How Much Does Trump Firing ComeyThreaten Us? - Part 3

For the Good of the Country, Make Trump a 1 Term President 

Republican Lack of Will and Wishful Thinking
has Endangered Us

In part 1 and part 2, I warned that the likelihood for a Threatening Presidency though Medium is dangerously close to High.

• Attempt: High 
• Competence: Medium
• No Check: High -> Medium

Having already explained my ranks for Attempt and Competence, I will now explain No Check.

If you read the two previous posts, I had the No Check rank at High, but understandably, I’ve moved it back to Medium because Special Counsel Mueller was appointed. I am tentatively optimistic that it keeps this current threat contained. However, I am not overly so that we are safe from the next threat.

The Comey firing was a threat to our democratic progress. The only argument was whether the damage went beyond what the last two presidents have done. Thankfully, that question is irrelevant. We were alerted to it by Trump’s incompetence. And, he was checked by an institution, the justice system. Future presidents cannot hide their wrongdoing by firing their investigator.

So now, some parsing. I am watching for a Disaster Presidency and a Threat Presidency separately. They are certainly related, but as I pointed out in part 2, a potential disaster only protects us against certain kinds of threat. Wrongdoing found by the Special Counsel is a disaster that congress may act on, but future obstruction is the kind of threat they might ignore. There is a need to watch for what I described in part 2 as the Accidental Dictator.

What is concerning is that he was only stopped by the courage (or survival instinct) of a single individual, Deputy Attorney General Rubenstein. Our democracy protected by only the right person in the right place is not comforting. There may not be such an individual next time. So, far we have only been protected by leaks and the court (help by state governments). The check designated by the Constitution, Congress, has not come to our rescue, nor do I believe it will. How can I say that? History.

Fundamental to Trump becoming president is the Republican Party’s lack of will to stop him. Despite him stating he had no allegiance to their party, they let him run in their primary. Though constantly contradicting principles with which they have righteously judge the rest of us, they elected him as their nominee. Though well within their own rules and historical precedent, no one challenged him during the convention and let him have the nomination. Constantly prominent congressman voice objections to his behavior, then almost immediately endorsed him.

I understand why. They wanted to keep their jobs. Doing any of what I listed would have created a backlash endangering their re-election, even in the safest state/district. That has not changed. Of three presidents to be “impeached”^[1] (Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton), they were all done when the opposite party controlled the Congress, and many would agree that at least one of these “impeachment” was only politically motivated. We just argue about which one.

Simple fact, there is little chance President Trump will be removed from office.

But then, I am not asking him to be impeached. I’m asking the Congress to take lesser steps. How about a declaration that if he fires the next FBI director, congress will consider putative action? Congress could censure the president (though that would do little). At the very least, stop attacking one of the few checks that has been working, leaks.

Instead, they have cravenly done none of this. In their initial response to Comey’s firing, just a quarter of senators have said anything against Trump and then only in the most parsed and vague language. As I pointed out in part 2, they only increased the rhetoric when he should dangerous incompetence. Congress has been like the parents that let their kid kick strangers in the shine and says, “He’s such a handful. What can you do?”.

Again, I understand. Republican voters demand a huge price for disloyalty, and integrity gives little electoral reward. I said I understand. I don’t condone.

That the President endangers democracy is not enough. It’s also not enough that he endangers their re-election. They must be certain, with no possibility of doubt and, maybe not even then, they may embrace wishful thinking like we heard before. (He’ll change. He’ll have good people around him, etc.) Until Trump is so unpopular that they see no hope of being re-elected, we cannot expect the Congress to be a check on the President.

And there, the situation is sadder. Conservative media has fully embraced the idea that the Russian Investigation is only politics and “fake news”. There is no surprise that his aggregate approval is still above 38%^[2]. I can’t see the House become a real check until those approvals get into the low 30%, and still, it will be the least they can get away with. Only 2 senators need to worry about non-republican votes in 2018. I’m not certain there is a number low enough to move the Senate.

