives and addition of serious labor and environmental standards.
Scrapping the deal entirely would have been better for American workers.
Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be president. He is abusing executive power, violating norms that protect our democracy, and trying to divide and confuse the country.
But the only thing the members of the “resistance” inside the administration seems to care about is protecting themselves — “resisting” Trump’s attacks on the military and its contractors, multinational companies, and orthodox GOP principles Trump didn’t run on and doesn’t share.