Spencer Platt/Getty

Maybe Donald Trump’s Twitter account is more than just a smoke screen.

It’s been one of the most persistent narratives of the last year: Whenever a damaging Trump story comes out—particularly one about Trump’s shady business practices and/or conflicts of interest—he takes to Twitter and says something heinous, absurd, or both. When Trump tweeted that the cast of Hamilton must apologize to Mike Pence, it was all a ploy to distract the media and the public from the real stories. And when Trump tweeted a dozen times about Jill Stein’s recount efforts, he was throwing sand in the eyes of the American public to keep it from reading a long, detailed, and devastating account of his conflicts of interest in Sunday’s New York Times. The same goes for his absurd claim on Sunday afternoon that he would have won the popular vote if “millions” of people hadn’t voted illegally.

Some of Trump’s detractors reverse-engineer his personality to fit the news. Depending on what’s most damaging, he can either be an ignoramus with a non-existent attention span or a genius who manipulates the media and the public with ease. There are certainly psychological explanations that help explain why Trump fixated on Hamilton and the recount—one gets at his perceived rejection by the Manhattan establishment and the other at his constant need to be validated as a winner; both suggest he has zero tolerance for dissent. It’s also possible that there is no unified Trump, that he’s just a walking collection of impulses and that his tweets reflect that.

But if there is a calculation behind Trump’s signal-boosting of seemingly negative news, I don’t think it’s a ploy to distract the public from damaging stories. Instead, Trump seems to choose negative stories that play well to his base. A bunch of Broadway actors lecturing the vice president–elect plays to the us vs. them narrative that was the basis of much of Trump’s campaign. A recount effort being led by Jill Stein (with an assist from Hillary Clinton) shows the hypocrisy of the very same elites, after Clinton and her allies spent months attacking Trump for refusing to say if he would accept the results of the election.

One of the biggest lessons of the election was that many in the media didn’t understand what animated Trump’s supporters. Trump does, and overlooking that fact suggests that, three weeks later, people still aren’t learning the lessons of the election.

November 29, 2016

Mandell Ngan/Getty Images

Do millennials hate democracy?

In a forthcoming article for The Journal of Democracy, political scientists Yascha Mounk and Roberto Stefan Foa describe a disturbing global trend they call “democratic deconsolidation”—meaning a growing lack of faith in democracy. As reported in The New York Times, millennials, in particular, appear to be turning their backs on democracy:

Drawing on data from the European and World Values Surveys, the researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a “good” or “very good” thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.

That trend is particularly strong among young people. For instance, in a previously published paper, the researchers calculated that 43 percent of older Americans believed it was illegitimate for the military to take over if the government were incompetent or failing to do its job, but only 19 percent of millennials agreed. The same generational divide showed up in Europe, where 53 percent of older people thought a military takeover would be illegitimate, while only 36 percent of millennials agreed.

This is worrying data but it can also be interpreted in less alarming ways. Earlier generations that had a stronger faith in democracy grew up in a period in which there were large-scale systematic alternatives to democracy (in the form of fascism and communism) that America defined itself against. As such alternatives were defeated or retreated from the world stage, the salience of democracy as a defining feature of a polity became less important.

Further, some of the supposed turn against democracy seems to be due to people being upset at gridlock. It’s worth noting the millennials were among the age cohorts least likely to vote for Donald Trump, whose campaign as an “antisystem outsider” embodies democratic disillusionment. While the expression of that disillusionment is undeniably depressing, there’s reason to think that it could be solved by a more responsive politics.

Wikimedia Commons

The center of American politics will always have David Brooks.

His answer for the coming reign of Donald Trump is, well, his answer for everything—a return to long-lost centrism. Brooks has not one, but two Bills backing him up—Bill Kristol and Bill Galston—who have come together to write a statement pushing for a “New Center.”

Brooks sees this center as somewhere “between the alt-right and the alt-left, between Trumpian authoritarianism and Sanders socialism.” But just because both Trump and Sanders aren’t moderate centrists doesn’t mean that Sanders’s social democratic politics is equal in any way to Trump’s racism, misogyny, and penchant for tyrannical tweets. As my colleague Ryu Spaeth notes, in this era of hyper-partisanship the center is more like a “blank void” than some magical spot between Trump and Sanders.