Considering this, I have a recently updated to the Congress Count:

• 52/238 is the Senate/House Success Count
• 64//217 is the Senate/House Disaster Count
• 16/23 is the Senate/House Resistance Count

As you would expect, the Disaster Count did go up but not by enough. (Que outrage.) Looking at senators that have spoken out, I can only comfortably add one new senator, Bob Corker. Representatives have been silent. (Que more outrage.) So, I looked at those who voted against the AHCA. This does put us just short of the 67/218^[3] we need, and you would think that would calm me some. However, there was I reason I did not make the Disaster Count the same as the Threatening Rank. The Disaster Count measures whether Congress will react to President Trump after the disaster happens. That’s reactive. What we are asking is whether they will proactively stop him. It’s the difference between taking the car keys away after the crash or taking them before the drunk driver gets into the car. For that, it must start with two people, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Therefore, I added a new count, the Resistance Count.^[4] This is the Disaster Count minus any democrats. The theory is that to push McConnell and Ryan, they first must worry about losing their majority seat. Over fifty present of their party must want it. By that measure, 16/23, means we must rely on their conscience to act. (Que shiver.)

Now, the democrats winning the House in 2018 has become critical to protecting our democracy. History and convention say they will, but we are far from a guarantee. The senate is almost assuredly to remain in control of republicans. Still, the House would be enough to continue investigations that neither the President nor republicans can stop. However, do not count on impeachment. The House has the power to call impeachment, but if it does not pass the Senate, Trump would more likely be helped as Clinton was. Instead, a more realistic goal is to win the House, keep him in check, and make sure the American people understand the full details of his unfitness. Then, we can end this nightmare in 2020.

How Much Does Trump Firing ComeyThreaten Us? - Part 2

Rise of the Accidental Dictator

WARNING: Do not read this while drinking. It will make you sad and drink more. A lot more.

In part 1, I warned that the likelihood for a Threatening Presidency is still Medium but on its way to High

• Attempt: High 
• Competence: Medium 
• No Check: High 

Having already explained the increase in Attempt, I will now cover Competence

The good news is that these past days does not indicate he has gained competence. The true potential dictator would have waited, coordinated a better message, and had someone to take Comey's place. He also never would have admitted to the real reason during an interview, and if he had tried to interfere before the firing, would have done so in less suggestive ways.

But, he didn't. That what keeps his Competence at Medium, and these past days a little entertaining.

However, he hasn't (yet) shown an increased incompetence. Hard to believe, but if we look overall, he is learning some (like don’t let Bannon write an executive order), but the bigger progress is with his staff. More accurately, the incompetent personnel is being replaced. But, if he can continue to demand and get personal loyalty, eventually enough competence will surround him to be dangerous. Then again, he could be plagued by constant turnover and only to get mediocre replacements. (I certainly would not want to work for him after this week.)

But the main reason I’m keeping him at medium is that if he can keep his Delusional above 35%, he does not have to be that competent to hurt us. An important distinction is that the Competence Rank is not a judgment of overall competence. It is whether he can follow through with his attempt. He is far from competent enough to execute a coup or autocratic agenda. What he is competent enough to, however, is become what I call the Accidental Dictator. The firing of Comey is a perfect example. Just by disregarding our political norms he has potentially harmed our ability to hold future presidents accountable. One can easily see a scenario where external events combined with his autocratic response bring back atrocities of the past (“red scare”, Operation Wetback, Internment Camps, Jim Crow law, etc).

To be an Accidental Dictator, you don’t need to be that competent.

Where overall competency makes a difference for the Accidental Dictator is when it directly harms his followers and supporters. We can see this when he leaked classified data to the Russians. That created more negative reaction than firing Comey did. It could be just the “last straw”, but compared to firing Comey, the leak was legal and not malevolent. However, the Comey firing was a threat to democracy with no tangible harm (for us). The leak to Russia was a plain-out threat that someone could die over.

