Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump first asked reporters to define the "alt-right," before saying members of the "alt-left" were also to blame for violence in Charlottesville, while taking questions from reporters on Aug. 15 at Trump Tower in New York. (The Washington Post)

President Trump has dropped all pretense and proudly raised the banner of white racial grievance. The time has come for Republicans in Congress to decide whether this is what they signed up for.

Business leaders decided Wednesday that theyd had enough, quitting two presidential advisory councils before Trump quickly dissolved the panels. Military leaders made their call as well, issuing statements in the wake of Charlottesville making clear that they embrace diversity and reject bigotry.

With only a few exceptions, however, GOP political leaders have been too timid to denounce the president and the reprehensible game of racial politics hes playing. I think the corporate chief executives who bailed are making the right bet: History will remember who spoke out, who was complicit and who stood idly by.

On Twitter (where else?), Trump poured salt in the nations wounds Thursday by coming out firmly against the removal of public monuments to the Confederacy the issue that brought white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan to Charlottesville and led to the death of Heather Heyer.

Sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments, he wrote. You cant change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson whos next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!

President Donald Trumps reluctance to condemn bigotry suggests he does not want to heal the wounds of racism and white supremacy. Fred Hiatt, head of The Washington Post editorial board, says Americans still have reason to hope. (Adriana Usero,Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)

Some slippery-slope arguments are valid, but the one Trump makes is absurd. He cant possibly be so dense that he doesnt see a clear distinction between the men who founded this nation and those who tried to rip it apart.

Trump may indeed not know that most of those Confederate monuments were erected not in the years right after the Civil War but around the turn of the 20thcentury, when the Jim Crow system of state-enforced racial oppression was being established. They symbolize not history but the defiance of history; they celebrate not defeat on the battlefield but victory in putting uppity African Americans back in their place.

But even if someone explained all of this to Trump perhaps in a one-page memo with lots of pictures he wouldnt care. For him, the important thing is to tell the white voters who constitute his base that they are being disrespected and dispossessed. Its a cynical and dangerous ploy.

We know this is Trumps game because White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon told us so. In an interview with journalist Robert Kuttner of the American Prospect, published Wednesday, Bannon is quoted as saying: The Democrats, the longer they talk about identity politics, I got em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.

But Trumps base wont identify with Nazis and the KKK. Thats why Trump maintained falsely that among the torch-bearing Charlottesville white supremacists there were also plenty of very fine people. And its why he now seeks to broaden the issue to encompass Confederate monuments nationwide, abandoning his earlier position that the question should be left to local jurisdictions.

Thats probably also why Bannon, in the interview with Kuttner, referred to the white-power clowns as, well, clowns. Hes smart enough to reassure Trump supporters that theyre not like those racists and that all the racial game-playing is on the other side.

Trumps desperation is palpable. His approval ratings have slid perilously close to the danger zone where Republican officeholders no longer fear crossing him.

For titans of the business community, the tipping point came Wednesday. The chief executives of General Electric, Campbell Soup, Johnson & Johnson and 3M decided they could no longer serve on Trumps advisory Manufacturing Council or his Strategy & Policy Forum.

Why stick around? Prospects that Trump can actually follow through on a business-friendly agenda, including tax reform, look increasingly dim. And Trumps many sides reaction to Charlottesville wasnt going over at all well with employees, customers or the executives themselves.

Constructive economic and regulatory policies are not enough and will not matter if we do not address the divisions in our country, JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon wrote in a message to his employees. It is a leaders role, in business or government, to bring people together, not tear them apart.

The chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and National Guard also publicly condemned hate groups in the wake of Charlottesville. They, of course, could not mention the commander in chief by name.

But politicians can. And they must.

Read more from Eugene Robinsons archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook. You can also join him Tuesdays at 1 p.m. for a live Q&A.

View post:
History will remember the Republicans who stick around - Washington Post

The president of the United States is toxic, both to the country and to any who stand by him.