And while Brooks sees Trump ushering in a new era in which partisanship is smashed up to create new, unlikely alliances, we have yet to see any evidence of that, with moderate Republicans like Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan scrambling to take advantage of a Trump presidency to further their own partisan aims.

Instead of reflecting on the ways in which centrism has failed both in politics and in policy, Brooks sees moderation as an inherently good thing that has somehow fallen out of fashion and just needs to be reinvigorated. But Hillary Clinton—who Brooks described as someone who works “very well with Republicans”—just lost the election to Donald Trump, as did moderates like Jeb Bush and John Kasich. With no actual support other than a few people like David Brooks, it doesn’t look like the center can hold.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

Tom Price as HHS Secretary is a nightmare scenario for sick Americans.

Donald Trump has found his next Cabinet pick. According to The New York Times, the representative from Georgia will head the Department of Health and Human Services—and that’s terrible news for anyone who depends on the Affordable Care Act.

Via NBC:

“Chairman Price, a renowned physician, has earned a reputation for being a tireless problem solver and the go-to expert on healthcare policy, making him the ideal choice to serve in this capacity,” Trump said in a statement. “He is exceptionally qualified to shepherd our commitment to repeal and replace Obamacare and bring affordable and accessible healthcare to every American.”

The ACA is unquestionably flawed. Its premiums are expensive and are set to become even more expensive. But it’s still preferable to Price’s proposed alternative.

His Empowering Patients First Act would replace the ACA with a series of age-adjusted tax credits. Under Price’s plan, individuals would receive the yearly credits to subsidize the cost of their private insurance plans. Adults between the ages of 18 and 35, for example, would receive a credit of $1,200. That might be enough to subsidize the insurance needs of young adults in perfect health, but it’s no good to anyone else.

Price also supports the establishment of high-risk insurance pools on a state-by-state basis. As the Commonwealth Fund noted here, high-risk pools would penalize Americans with pre-existing conditions: It’s expensive to have a disability. Though his plan does provide block grants to states for the purposes of subsidizing expenses, they’d have significant leeway to use them as their respective governments see fit. The South’s general failure to expand Medicaid offers little hope states would act responsibly here.

Price’s policies are uniquely appalling considered in light of his profession: He is a physician. But rather than prioritize the needs of vulnerable Americans, he’s built a career by advancing right-wing dogma at their expense. He is a perfect fit for the Trump administration, and a nightmare for sick Americans.

Getty

Donald Trump wants to revoke the citizenship of flag-burners. What?

People across this proud nation are waking up. The worst among them are checking their phones immediately and the worst among that bad subset are opening Twitter, which means they are getting their just desserts: an encounter with this very bizarre tweet, which was sent by our president-elect early Tuesday morning:

So what is going on here? The most common interpretation of Trump’s Twitter outbursts is that they are provocations intended to distract from more damaging stories. But, while one could argue that Trump’s transition has been characterized by bad press, the last twelve hours or so have been characterized by relative calm. The biggest news is that Trump picked Tom Price to head Health and Human Services, a move that is being cheered by the right wing, particularly the conservative corner of it.

But as I wrote yesterday, I don’t think this interpretation is quite right. Instead, Trump is more likely trying to push the media and political elite into a frenzy, pandering to his populist base with his ability to make their enemies mad online. And there’s no bigger pander than opposing flag-burning.

Despite the fact that laws against flag-burning have been declared unconstitutional, amendments banning the practice appear perennially. Hillary Clinton co-sponsored such a bill in 2005, though hers did not declare that flag-burners should have their citizenship revoked. (Interestingly, Mitch McConnell, arguably the most important person in Washington from Trump’s perspective, was instrumental in killing that bill, though only because he wanted to protect his First Amendment right to raise boatloads of cash.) Flag-burning is protected speech under the Constitution but attempting to criminalize it pays political dividends.

Of course, Trump’s tweet is still important insofar as it includes the tyrannical possibility (“perhaps” is one of Trump’s underrated tics) of removing the citizenship of those who burn the flag. This is pernicious, because it points to a playbook for the future—one in which Trump proposes loss of citizenship for the families of suspected terrorists, for instance, or for criticizing the president.

November 28, 2016

Giphy/Bye Bye Birdie

Donald Trump can’t stop calling Barack Obama. Is that a good thing?