Part of what makes a Delusional so delusional is that politics does not "feel real”. It feels like cheering or booing at a football game, or better yet the WWF. But, when a President’s actions harm national security or the economy that is real and can pierce the delusion. Again, this is why a Disaster Presidency can’t be a Threatening Presidency. At the time of writing this, President Trump’s aggregate approval rating, on FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPoltics, are at their worse since he became president. However, they are still higher than President Clinton’s was around this time. If they hit below 35%, then even Delusionals are leaving him. Also, a recent drop in the stock market is being attributed to Trump’s incompetence, which takes money away from the financial supporters of republicans. These are the kind of trends that spur politicians to action.

But don’t relax just yet. Once President Trump’s incompetence becomes tangible (low polls, etc.), he improves or at least stops making it worse. Given time, republicans seem quite happy to forget his last misadventure. Unfortunately, one-third of the country is willing to risk harm to the rest of us as long as they remain untouched. That makes me sad. If you're sad as well, again I warned you. I need a drink.

---------------------------------------------------

Just as I was writing the last line, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was appointed Special Counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein. With only minutes after the announcement, no one can say what will happen next. (Not that will it stop us from trying.) This is a good outcome, if for no other reason than it's a return to the president being accountable to the law.

But considering what I just wrote, I'd like to engage in a little self-promotional conspiracy theory. The Special Counsel does offer one potential benefit to republicans. The Special Counsel will probably say little until all facts are known, which could be years from now. Note that this was done on the day the stock market had a big loss, and when congressmen became legitimately worried of new damning evidence (the Comey memos). Not to mention, the President is about to leave the country.

Here's what to watch for. Are republican congressmen happy or angry about this? Again, this is all self-promotional conspiracy theory.

How Much Does Trump Firing Comey Threaten Us? - Part 1

How Firing Comey Makes the Trump Presidency More Threatening 

WARNING: Do not read before going to bed. You will lose sleep over this.

So here I am. Behind on my posts. Figure I need to write one about the AHCA, and just as I hit publish… He did again. Something so unprecedented and disturbing that I must update the Trump Watch. I am of course talking about the FBI Director being fired while the FBI is investigating Russian influence into the Trump campaign.

The likelihood of a Threatening Presidency is still Medium but on its way to High

• Attempt: Medium -> High
• Competence: Medium
• No Check: Medium -> High

As we should remember, ‘Attempt’ is how likely I feel Trump is to act in a way that harms democracy. ‘Competence’ is his and his administration ability to succeed. And ‘No Check’ is how likely I think Congress will let him do it. Right now these three ranks translate to me saying he is highly likely to try (Attempt), Congress is highly like to let him (No Check), and his lack of Competence is the best chance to prevent it. For now, I’ll explain why the Attempt rank has increased. In a later post, I will go into the other two ranks.

That I had increased the Attempt rank to High probably does not surprise you. You’re probably wondering why I did not go to Very High since he arguably is attempting right now. So, forgive me, but I’m about to parse words.

Before Trump being elected I asked if he was a “threat to democracy”, which if anything, he is less of a threat. As I pointed out in The First Step of Many, to reach the final steps of an existential threat, he needs the support of the military or a paramilitary. Firing Comey looks like this will alienate the FBI and does not help him to organize his own paramilitary. To change that, he would have to appoint a fanatical FBI Director and purge resistant FBI agents, which we have become more alert to (hopefully)

However, we aren’t asking if he is a “threat to democracy” anymore, we are asking if he is ““threat to democratic progress””. Does firing Comey, risk rolling back our democratic progress. Yes. Yes, it does. That should be obvious. What is not obvious is whether it does more than previous presidents. So, let’s look at some comparable actions in the past two presidencies.

1. Rolled back Civil Rights (W. Bush through the Roberts Court)
2. Mass dismissal of U.S. Attorneys (W. Bush)
3. Increased surveillance (W. Bush, Obama)
4. Questionable use of Signing Statements (W. Bush)
5. Assassinated a U.S. Citizen (Obama)^[1]

This list is incomplete and you may object to items that are included. Also, W. Bush and Obama progressed our democracy. That's not the point. This is an exercise to keep President Trump actions in perspective.