Donald Trump once carried only a stink, one that some with cold political calculation figured they could wash off if need be. But now he's gone toxic, radioactive, a slow but certain killer of reputations and careers.

That's what happens when you push and push and push the boundaries of normalcy, the edges of acceptable presidential behavior, and stretch them into areas blocked off long ago.

You don't try to gin up a moral equivalence to white supremacy or Naziism. You don't do most of the things Trump has done week in and week out since becoming president, and you damn sure don't take a moment of violent racism and selfishly spin it into a veiled defense of white power, all at the expense of a country in need of healing.

But that's what the president did, and now a question that has lingered for months without answer looms larger: When will congressional Republicans break loose of Trump?

The Muslim ban and its ensuing chaos wasn't enough. The incessant dishonesty and attacks on the press have been either ignored or, at times, embraced. Even the legislative flailing and the attacks on Republican lawmakers have passed with only mild rebukes.

And now this, in the wake of Charlottesville. The angry tweets and the angrier press conference and the seemingly unhinged, red-faced exhortations that there were "fine people" among the Tiki-torch carrying Nazis who chanted "Jews will not replace us!"

How much longer do Republicans in the House and Senate stand with a toxic president? When does concern for this country or concern that they, too, might become poisoned overwhelm a desire to keep Trump's dwindling supporters happy?

It's a question that demands an answer, because at the moment, Republicans in Congress are being morally outflanked by the executive director of the Palm Beach Chamber of Commerce in Florida.

Three large fundraisers scheduled to take place at Trump's Palm Beach Mar-a-Lago club were canceled Thursday, and chamber of commerce head Laurel Baker pulled no punches in an interview with the Washington Post, calling the club "morally reprehensible" and saying: "The club is a member of the chamber. But right is right."

She told the newspaper her mantra this week is: "'The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis.' Especially for nonprofits. Especially for groups who help people who can't help themselves."

Baker gets it. So does Apple CEO Tim Cook.

BuzzFeed obtained a copy of a staff email in which Cook wrote: "I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans."

The former members of the president's manufacturing council knew the right thing to do when they disbanded in the wake of Trump's Charlottesville comments.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon said in a statement: "It is a leader's role, in business or government, to bring people together, not tear them apart."

The rabbi who oversaw Ivanka Trump's conversion to Judaism released a letter along with two other rabbis saying: "While we avoid politics, we are deeply troubled by the moral equivalency and equivocation President Trump has offered in response to this act of violence."

Even James Murdoch, the CEO of 21st Century Fox, the parent company of the heavily pro-Trump Fox News, broke with the president.

In an email to friends obtained by The Hollywood Reporter, Murdoch wrote: "But what we watched this last week in Charlottesville and the reaction to it by the President of the United States concern all of us as Americans and free people. I can't even believe I have to write this: standing up to Nazis is essential; there are no good Nazis."

He also pledged to donate $1 million to the Anti-Defamation League.

When you're losing big businesses, nonprofits trying to raise money, people who run local chambers of commerce, your daughter's rabbi and a Murdoch, you're toxic.

And still, it seems, the Republicans who got in bed with Trump are willing to lie there and absorb the toxins.

I don't understand why. I'll never understand why.

If it's political calculation, it's soulless. If it's quiet agreement with Trump's tough talk, it's even worse.

We are long past issues of policy. Companies and religious leaders and anyone with even a half-functioning moral compass are fleeing Trump not because they disagree with his policies but because his character is repellant, either to them or to the people they serve.

The president of the United States is exactly the person he showed himself to be during the campaign, and that reckless, bullying, wholly self-absorbed person is doing real harm to this country and to the political party he claims to lead.

I don't know when, or if, congressional Republicans will break. I don't know if there is a line in the sand.

But I know this: Standing near something toxic for too long is lethal. And I don't think the Republican Party wants to die.

rhuppke@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @RexHuppke

What to read next:

Trump cannot be trusted to lead the nation. It's time for others to step up.

