Mediaboss Marketing

During the 2016 election, many voters were dismayed by both major-party candidates. Hillary Clinton was the personification of the Washington establishment foreign-policy hawk, with her dismal track record of urging ill-conceived military interventions. And Donald Trump, who railed against squandering American blood and treasure abroad, possessed neither the knowledge nor the experience nor the discipline nor the character to steer Americas approach to geopolitics in a better direction.

As if those choices weren't dispiriting enough, I fretted that for all Donald Trumps denunciations of the Iraq War and promises to spend money at home rather than abroad, a careful assessment of his words showed that his own instincts were interventionistthat he was no less likely than his opponent to blunder into a major war.

In Syria today, President Trump is risking just such a conflict.

American forces and American allies are not only taking territory from ISIS, theyre holding that territory against regime forces, David French writes at National Review. Theres a word for what happens when a foreign power takes and holds territory without the consent of the sovereign state invasion. In many ways, current American policy is a lighter-footprint, less ambitious version of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Were using local allies, but our own boots are on the ground, and were directly defending our forces and our allies from threats from Syrias own government. In his estimation, the key warring parties increasingly face a stark choiceagree to a de facto partition of the country or inch toward a great-power conflict.

To wit, an American fighter shot down a Syrian warplane on Sunday, the first time the American military has downed a Syrian aircraft since the start of the civil war in 2011. Observers immediately called the incident a marked escalation in the conflict.

And their view was quickly vindicated: Russia on Monday condemned the American militarys downing of a Syrian warplane, suspending the use of a military hotline that Washington and Moscow have used to avoid collisions in Syrian airspace and threatening to target aircraft flown by the United States and its allies over Syria.

Those skeptical of U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war have long warned that it could escalate into a civilization-warping conflict between nuclear powers. But neither Vietnam nor Afghanistan nor Iraq nor Libya has persuaded todays hawks to sufficiently weight the unintended consequences that plague all complex military interventions. And there are so many varieties of hawks that are urging action.

The complexity of the civil war in Syria is underscored by the fact that the ascendant pro-war faction inside the Trump administration is composed of Iran hawks. According to reporters Kate Brannen, Dan De Luce and Paul McLeary at Just Security, antagonism toward Iran is causing two officials in the Trump White House to push for broadening the conflict, against the advice of officials at the Pentagon:

Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council, and Derek Harvey, the NSCs top Middle East advisor, want the United States to start going on the offensive in southern Syria Their plans are making even traditional Iran hawks nervous, including Defense Secretary James Mattis, who has personally shot down their proposals more than once, the two sources said Despite the more aggressive stance pushed by some White House officials, Mattis, military commanders and top U.S. diplomats all oppose opening up a broader front against Iran and its proxies in southeastern Syria, viewing it as a risky move that could draw the United States into a dangerous confrontation with Iran, defense officials said. Such a clash could trigger retaliation against U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Syria, where Tehran has armed thousands of Shiite militia fighters and deployed hundreds of Revolutionary Guard officers.

Put another way, Iran hawks in the Trump White House want to broaden the conflict there in a manner that pits the U.S. against another country that also seeks the defeat of ISIS, the ostensible reason the U.S. is involved in Syria in the first place.

Meanwhile, hawks in Iran are escalating that countrys role in Syria: Iran announced Sunday the Iran Revolutionary Guards had launched ballistic missile strikes on Saturday against ISIS targets in Syria, dramatically escalating the countrys role in the Syrian conflict. The mid-range ground-to-ground missiles targeted militants in eastern Syria in retaliation for the deadly terrorist attacks in Tehran earlier this month.

The American public does not want a major intervention in Syria.

There has never been a congressional vote authorizing U.S. military operations in Syria against anyone, and there has been scant debate over any of the goals that the U.S. claims to be pursuing there, Daniel Larison notes. The U.S. launches attacks inside Syria with no legal authority from the U.N. or Congress, and it strains credulity that any of these operations have anything to do with individual or collective self-defense.

And the push for escalation is a particular betrayal for Trump voters who supported the candidate based on rhetoric about quickly defeating ISIS and otherwise eschewing war. Here is what Trump had to say back when President Obama was contemplating a greater U.S. role in Syria: What I am saying is stay out of Syria AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

Today, escalation in Syria risks those very bad things, along with American lives and treasure, but Trumps current rhetoric suggests he is more focused on his ongoing feud with the news media, Hillary Clinton, and whether he is under investigation. His approach carries all the risks of Washington establishment hawkery with none of the steadiness, experience or discipline that helps to mitigate them.

