Mediaboss Marketing

Its my party now. Photo: Pool/Getty Images

One of the more remarkable political developments of the last six months the culmination in some ways of the last 18 months is the transformation of the Republican Party into the Party of Trump.

Think back toearlylast year. Close to every major Republican politician regarded Trump as an excrescence that would eventually go away. Today, the GOP owns Trump completely and Trump owns the GOP. In Gallup, he receives around 85 percent support of Republicans, with only some minor softness around the edges. At his inauguration, he had 86 percent support. Thats the key reason why his general approval ratings have leveled off at around 40 percent. That seems to be the floor.

Think back over what we have learned these past six months, and let that sink in. This solid 85 percent is despite a deeply unpopular Obamacare replacement, which clearly targets Trumps core voters, and would wreak real havoc in their lives. Its despite fading prospects for any kind of tax cut. Its despite a failureto make tangible progress in building theborder wall,boostingeconomic growth, orbringingback any manufacturing jobs. This is despite almost complete legislative failure while controlling both House and Senate. Neil Gorsuch is his only solid victory. And that came only becauseRepublicanstrashed the judicial filibuster for the Supreme Courtand, prior to that, Senate tradition by denying Merrick Garland a hearing.

But the loyalty endures even deepens. For now, theres no way out, only through, and through it together, writes Rich Lowry, explaining why he, and his magazine, National Review, are now in favor of party over country. Lowry was, you may recall, a prominent Never Trumper, throwing the entire Buckley legacy against the parvenu narcissistduring the Republican primaries. This was not just because, as Bret Stephens notes, Trump represented the death rattle of anything that might be called a conservative intelligentsia, although he did. It was because it was hard for any Republican to back a candidate and now a president who equivocated on NATO, morally equated Russia with the U.S., preferred autocracies to democratic allies, embraced America First as a rallying cry, and was threatening to slap a crude tariff on all steel imports. Can you imagine if Clinton ran on that? And yet Trumps chief propagandist, Sean Hannity, is now being honored with the William F. Buckley Award for Media Excellence.

How did Trump manage this takeover? First, he demagogued the base, simply deploying the anti-establishment lines that had been honed and tuned to perfection in the GOP for years, against thepartyitself. Second, in an amazing stroke of luck, the Democrats gave him an opponent only slightly less despised than he was, and infinitely less talented. Now, in his latest twist, Trump is usingthe mainstream media as his foil to cement party loyalty behind him. In other words, he picked three things every Republican hates the D.C. Establishment, Hillary Clinton, and the MSM and made himself the only alternative to each. Brilliant when you think about it.

And in his latest war against the media, he is clearly winning. Close to 90 percent of Republicans believe the most patently mendacious president in history over the flawed, but still generally earnest, CNN. More to the point, as one new paper suggests, they support himeven when they know hes lying. And he has used this near-blind support to construct, in just six months, the close equivalent of a disciplined state-run media, across various platforms, from Fox toTMZ, to Sinclair and One America,fromthe National Enquirer to talk radio across the country, and potentially even Time Inc. in the future. In some ways, this media complex operates for Trump the way RT does forPutin. Yes, in America, unlike Russia, theres a vibrant alternative, but, in some parts of America, that alternative barely peeks through, as this report from rural Iowa notes:

Most people here watch Fox News, and have for a generation. Fox News is always on the TV in diners and other restaurants. In bars, if there isnt a game on, Fox News is there. If there are a couple of televisions or more, one will most likely be tuned to Fox. And its not only TV. Its radio. Our big blow torch conservative radio station out of Des Moines blasts conservative indignation and self-righteousness for hours a day and serves up Sean Hannity for hours every night.

The point of Trumps otherwise super-stupid tweets is clear: to signal the new party line which his internet underlings and media flacks then repeat. This can, of course, require them to contradict themselves in no time at all, as Trumps moods shift. But the willingness to say black is white when party discipline requires this, as Orwell noted, is key to authoritarian success.

The Republican Party elites defense of all this their only faintly honest argument is usually along the lines of: Stop going nuts. Yes, its all pretty appalling, but not a big deal. We can ride this tiger, and dismount when necessary. As Ben Shapiro argued: Themedia are wrong that their liberties are under some sort of existential assault from a president who is merely mouthing off the way he has his entire career.

Which is to say: Theres no difference between a New York mogul mouthing off and the president of the United States. Im sorry but I beg to differ. This decadent insouciance is recklessly complacent about democratic norms, dangerous in what it is prepared to tolerate, and, at best, a form of collective denial.

A president can come and go. But when he remakes one of the two major political parties into a threat to liberal democracy, its a far deeper and more durable shift. Let us just note for the record that, in this first Trump summer, the mainstream conservative Establishment has, like conservative Establishments in other countries before it, averted its eyes from or openly endorsed this transformation every single step along the way.

Heres a book review I just came across that seems to me an intellectual shift. Its a review of a new book by Fordham law professor John Pfaff, Locked In, about mass incarceration in America, and it upends a plank of conventional wisdom on the left. The book argues strongly against the notion that our vast and indefensible prison-industrial complex was deliberately created by an explicitly racist war on drugs that swept up nonviolent drug offenders, primarily black, from the 1980s on. The data dont back it up:

All told, low-level, nonviolent drug offenders, the focus of much reform rhetoric and effort, make up only about 1 percent of all inmates in state prisons. If we released every prisoner who has been sentenced solely for a drug crime, we would still be the world leader in incarceration. Most strikingly, the racial disparities of our inmate population would barely budge: in state prisons, the percentage of white inmates would go up one point, the percentage of black inmates would go down one point, and the Hispanic percentage would remain the same.