If you still support Donald Trump

White nationalists already lost

President Donald Trump must go

Read the original:
Trump, the Toxic President. When will Republicans have the sense to run? - Chicago Tribune

An influential McLean County Republican leader said Thursdaythat the local GOP chairman should not have shared a controversial post this week on the party's Facebook page. She also said the resulting backlash was "beyond deplorable" and may energize local Republicans going into next year's elections.

McLean County Clerk Kathy Michael issued a lengthy statement on her Facebook page, her first public comments on a controversy that's ensnared local Republicans all week.

It began Tuesday night, when McLean County Republican Party chairman Chuck Erickson shared a message on the party's Facebook page that sided with President Donald Trump and his widely condemned "both sides" remarks on Charlottesville. By Wednesday morning, several Republicans were distancing themselves from the comments. Erickson issued a clarifying statement that condemned the KKK and neo-Nazis.

"I don't always agree with GOP Chairman Erickson, but I can tell you one thing for certain. This man is no racist," Michael said in her Facebook post on Thursday. "Many more can tell you this man has done more to help war veterans and all veterans than anyone you or I know. But you don't want to believe that, do you? It doesn't fit your political narrative. To paint him as a racist is dishonorable and nearly unforgivable.

"I agree that (Erickson) should not have used the GOP Facebook page to air his strong beliefs. I also believe him when he says his remarks were misinterpreted," Michael said.

Michael said questions about what she thinks of Nazis are "insulting." She called for those upset about the backlash to take action in March's primary election and the November general election.

Michael herself is expected to face a challenge next November from Democrat Nikita Richards. Both would have to win the primary before going head-to-head.

Michaeltook aim at those who are painting all local Republicans as racist.

"And to you I say thank you. Thank you for energizing the good Republicans who may have not been energized before," Michael said.

WGLT depends on financial support from users to bring you stories and interviews like this one. As someone who values experienced, knowledgeable, and award-winning journalists covering meaningful stories in central Illinois, please consider making a contribution.

Here is the original post:
Clerk To GOP Critics: 'Thank You for Energizing' Republicans - WGLT News

There is no going back to Reagan-era Republicanism.

Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Update, Aug. 18, 2017, at 2 p.m.: This article has been updated to reflect news of Steve Bannons departure from the White House.

Shortly before Steve Bannon was booted from the White House, we caught a glimpse of his contradictory nature. In an interview with left-wing labor journalist Robert Kuttner, Bannon insists he is a class warrior who wants nothing more than to forge a pan-ethnic coalition of working-class economic nationalists that can defeat the smug globalists of Wall Street and Silicon Valley. In conversations with his friends in the White House, meanwhile, he describes Donald Trumps equivocating response to white-supremacist terrorism in Charlottesville as a shrewd way to fire up the presidents base. Ben Smith of Buzzfeed has drawn out the contradictions between these two Bannonisms in a recent column, making the point that theres no rational way to reconcile them. Hes right.

But what would happen if we teased apart the seemingly disparate approaches championed by Trumps erstwhile chief strategist? The answer is that wed get two entirely different visions for the Republican future.

Theres one point on which both Bannons agree, which is that there is no going back to Reagan-era Republicanism. The basic formula for the Grand Reagan Party is that we must keep fighting for tax cuts for the rich (because they create jobs), shrinking the welfare state (because public aid breeds dependency), cutting Social Security benefits for those under 55 (because entitlements are out of control), boosting military spending (because the world is a dangerous place), and increasing immigration levels (because we love the huddled masses yearning to breathe free and we need cut-rate farmworkers and engineers). It is vitally important that we balance the budget, Reagan Republicans believe, which is why we must slash Medicaid spending. But its also crucial that we cut taxes, which will unleash entrepreneurs, spark an economic boom, and lift all boats.

As much as Jeff Flake might long for this kind of neo-Reaganism, Trumpunder the influence of the svengali-like Bannonhas demonstrated that GOP voters have mostly moved on from it. That leaves us with two other possibilities, each of which reflects a different brand of Bannonism.