Were inching toward an outright invasion and extended occupation of northern Syria, French writes at National Review. All without congressional approval. All without meaningful public debate. Will Trumps base stand for this betrayal? So long as he is commander in chief, the U.S. will suffer from the worst qualities of the establishment and its antagonists. It is hard to imagine a president less fit to avoid catastrophe.

See original here:
Donald Trump No Longer Wants to 'Stay Out' of Syria - The Atlantic

Another day, another low point for Donald Trump. The president's approval rating, which has proved historically bad since he took office, has sunk again.

The latest survey from CBS Newsout Tuesday found his approval rating had hit a new low of 36 percent, while 57 percent disapproved of the job he is doing. Trump's approval rating has declined over the last few monthsin the CBS News poll. Forty-three percent approved of him in early April, a number that dropped to 41 percent by late April and now has hit the new low of 36 percent in late June. The previous low for Trump was 39 percent in February.

Trump's support among Republicans might have been a factor in the drop. Seventy-two percent of GOP respondents approved of the president's job performancewhich sounds like a lotbut actually represents an 11-percentage-point fall compared with April.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

The poll found that the investigation into Trump's potential ties with Russia, the country that interfered in the 2016 election as it aimed to helpget the GOP candidate into office, hasdragged down his popularity. His firing of FBI Director James Comey and comments suggesting the move was connected to the bureau's Russia probe, as well as his near-constant focus on the investigation, might not be helping him with the American people.Just 28 percent of respondents approved of the way he's handled the probe, according to CBS, while 63 percent disapprove. About one-third said Trump's approach on the process has left them thinking less of the president. Fifty-sevenpercent of GOP respondents approved of Trump's handling of the Russia investigation.

Thirty-nine percent of all respondents thought the Russia investigation was a critical national security issue, while 32 percent thought it was a distraction. Twenty-seven percent thought it was a serious issue but not as serious as other issues.

The CBS News survey, conducted bySSRS,sampled1,117 adults across the country though telephone interviews from June 15 through June 18. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points for the full sample.

Other recent surveys haven't brought good news for Trumpeither. The tracking poll from the generallyright-leaning Rasmussen Reports, a survey often cited by the president on Twitter, found Trump's approval rating had fallen 2 percentage points over the weekend, to 48 percent. Gallup's tracking poll, meanwhile, pegged Trump's approval at just 38 percent Monday, closing in on the president's lowest point in the survey35 percentwhich he hit in late March.

The weighted average from data-focused website FiveThirtyEighthad Trump's approval rating at 38.7 percent Tuesday morning, while his disapproval stood at 55.3 percent. FiveThirtyEightaggregates public polls to come up with the average figure and accounts for each survey's quality, timeliness, sample size and any partisan leanings.

See the original post:
Donald Trump's Approval Rating Plummets to New Low as Republicans Grow Wary Amid Russia Investigation - Newsweek

President Donald Trump has said he will make an announcement as to whether he taped conversations with FBI Director James Comey before sacking him, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said at the close of todays press briefing.

I expect it this week, he added. When he is ready to make that announcement, I will let you know.

Asked for a yes/no answer to the question, Does Trump believe the Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election, Spicer pulled out his I have not sat down and talked to his about that specifically gag, adding, I will be glad to touch base and get back to you. In rough numbers that translates to dont hold your breath.

Didnt he say it was fake news? a reporter shouted at Spicey as he was wrapping that answer; he declined to acknowledge the question.

Spicer played Trump Victory-Lap Translator, in re last weeks return to this country of American college student Otto Warmbier, who the Obama administration had been unsuccessful in getting released. Warmbier died at home Monday after being held in captivity by North Korea for more than a year during which he suffered major brain damage and slipped into a coma.

The president was pleased he was able to work with the State Department and get Otto home as soon as he could, Spicer said. But I think, when you realize what happened, the president believes, had it happened sooner, potentially there might have been additional medical resources that could have been provided.

Hes obviously saddened by this entire situation, and just would have hoped that it could have been resolved earlier, Spicer translated.

Previous day, upon learning Warmbier had died, Trump said at a photo op: Its a disgrace what happened to Otto. Its a total disgrace what happened to Otto.

It should never, ever be allowed to happen, Trump continued. And frankly, if he were brought home sooner, I think the results would have been a lot different. He should have been brought home that day.

Spicer appeared to confirm reports hes leaving as White House Press Secretary. Asked about those reports, Spicer joked he is right here, so you can keep taking your selfies.

Its no secret weve had a couple vacancies, including communications director, Spicer said, and havec interviewed potential people who may be of service to the Trump White House, noting they are always looking for ways to do a better job articulating the presidents message and his agenda. When we have announcements of a personal nature, I will let you know.