The War on Drugs was not, in other words, a decision by white supremacists to respond to the end of segregation by rounding up random black men on the streets and creating a new archipelago of racial separatism behind bars (see Michelle Alexanders 2010 book, The New Jim Crow) or to construct a new system of modern slavery (seeAva DuVernays 2016 documentary13th). The War on Drugs was a terrible, awful idea but it didnt create mass incarceration. Neither did theoretically longer prison sentences (which Pfaff shows were, in reality, mostly reduced to one to three years).

So what did? Heres the emotionally unsatisfying answer: unsupervised and unaccountable prosecutors seeking tougher sentences all over the country, and given many more options, under the law, to do so. Heres the gist (my italics):

Consider, for example, the period from 1994 to 2008, when per capita incarceration rose every year. Over that period, reports of violent and property crimes fell steadily. So, too, did the number of arrests. The probability that a felony case, once charged, would lead to incarceration did not change. And the average time actually served stayed pretty much the same. What changed was the number of cases that prosecutors charged as felonies in state court: the likelihood that an arrest would lead to a felony chargedoubledover that time. In other words, it was not crime rates, arrests, or sentence lengths, but admissions to prison, driven by decentralized prosecutorial decisions, that accounted for most of the growth in incarceration.

No racist conspiracy; just tougher prosecution. And no top-down policy shift; a bottom-up change in felony charges. And then another key factor from James Forman Jr.s new book, Locking Up Our Own: Crime and Punishment in Black America: the insistence by African-American communities and civil-rights leaders in the 1970s and 1980s that the police protect them from the ravages of drug-related violence which began with heroin in the late 1960s. DuVernay lightly touched on this but only to minimize it. But it was a core factor in a shift in policing: Among those who embraced a war on drugs in response to crack cocaine were D.C. mayor Marion Barry who called drug dealers the scourge of the earth Jesse Jackson, who bragged that he would out-tough George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in fighting the war on drugs; and Harlems congressional representative, Charles Rangel. Honorable mention: Eric Holder. They were responding understandably to black democratic pressure not caving to white supremacy. Yes, there was racism in many whites enthusiasm for a crackdown. But you also tend to find that members of communities destroyed by heroin and crack are also serious prohibitionists and fans of law and order on the streets.

In case you think Im just rehashing a conservative critique of the excesses of todays racial left, I should let you know that this review was written by David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU. Its published by The New York Reviewof Books. And its aim is toward prosecutorial reform, rather than racial grandstanding. It seems to me we need more of the former, and a good deal less of the latter.

The Democratic Party is the lamest political organization in the West. But you knew that. It was briefly saved and given some coherence by the genius of Obama, but is now in its default state of listless mediocrity. People keep asking me if I see anyone out there who might be able to offer a clear and appealing message in a manner that could win over the center. The answer is no. Worse, its inability to face why it lost last year suggests an eight-year term for this nutjob. The other night I was talking to a solid Democrat who, when asked to defend Clinton, still actually said that whatever her faults, she was, at least, competent. A party that can still be this deluded deserves to be doomed.

But even I could not have come up with their attempts this week to create a new 2018 bumper sticker. Only months after running a campaign whose only real message was Trump is a nightmare, and Shes your only real option, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee offered: Democrats 2018: I Mean, Have You SeenThe Other Guys? After a dreadful campaign that began with the toe-curlingly smug Im With Her, theyre now proposing: She Persisted; We Resisted. For fucks sake. And please understand please that Elizabeth Warren, for all her virtues, is Trumps dream opponent. Another inspiration: Make Congress Blue Again. Seriously, guys. Thats all you got?

If you are reassuring yourself that next year will be a wave election, just remember: Never, ever underestimate the Democratic Partys capacity to screw it up. A much larger anti-Trump coalition has to make sure they dont.

See younext Friday.

The nine nations that possess nuclear weapons did not participate in the treaty negotiations.

Congressman Mike Conaways family bought stock in UnitedHealth the same day that a bill repealing Obamacares taxes on insurers advanced in committee.

A viral moment from the G20 summit.

An op-ed co-authored by Clinton strategist Mark Penn tells Democrats to emulate a 1996 strategy the actual candidates did not pursue.

The First Lady was sent in to interrupt them during the G20 summit.

One Democrat in Trenton wants to make sure Beachgate stays in the news.

Rioters mixed with peaceful protesters as world leaders gathered in the German city.

At a meeting than ran 90 minutes longer than expected, Trump and Putin discussed Russian interference in U.S. elections, the secretary of State says.

The definition of the Supreme Courts bona fide relationship is the new battleground.

The vice-president ignored some very large instructions on NASA equipment labeled Do Not Touch.

Competitors in 43 sports from 80 countries have gathered in Tel Aviv for the Maccabiah Games.

At a meeting with Enrique Pea Nieto, Trump returns to the topic that drove a wedge between the two leaders.

The German chancellors husband is shady.

In June, there were an impressive 222,000 new jobs created. How much does Trumps agenda have to do with it?

They may be looking for ways to disrupt the U.S. electric grid, but DHS and the FBI said there is no indication of a threat to public safety.

There were no injuries, but the minor derailment caused more even delays at the troubled station.

Doctors said the congressman, who was shot last month, tolerated the procedure well.

Original post:
Why Republicans Let Trump Take Over Their Party - New York Magazine