The first would be a Republican Party rooted more firmly in white identity politics. Imagine Republicans winning not by making gains among non-white voters but rather by doing even better among whites. If a future Republican presidential candidate could match Trumps numbers among non-college-educated white voters and Romneys numbers among college-educated whites, shed be hard to beat. For this to work for the GOP, the whole map would need to look like the Deep South, where Republicans routinely win 70 percent or more of the white vote.

What would be the ideological orientation of a Grand White Party? For one thing, the GWP would want to curb non-white immigration, to put the brakes on Americas fast-moving demographic transformation. And it would take a softer line on entitlement spending, not least because older Americans are a disproportionately white, Republican-leaning constituency. On foreign policy matters, the Grand White Party would be more skeptical of foreign intervention, seeing it as a waste of money and time.

A Grand Middle Party could step into the populist void a more 1 percent-ish Democratic Party leaves behind.

Could a Grand White Party succeed? Its possible, at least for a little while. If Democrats campaign on expanding means-tested benefits and raising taxes on high earners, a Grand White Party could argue that Democrats are in effect transferring resources from well-off white families to poor non-white families. If Democrats at the state and local level push desegregation efforts that would bring poor non-white families into suburban neighborhoods currently dominated by well-off white families, a Grand White Party would push back aggressively.

One challenge for a Grand White Party is that college-educated whites and non-college-educated whites often have clashing sensibilities and political priorities. To really ramp up support among college-educated whites, the Grand White Party might have to take stances on social issues that non-college-educated whites would find alienating. On the other hand, the fact that so many evangelical Republicans have rallied behind thrice-married serial groper Donald Trump might mean that paeans to traditional morality have faded in importance.

There is another challenge involved in building a Grand White Party, which is that many white voters would be uncomfortable seeing themselves as part of a whites-only party, so theyd need the party to at least pay lip service to being more racially inclusive. You could argue that this is where Republicans find themselves right now.

What will happen to a Grand White Party as the Latino and Asian electorates continue to expand at a rapid rate? One possibility is that Latino and Asian identities will grow more rigid and racialized, and that Latino/white and Latino/Asian conflicts will intensify. Under these circumstances, the white electorate might shrink, but a combative Grand White Party might compensate by securing a still higher share of embattled white voters. Its also possible that a growing number of Latinos and Asians might come to identify as white, thanks to intermarriage and assimilation. Such a development would shore up an otherwise shrinking white electorate.

There is another alternative for the GOP, though, one that resonates with the Bannonism we saw in his conversation with Kuttner. This version of Republicanismthe Grand Middle Partywould build on a longer-term development, which is that while Democrats increasingly represent affluent college-educated professionals and the non-white working class, Republicans are increasingly the party of the white middle class. A Grand Middle Party would build on this white middle-class base by incorporating a larger number of Latino, Asian, and black middle-class voters.

Join Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and David Plotz as they discuss and debate the weeks biggest political news.

To do this, however, Republicans would have to embrace a radically different approach to domestic policy. A Grand Middle Party would be more skeptical of mass less-skilled immigration than a Grand Reagan Party. Unlike the Grand White Party, however, it would couch its skepticism in terms of its commitment to helping Americans of all colors and creeds, including lawful working-class immigrants and their children. The goal of a Grand Middle Party immigration policy would be to recruit skilled immigrants who can help shrink Americas poverty problem by paying the taxes we need to finance schools and social programs.

Instead of fighting for tax cuts on the rich, a Grand Middle Party would take a more populist approach. One idea would be to exempt most middle-income families from federal income taxes and replace the lost revenue with a broad-based consumption tax, like those used in Canada and Australia. While a Grand Middle Party would fight measures such as an unconditional basic income that have gained favor on the left, it would embrace work-friendly programs like wage insurance, subsidized apprenticeships and summer jobs, and paid-leave benefits for working mothers, the latter of which is an idea backed by Donald Trump of all people.