What is in common with the firing of Comey is that they all have little proven^[2] effect on us. They also share the concern that each erodes a check on presidential power. However, in that sense, President Trump has not only attempted but succeeded. He has already removed the norm of a presidential candidate showing his tax returns and not having business ties while serving as president. Regardless of what would be found, if the Russian Investigation is not completed, we may never be able to investigate a future presidents’ wrong doings.

Here is the troubling difference. All that I listed for W. Bush and Obama was for, what they viewed, the good of the country. There was no opportunity for gain. Trump fired Comey only for Trump. Only a Trump Delusional would not see this. More worrisome is that this fits an autocratic pattern that I can no longer ignore.

I've been hesitant to base my reasoning on Trump's personality, but he has consistently dealt with confrontation the same way that I feel more confident now. The pattern seems to at first threaten or bully, and if that does not work, charm. I won't go as far as to say that he has an authoritarian personality. A narcissist can also act authoritarian. However, I have enough experience in a hierarchical organization to say that he behaves in an authoritarian way.^[3]

The problem is that the U.S. is not an authoritarian country. We have checks and balances, and so the President must expect to be checked. More importantly, he must be checked sometimes by those that work for him, like an FBI Director. An authoritarian politician will eventually adapt to this. As well can an authoritarian CEO. Even high-ranking military officers do. But a, born rich, 70-year old who’s only run a family business never needs to adapt. He only needs to threaten, bully, or charm.

At this point, I no longer ask if Donald Trump will try to threaten democratic progress. I only ask when. He will keep running into situations he cannot solve by threatening, bullying, or charming, and then will take extreme acts in conflict without democratic norm. Each time he succeeds, he gains the ability to do worse and worse. Eventually, that will reach beyond the processes of government to the rest of us being harmed.

If that make you unable to sleep, remember that I did warn you.

A Biased Morning

This is going to be quick, and I can only touch the surface. But, this morning was such a good example of what biased and unbiased news sounds like.

At 8 AM I listened for about 5 minutes each to the following:

1. NPR News Recap Podcast
2. Beginning of "Morning Joe"
3. Beginning of "Fox & Friends"

Here's what's was on each and how they are biased.

NPR News Recap - Unbiased News

That President Trump contradicted the original reason for firing Comey in the most anodyne language possible. And...

That China is considering allowing the import of hamburger from the US, and in exchange, the US will allow cooked chicken to come from the China.

Morning Joe - Left-Biased Opinion Show

That President Trump and his spokesman have been lying (actually used that word) about Comey being fired. The Republican Senators are being used. Joe Scarborough spoke in particularly condemning language.

Fox & Friends - Right-Biased Opinion Show

Geraldo Rivera gave a long tortured explanation saying that the Russian Investigation will not lead to anything, and if the collision happened, it is not a crime (entirely misleading). He did so in as close to as scholarly a voice as he is capable of.

Then a guest came on to report how China and US may improve trade (the same news NPR reported). He then followed on how no one else is reporting this, again to discredit the Comey news.

In Summary

First, I have to point out that there is a difference between a news show and an opinion show, so you can't condemn "Morning Joe" and "Fox & Friends" for being more biased than "NPR News". Also, both examining the content and how they are biased deserves more discussion than I can give at the moment.

This was just too good an example for me to wait until I can discuss news bias in depth. The main takeaway is that bias is more about emphasis than content and noting how "Fox & Friend" complains about news not being reported that had just been reported by NPR.

Republicans, There's Something On Your Shoe

How the AHCA Hurts Republicans

So, we have a new republican health care bill, and there is a lot of celebrating on both side. So, who’s right? Will this be the doo doo on the republican’s shoes? Could this swing the 2018 elections?

It’s early. Really early. But, maybe can look at some signs and trends.

