The Pointless Triumph of a Hapless President
I am praying for the appearance of this masterpiece in my lifetime, but my guess is that before too long, grave chroniclers will be neglecting all the absurdist Trumpian set pieces — his firing of his secretary of state Rex Tillerson via Twitter; his dogged insistence, despite official forecasts, that Hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama, prompting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to issue a statement supporting his view; Rudy Giuliani's accusations of voter fraud in the 2020 election, delivered in the parking lot of Four Seasons Total Landscaping — in favor of earnest analysis of the economic impact of withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement.
We have been advised to take Mr. Trump, if not literally, then at least seriously. I do not think we should extend him even that courtesy. We should see him not as a Caesarean figure set upon remaking the United States in his own image or an ideologue who has attempted to impose a coherent philosophical vision on our unruly public life, but as a somewhat hapless, distracted character, equally beholden to vast structural forces and to the limitations of his own personality.
The only thing more remarkable than the rhetorical élan with which Mr. Trump has laid out a revolutionary new agenda for the Republican Party — realist in foreign policy, populist and protectionist in economics, moderate on social issues — is his gross unsuitability for any task more consequential than the lowering of marginal tax rates. On issues ranging from military intervention to health care to the stock market, Mr. Trump is simply the continuation of the G.O.P. establishment by other means. If Barry Goldwater was the book and Ronald Reagan the movie, Mr. Trump is the glitzy jukebox musical.
This understanding of Mr. Trump's political career is, among other things, the best way to make sense of his recent decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. His dovish admirers reacted with shock, interpreting the move as a betrayal of noninterventionist principles. Republican hawks told themselves that like George W. Bush, with his abandoned vow to avoid nation-building, Mr. Trump had simply evolved.
Both sides assumed far too much ideological intent. His decision is best understood not as a betrayal of principle or the result of a deliberative process of coming around to his opponents' view, but rather as an expression of his desire to accomplish something — anything.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's latest Epstein distraction — falsely accusing Obama of ‘treason'
A House Oversight subcommittee Advertisement So, of course, the administration sent Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Gabbard falsely stated that there's 'irrefutable evidence' that Obama and his national security team tried to 'launch a coup' against Trump with bogus claims that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit the former reality TV host. In 2020, a Advertisement But as with the deadly insurrection that he incited on Jan. 6, 2021, Trump is making another mendacious effort to rewrite history for his own self-serving narrative. Trump attacks Obama because his Obama-hating base loves it. And because it's generally a waste of time responding to Trump's frequent tirades, the former president usually chooses silence and 'Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response,' read Obama called out Trump's obvious attempt to create a diversion to quell the public's insatiable appetite for news about the Epstein files, a burgeoning crisis of Trump's own making. For years, some people now in Trump's Cabinet seeded MAGA conspiracies about an Epstein 'client list' as well as his 2019 When Trump was reelected, Ever since, Trump has been grasping at counterprogramming to distract from a story that shows no signs of waning. Advertisement In a break from its usually tight-lipped protocol concerning Trump's health, the White House When that story didn't garner the days of coverage that the administration might have sought, Trump then tapped into a reliable and trusted friend: racism. On his social media site on July 21, Trump, out of nowhere, Despite Trump's foolishness, During the Trump years, much of the media has too often become smitten with whatever shiny thing he has twirled in their direction. This time, they're calling his many diversions exactly what they are. Some Democrats, finally seizing a way to upend this administration, have come together with Republicans to vote for more transparency from the Trump White House about the Epstein files. And some of Trump's staunchest MAGA loyalists, even if they haven't wholly turned against Trump, remain angry and are demanding answers. Which leaves Trump in the exact same place he's spent weeks trying to escape — mired in a self-inflicted scandal that he can't control as it threatens to consume his presidency. Advertisement Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Can Mamdani's Message Play Outside New York? It Already Has.
In the glow of Zohran Mamdani's convincing win in the Democratic mayoral primary in New York City, a common narrative has emerged to explain his ascendence. He was a master of social media; he was charming, attractive and well spoken; he and his team simply outworked everyone. But the emphasis on Mr. Mamdani's style overlooks the substance of his progressive message and how the city's voters came to embrace it, much as voters did in Boston in 2021 and in Chicago two years later. Those elections, along with recent polling on issues like rent control, wealth taxes and the burden of child care, suggest that many voters, particularly those in large Democratic-leaning cities, have become more receptive to progressive agendas. Mr. Mamdani, a state assemblyman and democratic socialist, adhered to a simple message in his primary campaign. New York, he said, was in the throes of an affordability crisis, and he had three main proposals to help: make city buses free, expand free child care and freeze the rent for stabilized apartments. The financial burden of paying for these policies, he suggested, would largely fall on wealthy taxpayers and businesses — a stance that has put Mr. Mamdani at odds with many mainstream Democrats, including Gov. Kathy Hochul. But the size of his victory has forced some in his party to grapple with his ascension and whether to adopt some of his messaging in next year's critical midterm elections. 'People are hungry for government to work and to get things done that matter and that will make a difference in their lives,' said Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston, who in 2021 became the city's youngest mayor in a century by pushing a similar slate of proposals. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trudeau radically overhauled the Senate — will Carney keep his reforms?