If these policies sound like ideas Bill Clinton might have championed, youre onto something. If the most recent Democratic primaries have taught us anything, its that the Democratic Party has changed since the 1990s. On the one hand, younger Democrats have moved sharply to the left, especially on cultural issues. On the other hand, in the post-Trump era, Democrats are consolidating support among members of the cosmopolitan business elite, who tend to find Trumpism repellent. As affluent voters join the Democratic coalition, its possible that the party will grow more averse to old-school economic populism. A Grand Middle Party could step into the populist void a more 1 percent-ish Democratic Party leaves behind.

As much as Steve Bannon claims to want something like a Grand Middle Party, he and Trump have been adhering almost exclusively to the Grand White Party playbook, with little success. The debate in todays GOP is almost exclusively between those who favor a Grand Reagan Party and a Grand White Party. If something like a Grand Middle Party is ever going to emerge, it seems, it will be after Trump fades from the political scene.

Read the original:
Grand White Party vs. Grand Middle Party - Slate Magazine

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) / Getty Images

BY: Cameron Cawthorne August 18, 2017 8:46 am

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.)told activists at the liberal Netroots Nation conference last weekend that progressives are the"heart and soul" of the Democratic Party, but moderate Democrats are pushing back against Warren's claim.

Several Democratic strategists, donors, and political organizers from across the country criticized Warren for her claim about a liberal takeover and said that Democrats can't win in swing states with progressive candidates, according to TheHill:

The clash is further proof of the divide in the party after 2016s disappointment. Even as they face a Republican Party torn over how to deal with President Trump, Democrats are still trying to figure out what kind of a party they are.

The Obama and Clinton supporters say they have grown tired of having to deal with fighting over progressivism and 1990s-era battles over former President Bill Clintons work on welfare and criminal justice reform, which were campaign issues last year and subjects of criticism by Warren just last week.

"We can't win the House back with progressives running in swing states," former Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D., Calif.) said.

Tauscher, the leader of the"Fight Back California" super PAC aimed at winningback seven House seats in California, said that welfare and criminal justice reform is a "tired, old debate."

"And it's certainly not going to help us win," she said. "Our party should be looking to expand the tent. If we divide ourselves, we're doing our opponents' jobs for them."

Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D., Nev.) strategist Jim Manley said several progressive issues have become popular in the party, but he said that the party is in a rebuilding process.

"I don't think we as a party can be casting too many people aside," Manley said. "We need to figure out how to grow and bring everybody together. I realize that's happy talk but that's the reality. When you start talking about purity tests, that's a little problematic."

Following Warren's speech at Netroots, the New York Timespublished an article about Warren taking aim at moderates,which said that she "sent an unambiguous message that she believes the Clinton effort to push Democrats toward the political center should be relegated to history."

Warren's spokeswoman Kristen Orthman pushed back against this narrative by pointing to a part in Warren's speech where she talks about Democrats not"wast[ing] energy arguing about whose issue matters most or who in our alliance should be voted off the island," the Hill reported.

Democratic strategist Brad Bannon defended Warren's comments by saying that progressives "are the dominant voice in the party."

"She definitely will inherit the Sanders vote," Bannon said. "And I think a candidate who is willing to speak their mind and talk like Warren does have a better chance than a centrist who is calculating about everything he or she says. I don't think the electorate wants someone calculating They had cool and calculating with Hillary Clinton."

A Gallup poll earlier this week shows that 6 in 10 liberal respondents have favorable views of Warren, but the poll also shows that Americans are split in their support for her. 34 percent of Americans view her positively compared to 31 percent whoview her negatively.

Warren is fighting to preserve herself as the progressive voice for the Democratic Party in a potential 2020 presidential bid.

"Shes fighting not only for her own space but shes fighting to win the argument, and I have no problem with that," Manley said. "Thats what this party is all about."

Excerpt from:
Moderate Democrats Push Back Against Warren's Claim That Progressives are 'Heart and Soul' of Party - Washington Free Beacon