Original post:
Sean Spicer: No Chance Yet To Ask Donald Trump About Russia Election Tampering - Deadline

Its meant to choose the winner in just one of 435 congressional districts across the United States, but the outcome of an election today (June 20) in suburban Atlanta could put the brakes on the entire Republican legislative agenda promoted by US president Donald Trump.

The sixth district was until this year represented by Tom Price, a Republican lawmaker who was tapped by Trump to become as US secretary of Health and Human Services. The scramble to replace him has been entirely influenced by the unpopularity of the new presidentdespite the fact that Price has never collected less than 60% of the vote in 14 years of elections, the Democratic candidate has a chance to flip the district.

Jon Ossoff, a 30-year-old former legislative staffer who was raised in a nearby Georgia community, is the Democratic standard-bearer. A novice campaigner, he has surged on the back of anti-Trump sentiment and attacks on the unpopular health care bill passed by House Republicans.

His opponent is Karen Handel, a former county official and Georgia secretary of state who has accepted Trumps backing and articulated a fairly typical God, gays, and guns campaignshe has made clear her opposition to same-sex adoption, while her allies have attempted to tie Ossoff to the shooting of several Republican lawmakers and aides last week in Washington.

Polls have a notoriously tough time with special elections and their unpredictable electorates, but they show the vote just about tied, with perhaps a slight edge for Ossoff. He won 48% of the vote in an open primary in April. That election set up todays run-off because no candidate cleared a true majority; Handel won 20% of the vote in a crowded Republican field.

Last fall, Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in the district by just one percentage point. For comparison, Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama there by 28 percentage points. Now, Democrats are asking if the deep recession in Trumps popularity since November will be felt here and by Handel, just enough to get their nominee over the line.

If Ossoff wins this conservative district, which was once represented by Newt Gingrich, the result will be far more than just one fewer vote for Republicans in the House. (Remember, the Republican health care bill passed the House by just one vote.) It will also be a signal to other lawmakers that Trump has indeed become electoral poison in the kind of affluent suburban districts where Democrats hope build an anti-Trump majority among white professionals inclined to back the GOP but turned off by Trumps vulgarity and incompetence.

Republican incumbents are sure to be less likely to go out on a limb to support their already-teetering legislative agenda if there is real evidence it will cost them their jobs. But if Ossoff loses, expect the liberal handwringing about the Democratic partys leadership to spread.

Ossoff hasnt followed the progressive playbook when it comes to political messaging, declining to embrace single-payer healthcare or to make inequality central to his message. If he fails, its likely that Bernie Sanders-backing Democrats will use the loss to promote the idea that the party still needs a major revamp of its rhetoric.

A failure for the Democrats here isnt the end of their quest for gains in the legislaturethe seat is not among the 23 Republican-held districts won by Clinton last year, though it is a top target proposed by electoral analyst Charlie Cook.

Victory, however, would put wind at the back of the opposition party, something shiny to show fundraisers as they prepare for what will be a very expensive electoral fight in 2018. Democratic political operative have been talking about an anti-Trump wave sweeping the country, but until they bring home the goods, their credibility remains somewhere around Nov. 9, 2016, levels. Conversely, a win for Handel will embolden those Republicans who think they can hold on until this whole Trump thing blows over.

The high stakes can be seen in the money that both parties are pouring into this race, which in May became the most expensive congressional election ever. With more than $57 million spent so far, there is no sign the cash flow will slow. Ossoff in particular has benefitted from amped-up small donors, raising more than $23 million himself, while Handel has only raised $4.5 million. But outside spending by political action committees has benefitted Handel, with $18.2 million in her favor to Ossoffs $8 million.

Read more:
Today's $57 million special election in Georgia could stop Donald Trump's legislative agenda in its tracks - Quartz

Unlike most presidents, who keep the public at arm's-length, President Trump appears to let us into his head with his constant tweeting. Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

Unlike most presidents, who keep the public at arm's-length, President Trump appears to let us into his head with his constant tweeting.

President Trump did it again on Twitter late last week.

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt," he tweeted Friday morning.

Once again, a Trump tweet set off a media frenzy, this time making everyone wonder whether he was indeed confirming that he was under investigation for obstruction of justice. (The White House later said the tweet was not confirmation that Trump has been informed that he is under investigation.)

This isn't the first time that Trump has made trouble for himself in his tweets (see: the tweet that a judge recently cited in once again blocking Trump's travel ban). But his tweets are more than a potential legal liability, and they're even more than fodder for the occasional breaking news alert his Twitter feed is groundbreaking in that he seems to be letting us inside his head. And in doing so, he is the first president to narrate his presidency in real time.