Trump’s entire political career is built on peddling the lie that Obama was not born in America. And much of Trump’s presidential campaign—at least the parts that weren’t devoted to claiming that Hillary Clinton should be jailed—was spent attacking Obama’s actions in office. Obamacare was a “disaster” that had to be repealed and replaced. The Iran Deal, Cuba thaw, and Paris climate accord were poorly negotiated and bad for America. Obama’s foreign policy, particularly in Libya, Syria, and Iraq, emboldened ISIS. Trump has promised to reverse Obama’s executive actions protecting the children of undocumented immigrants on day one of his administration.

And yet, since becoming president-elect, Trump has seemingly warmed to Obama. Last week he told The New York Times, “I had a great meeting with President Obama. I never met him before. I really liked him a lot.” On Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that Trump and Obama had spoken “a handful of times,” including a 45-minute phone call that took place over the weekend.

In the Times interview and elsewhere, Trump has signaled a willingness to rethink his positions on climate change and torture, among other things. As The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein wrote on Monday, Trump may be more malleable than many believe. But Trump’s calculated reality-show battle for secretary of state has already shown tension between the establishment and anti-establishment wings that he is ostensibly trying to unite in his administration. If his thawing on Obama is genuine, it will add even more tensions between these camps—and possibly cost Trump allies in both wings.

Trump won the presidency with a very small tent, and he will be in for some pain if he rapidly tries to make that tent bigger, especially if that comes in the form of catering to Obama. Of course, Trump could also be playing a game, assuaging Obama fans during the lame duck only to throw them and Obama under the bus come January 20.

Ben Jackson / Getty Images

Is Steve Bannon’s dream of a global alt-right coming true?

Following Donald Trump’s victory in the American presidential race, pundits have warned of a domino effect in Europe, where a stuttering economic recovery, growing euro-skepticism, and the migrant crisis have stoked far-right nationalist movements. On Sunday, it seemed that another domino fell: French conservatives chose Francois Fillon over the centrist Alain Juppe in a surprise primary landslide. In the general election, Fillon—who advocates a pro-Russia foreign policy, a “clash of civilizations” approach to Islam, and legal measures to undermine gay rights—will run against the far-right National Front candidate Marine Le Pen, also known as the “French Donald Trump.” With President Francois Hollande suffering from abysmal approval ratings, the election is shaping up to be the most unpalatable French liberals have faced in recent history.

It is also not a good omen for German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is seeking a fourth term in 2017 and will likely face opposition from the Alternative for Germany party, another iteration of the far right. If Merkel is unseated, the Western democratic establishment may find itself leaderless.

For Bannon, Trump’s anointed chief of staff and former chairman of the alt-right haven Breitbart News, it’s cause to celebrate. He has already hinted at expanding the site’s operations to new bureaus in France and Germany to help facilitate Trump-like upsets there. Merkel is taking him seriously as an opponent, issuing warnings of the potential for fake news to influence German elections. “We shouldn’t underestimate what’s happening on the internet,” Merkel said in a speech to parliament last week. “Opinions today are formed differently than 25 years ago. Fake pages, bots, and trolls can distort views.”

Alex Wong / Getty Images

When it comes to Professor Watchlist, timing is everything.

Last week, a nonprofit organization called Turning Point USA launched Professor Watchlist, a website that lists the names, schools, offenses, and sometimes photos of left-leaning academics thought to discriminate against their more conservative students. The watchlist’s mission, according to the website, is to “expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” There is a user submission feature that allows visitors to submit the names and information of professors who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.”

The New York Times today wrote that the site is seen as a “threat to academic freedom.” And while Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, a rising star in conservative politics, denied trying to ride the newfound popularity of the alt-right in the wake of Donald Trump’s election, it’s hard not to be concerned about the implications of such a site. When interviewed by Slate, Kirk called the whole matter a coincidence and denounced any affiliation to the alt-right, reiterating his group’s mainstream conservative bent. However, with the definition of mainstream conservatism changing every day, timing and context are everything. It’s hard not to feel as though Professor Watchlist is a one-stop shop for those with less innocent intentions, potentially threatening the ideas of free speech it seeks to protect.

Spencer Platt/Getty

Here’s how to understand Trump’s Mitt Romney subplot.