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau upended 150 years of Canadian parliamentary tradition when he dumped Liberal senators, named Independents to the upper house and generally stripped the place of partisan elements. The experiment produced mixed reviews, with some old-guard senators — those who were there well before Trudeau — arguing the Senate is now irrelevant, slower, less organized and more expensive. Some of Trudeau's appointees say the reforms have helped the Red Chamber turn the page on the near-death experience of the expenses scandal, which they maintain was fuelled by the worst partisan impulses. Defenders of the new regime say partisans are pining for a model that's best left in the dustbin of history. The Senate has been more active in amending government bills and those changes are not motivated by party politics or electoral fortunes — they're about the country's best interest, reformers say. As the debate rages internally over whether the last 10 years of change have been worth it, Prime Minister Mark Carney has said almost nothing about his vision for the upper the current model, would-be senators are recommended by an outside panel but the decision is still up to the prime minister. Most of Trudeau's early picks were strictly non-partisan but, as polls showed his party was headed for an almost certain defeat, he increasingly named Liberals to the chamber. Carney has already scrapped Trudeau's carbon tax, introduced legislation to bypass Trudeau-era regulations, repaired once-frosty relations with the provinces and taken a different approach to the trade war. All that has some senators wondering whether the non-partisan push in the Red Chamber will be the next domino to fall. In an interview with CBC Radio's The House, House leader Steve MacKinnon signalled there may indeed be more changes coming. "I think the Senate is very much a work in progress," he said. "We continue to work constructively with the Senate in its current configuration and as it may evolve. I know many senators, the various groups in the Senate and others continue to offer some constructive thoughts on that." Asked if Carney will appoint Liberals, MacKinnon said the prime minister will name senators who are "attuned to the vagaries of public opinion, attuned to the wishes of Canadians and attuned to the agenda of the government as is reflected in the election results." Carney is interested in senators who "are broadly understanding of what the government's trying to achieve," MacKinnon said. As to whether he's heard about efforts to revive a Senate Liberal caucus, MacKinnon said: "I haven't been part of any of those discussions." Alberta Sen. Paula Simons is a member of the Independent Senators Group, the largest in the chamber and one mostly composed of Trudeau appointees (she is one of them, appointed in 2018). Simons said she knows the Conservatives would scrap Trudeau's reforms at the first opportunity. What concerns her more are those Liberals who are also against the changes. "There's a fair bit of rumbling about standing up a Liberal caucus again. And I am unalterably opposed to that," she said. When the last Liberal caucus was disbanded, some of its members regrouped as the Progressive Senate Group, which now includes senators who were never Liberals. "To unscramble that omelette, whether you're a Liberal or a Conservative, I think would be a betrayal of everything that we've accomplished over the last decade," Simons said. "I think the Senate's reputation has improved greatly as a result of these changes. I think the way we are able to improve legislation has also increased tenfold. It would be foolish and wasteful to reverse that." Still, she said there's been pushback from some Trudeau appointees. Senate debates are now longer, committee hearings feature more witnesses and there's more amendments to legislation than ever before, she said. Not to mention Independent senators can't be whipped to vote a certain way. All of that makes the legislative process more difficult to navigate. "Partisan Liberals don't like the new independent Senate because they can't control it as easily," she said. Marc Gold, Trudeau's last government representative in the Senate who briefly served under Carney before retiring, said his advice to the new prime minister is to keep the Senate the way it is. "The evolution of the Senate to a less partisan, complementary institution is a good thing. I think it's a success, and I certainly hope that it continues," Gold said. On the other side of the divide, Quebec Sen. Leo Housakos, the leader of the Conservative Senate caucus, welcomes the idea of injecting some partisanship. He said, under the current model, the chamber is less influential. "The place has become, unfortunately, an echo chamber," he said. Housakos said the old Senate was more honest, when members were more transparent about their political leanings. Many of Trudeau's Independent appointees are Liberal-minded and their voting record suggests they often align with the government, Housakos said. "Look at how often they've held the government to account," he said. "Look how often they've asked the difficult questions in the moments when the government needed … their feet held to the fire." Simons sees things differently. "It's really difficult for people who've been brought up in a partisan milieu, whether they're Conservative or Liberal or New Democrat, to understand that it is actually possible to be a political actor without a team flag," she said. "It's not my job to stand for a political party." Saskatchewan Sen. Pamela Wallin is a member of the Canadian Senators Group, which is made up of non-partisan senators including some who, like her, formerly sat as Conservatives. She said the current process has produced some senators who are political neophytes, unfamiliar with the Senate's traditional role. "I don't care if somebody belongs to a political party.… I think people need to be better educated about what they're signing up for," she said. "Our job is to be an arbiter of legislation and laws put forward by the House of Commons. It's not a place where we can all ride our individual hobby horses." That's a reference to the proliferation of Senate public bills — legislation introduced by senators themselves. These bills often have no hope of passing through both chambers, while still taking time and resources to sort through. There is data to support Wallin's contention that there are more of these bills than there were before the Trudeau reforms. During Stephen Harper's last term, there were 56 Senate public bills introduced and nine of them were passed into law, according to a CBC News review of parliamentary data. By comparison, Trudeau's final session saw 92 bills introduced over a shorter time period. Only 12 of them passed — a worse success rate. In the first few weeks of this new Parliament, more than 32 such bills have already been introduced, some of them a revival of those that died on the order paper. Wallin said those bills often reflect senators' "personal interests or the interests that they've shared over a lifetime." She wants the Senate to take a "back to basics" approach. "Our job is sober second thought," she said. Wallin is also calling for better regional representation in the Senate, which may be a tricky proposition given the constitutional realities. A change in seat allocation would require cracking open that foundational document, a politically unpalatable idea. Still, Alberta separatists are agitating for change, calling the current breakdown grossly unfair. Housakos said depriving some parts of the country of meaningful representation needs to be addressed. In B.C., for example, the province's nearly six million people are represented by just six senators. P.E.I., by comparison, has four senators for about 180,000 people — an allocation formula that dates back to Confederation. "Western Canada has a legitimate beef. They are not fairly represented in the upper chamber," Housakos said. "It's probably the biggest problem that needs to be addressed." But the government isn't interested in that sort of change, MacKinnon said. "I see no space on the public agenda for constitutional discussions," he said.