But he is not just any kind of storyteller. He peppers those tweets with things that most politicians strain to hide: factual inaccuracies, evidence of character flaws, unsupported allegations.

Social media has given America President Donald Trump, unreliable narrator.

A point of view that clouds the story

Trump's Twitter account with its commentary on current events by one of the main players in those events could someday be an obsession of postmodern literature professors. And just as it's impossible to put down Catcher in the Rye or Lolita or Gone Girl, Trump's Twitter feed has captivated Americans' attention. Every ambiguous post sparks a debate about not only what he means but also what prompted it: What is motivating him today? Why say this, and why now?

In literature, an "unreliable narrator" is someone who tells the story while layering a clearly distorting lens over that reality there is a clear point of view (The Catcher in the Rye's angst-ridden teenager, Pale Fire's unhinged professor), and it shapes how the story is told. It doesn't necessarily imply malice (consider Huckleberry Finn or Tristram Shandy), but simply a point of view that clouds the story.

In The Art Of The Deal, Trump praised "truthful hyperbole" a kind of purposeful truth-stretching to get people "excited." In other words, he has shown a willingness to distort the facts. With his regular usage of factual inaccuracies and disputes with the "fake media," Twitter Trump has given us a framework to figure out what exactly his lens on the world looks like.

Trump isn't entirely unique in this regard: Everyone is an unreliable narrator in some way. And Americans often regard politicians in general as unreliable narrators. When politicians explain their views of the world, we can easily guess at their basic motivations: advancing policies, winning for their party, protecting their legacies.

And that means we can easily determine for ourselves how big the gap is between what any given politician says and what we perceive to be factually true.

But with every Trump tweet, Americans have the unique opportunity to measure and remeasure that gap.

Trump demands our attention over and over again

We occasionally get glimpses of presidents' inner lives (like Obama tearfully admitting his fury over the Sandy Hook shooting). And after presidencies, we get memoirs (George W. Bush writing about his decider-ness in Decision Points).

However, no president has narrated his presidency so heavily in real time. And Trump adds to that an aggressively unfiltered voice his tweets present a man willing to be impulsive, say things that aren't true and take aim not only at members of his own party but also at his own administration. His Twitter feed seems to let us know when he wakes up, when he goes to bed, what he is obsessing over at the moment and even which cable news outlets he is watching.

It's the kind of hints that J.D. Salinger has Holden Caulfield drop for us in The Catcher in the Rye. Yes, Holden tells us what he is doing, but Salinger wants us to also pay attention to the lens through which Holden views the world. Holden himself is the story.

That second part drawing our attention not only to the story but also to the point of view it's coming from is what makes this kind of story compelling. A third-person Catcher in the Rye would be hopelessly dull.

Similarly, up until now, the presidency has largely been narrated in the third person, by the media, by political scientists, by pundits (some of them unreliable themselves).

We've been able to glean all of those usual political motivations from past presidents, but it has been dull in comparison to what we could only imagine was going on in their heads. What was going on in Clinton's brain when he hit on a young intern? What did George W. Bush think on Sept. 11, 2011? We had no way of knowing in the moment.

Is Donald Trump actually Nabokov?

Candidate Trump holds up his book "The Art of the Deal," given to him by a fan in Birmingham, Ala. In the book, he espouses "truthful hyperbole." Eric Schultz/AP hide caption

Candidate Trump holds up his book "The Art of the Deal," given to him by a fan in Birmingham, Ala. In the book, he espouses "truthful hyperbole."

If Trump is indeed the unreliable narrator, his Twitter feed perhaps best resembles Vladimir Nabokov's Pale Fire, considered one of the greatest works of 20th century fiction.

A quick summary: In Pale Fire, a fictional poet and professor named John Shade writes a 999-line poem, which is presented near the start of the book. The poem is, by turns, poignant, mundane, funny and wrenching, telling about Shade's youth, his marriage, his daughter's suicide and his struggle to come to terms with death.

After Shade's death, a fellow professor, Charles Kinbote, writes a 200-page analysis of the poem. That analysis is a total misreading Kinbote believes the poem to be about himself, and he also claims to be the exiled king of a foreign country named Zembla. And yet, even while it's a rambling, deranged delusion of grandeur, it's also utterly captivating.

Kinbote's analysis seems to have entirely lost touch with reality in a way that Trump's tweets have not. But just as the reader can look at the "reality" of the poem and then at Kinbote's commentary to decide how big the gap between reality and his commentary is, we can see what is going on in the real world, then look at Trump's tweets and decide for ourselves how big that gap is.