Trump has turned the fight to be his secretary of state into something you might expect on The Bachelorette. With two frontrunners (Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani) and a dark horse (Bob Corker), Trump and his team have been teasing out developments over the last ten days. Will Trump make nice with Romney or will he force Romney to make a humiliating public apology first? Will the debate within Trump’s team be eclipsed by the supposed behind-the-scenes fight between outsiders who hate Romney and GOP insiders who desperately want to add one of their own to the cabinet? Will anyone care that neither Romney nor Giuliani have zero meaningful foreign policy experience?

Even for Trump, the drama here seems canned. Take campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, whose new role seems to be “go on TV and act as a surrogate for Trump’s base.” Last week, she broke with tradition and weighed in on the transition publicly:

Then she hit the Sunday shows and did more of the same, telling CNN’s Dana Bash that Trump’s supporters would feel “betrayed” if he picked Romney. She added, “I’m all for party unity, but I’m not sure we have to pay for that with the secretary of state position.” She said the same thing, more or less, to ABC’s Martha Raddatz. And on Monday, Trump’s on-again, off-again BFF Joe “Morning Joe” Scarborough reported that Trump was “furious” with Conway over her comments and that, per a source, “Kellyanne went rogue at Donald Trump’s expense at the worst possible time.”

The question of whether or not Conway “went rogue” is very much an open one. Asked by Raddatz if Trump “wanted her” to tweet about his base’s feelings about Romney, Conway refused to answer. But it is telling that no one bothered to pull Conway from the Sunday shows. When it comes to explaining Trump’s motivations ineptitude is always a fair guess, but the drama here is so phony and familiar that the most plausible option is that all of this is for the ratings, so to speak.

None of this has anything to do with American foreign policy—it’s drama for drama’s sake, which is something we better get used to. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t noteworthy. Whoever Trump choses, Conway has set it up so that he will either be seen as repudiating his base or rewarding it. The result of the pageant will tell us how much Trump thinks he needs his base.

November 26, 2016

Sven Creutzmann/Mambo Photo/Getty Images

The death of Fidel Castro is the perfect Rorschach test for our times.

What you thought of Castro, who died at the age of 90 on Friday, has always been a reflection of your politics, your nationality, and your age. He was a hero of the revolutionary left in Latin America, proving that a ragtag band of guerrillas could overthrow the Western Hemisphere’s hegemon. He was a communist stooge to the American officials who repeatedly tried to kill him, presiding over an outpost of the Soviet Union just off the coast of Florida. To Cubans themselves he was a dictator who impoverished the country, jailed and killed thousands of dissidents, and stripped citizens of their basic rights. And to those who came of age in the post-Cold War era, he was simultaneously a retro figure on a T-shirt and a cranky old man in an Adidas tracksuit.

The disintegration of the post-Cold War order—culminating in Brexit in Great Britain and the election of Donald Trump in the United States—has been mirrored in the chaotic response to Castro’s death. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s Labour Party, hailed Castro as a “champion of social justice,” which is decidedly more sympathetic than anything Tony Blair might have said. Paeans have poured in from predictable quarters (Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff, herself a one-time revolutionary) and those less so (Canada’s Justin Trudeau, the scion of a former prime minister). In the United States, a Democratic president who ushered in a new relationship with Cuba largely based on free market liberalization is being succeeded by a Republican businessman who has threatened to roll back this progress for a “better deal.”

What Trump and Cuban President Raul Castro plan to do now is the ultimate question hanging over Cuba in the wake of Fidel’s death. So far, Trump has indicated nothing more than that he is aware of the news, which we can all agree, even in these divided times, is a good start.

November 23, 2016

Zach Gibson / Getty Images

Republicans celebrating the overtime injunction forgot about their new working class base.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant of Texas blocked the Obama administration rule to extend mandatory overtime pay to more than four million salaried workers. Expected to take effect December 1, the rule would have doubled the salary limit for overtime eligible employees to $47,500 from $23,660.

In response, Republican politicians tweeted their enthusiasm and support for Mazzant’s decision, saying it was an important step in reining in the Obama administration’s egregious use of executive power. A win for small businesses and a long-disrespected Congress, most insisted.

But, as Igor Volksy pointed out, those very politicians failed to disclose the uncomfortable fact that they are far wealthier than the millions of people who would have benefited from this regulation. These politicians include Speaker Paul Ryan:

Ted Cruz:

and John McCain:

So much for being the new champions of the working class.