Bad Signs for Republicans

I've been looking at what conservative media been saying, and they are not talking about it as much as liberal. From what I’ve could see, the passage of the AHCA is being reported on, but not analyzed on Fox News as much as on MSNBC. Instead, Fox News wants to talk about something else. That’s a sign that they don’t think their audience is liking what they hear. Considering that this could be touted as an ant-Obama accomplishment, like the Supreme Court, there should be some trumpeting (pun intended).

The second bad sign is that I'm only hearing defensive arguments from republicans. Their message is about how it’s not as bad as the democrats are saying, the Senate will fix it, etc. If you told that to your boss, would he be thinking you did a good job?

Bad Signs for Democrats

They’re happy. Yeah, I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but have you noticed that republicans are almost never happy, at least not for long. That’s because anger and fear are more motivating than happiness and satisfaction. It’s one of the reasons republicans win even when most of the country is against them. Instead of gloating, democratic politicians and pundits should be screaming in outrage and how we cannot let this continue. Gloating makes your supporters relax and, worse, can galvanize the other side, even if they are being screwed by their own.

This happened in May, not November. There’s lots of time for republicans, not to fix the bill, but fix their message. Just as bad, there’s lots of time for democrats to get it wrong, which they have a history of doing.

What We Need to Consider and Still Watch For

After the 1st Delusion of Politics, there is the 2nd Delusion of Politics, “politics should be fair”. Saying politics is not fair is stating the obvious. But, here’s what we forget. Complaining about fairness only motivates people that are already on your side. Those in the middle think both sides are unfair, and the other side thinks you deserve it.

Right now, the republicans are hoping to be treated “fairly”. They want us to remember that the Senate will change it. That provisions will not happen immediately. This is the responsibility of state governments. That Obamacare was going to fail anyway. Yes, republican Delusionals will all believe that. No one else will care.

Passing the bill did worse than doing nothing because it showed us they can do something. Now, arguing that it is Obama’s fault is like me saying the previous owner of my car is still responsible for changing the oil. Republicans are now responsible for every premium increase, deductible increase, and policy denial, even if the bill never passes or no measures take effect before 2018.

Is that fair? No, it isn’t. What goes wrong with healthcare in the next year and a half could have nothing to do with what Republicans did or could do. Does not matter. It was not fair for President Obama, either.

What republicans have going for them is that they can makes this up with other bills. One of the more politely rational arguments for passing the AHCA is that it makes lowering taxes in the next bill easier. If it’s visible to lower-class and middle-class taxpayers, those not liking the AHCA could still like republicans.

And what they also have going for them is what they always have going for them. They’re Delusionals outnumber democrat Delusional. The AHCA may hurt those that voted for Trump, but they may not see it that way. And those, may not be the voters that are part of the smaller midterms electorate. However, that is why we need to know how conservative media is reporting on this. Those voters are not as loyal to their congressman as they are to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. That conservative media hasn’t yet, is a bad sign for republicans.

Therefore, I would recommend to democrats to focus on the AHCA increasing costs for older people, who do vote in midterms. If you’re worried about younger voters, there's more than enough reasons for them to vote against republicans. Remember that those willing to take away healthcare won't think twice about taking away help for student loans. (Yeah, that got your attention.)

This is where democrats need to be careful. Too many offensive comments or talk of single-payer can be just what conservative media is looking for, and that could be enough to maintain or even increase support for republicans.

And in the same way, democrats need to keep their voters motivated on this. If democrats cannot get voters to turn out on healthcare, they won’t be able to on Planned Parenthood, Russia, or any other issue. So, we should keep watching to see if democrats stay motivated.

I could once again point out that it’s way too early to make predictions on the 2018 Election, but I really can’t back out in the last paragraph. Even I would not make that cowardly a qualification. So, I will definitively say this hurts republican chances of keeping the House more than it helps. And this is already in an environment where history and conventional wisdom says they are at a disadvantage. I would say it pushes their chances down to a totally made up 30% of keeping the House. But remember, as I kept warning, those were the same odds Trump had of becoming president.