And on top of all that, there is yet another layer.

After all, Trump's tweets have led to endless conjecturing about why he tweets. Does he simply lack a filter? Is it red meat for his base? Is he carefully planting distractions when the news isn't going his way? Does he secretly want his executive order to fail? Is covfefe a coded message????

Literary critic Wayne Booth, who is credited with coining the term "unreliable narrator," expounded on what makes this kind of narrator work.

"All of the great uses of unreliable narration depend for their success on far more subtle effects than merely flattering the reader or making him work," he wrote in his The Rhetoric of Fiction. "Whenever an author conveys to his reader an unspoken point, he creates a sense of collusion against all those, whether in the story or out of it, who do not get that point."

So the question is who is colluding with us as readers. Essentially, one of the great debates over Trump's tweets boils down to this: Is Trump Kinbote, or is he Nabokov?

Almost 70 percent of voters, including 53 percent of Republicans, think Trump tweets too much, according a recent poll. J. David Ake/AP hide caption

Almost 70 percent of voters, including 53 percent of Republicans, think Trump tweets too much, according a recent poll.

At one extreme, some Trump opponents consider him to be Kinbote delusional or, at the very least, showing his weaknesses while being oblivious to the fact that he is doing it. There is a sort of collusion for these readers in the sense that Trump is unconsciously colluding with them by in their minds letting them know how far his perceptions are from reality.

At the other extreme, some supporters consider Trump to be Nabokov. They think he is playing "four-dimensional chess." Just as readers "collude" with Nabokov, seeing Kinbote's flaws as Nabokov lays them out, some Trump supporters feel they are colluding with the real-life Trump, the one who carefully draws our attention away from scandals and uses secret codes.

This point of view squares with his affinity for "truthful hyperbole." (But then again, potentially damaging tweets like his Friday message about being investigated for firing FBI Director James Comey undermine this point of view.)

In each case, each group feels like it's privy to a secret the other group just doesn't get.

The upshot seems to be that Trump has discovered a way to push the president of the United States even further into the spotlight. As Catcher in the Rye makes Holden's internal monologue a part of the story, Trump has found a way to make the president not just a person who does things; he is a person whose very thoughts seem to be on display. (And, as has been reported, Trump loves being the center of attention.)

But it's also possible that he loses something in the process namely, a portion of his potential symbolic status. The president is always a symbol. Yes, he gives off flashes of humanity from time to time, but he exists at a remove from Americans. And despite the constant clamoring for "authenticity," this kind of remove is, arguably, how many Americans want it.

"People want the president to be a symbol, like they want the monarch to be a symbol, but there's always this curiosity about the gossip about the royal family," Tom Rosenstiel, executive director of the American Press Institute, told NPR last month. "But we don't know, and we get to muse about it. There's a comfort level about not knowing."

That arm's-length president, shown in TV news shots shaking hands and striding purposefully from meeting to meeting, is the norm. But then, Trump isn't one for norms. Our brains try to push him to that arm's-length symbolic status we're used to, but he resists, yanking us back in. Every tweet eliminates the distance, putting us right inside his head with him (or, some might argue, that is what he wants us to believe).

This kind of whiplash happens in books like Pale Fire as well. The story is humming along, but then it jolts to a stop. Wait. Am I being played?

That whiplash may be one reason why Americans seem to be souring on his Twitter feed. Fully 69 percent of voters, including 53 percent of Republicans, believe the president tweets too much, according to a recent Morning Consult/Politico poll.

The difference between Trump and Kinbote, of course, is that Trump is real, and his policies have real effects on people. So do his tweets, says one literature professor, creating a sort of Rube Goldberg machine of tweets.

"Especially in real time, the narrator has to keep going on the same storyline," said Nathalie Cooke, professor of literature at Montreal's McGill University. "So as Trump fuels the storyline with the populist Trump, the polarization in his readers actually fuels the continuation of the story."

And as the story continues, Trump has more to tweet about, creating more news and more fodder for that polarization among readers about whether he's Kinbote or Nabokov. That kind of polarization arguably fuels even more tweets tweets in which he further intensifies his us-vs.-them point of view.

But Trump's tweeting is also a risky pastime. His tweets have weakened the case for his "travel ban," for example. And his Friday tweet further intensified the nation's focus on the Trump-Russia investigations storyline.

And this is the nature of the dilemma that Trump's addictive Twitter account presents. Unreliable narrators are fascinating, but it's often because they say too much.

See the original post:
President Donald Trump, Unreliable Narrator - NPR