This is a Profoundly Dangerous Moment in American History
PLUS: Updates on Trump's pick of J.D. Vance, the Trump assassination attempt, Biden's sputtering campaign, and the dismissal of Trump's classified documents case.
My apologies for not posting my regularly scheduled article this past Sunday. I was actually putting the finishing touches on it when news of the assassination attempt on Trump broke. With the political world suddenly scrambled, there was no point publishing what I had written. I also didn’t want to rush something new out without more information or while the nation was still in shock.
But the world still turns. Judges are handing down rulings. Biden’s presidential campaign limps along. A vice presidential nominee has been anointed. And the Republican National Convention proceeds as planned. We no longer need to tend to the moment and can step back into the current of time.
Before I share my thoughts on what happened this past weekend and what it might mean for the country going forward, I would just echo the words of many and state there is no room in democratic politics for violence. Disputes in a democracy are supposed to be settled through debates and elections. The will of an assassin should never supplant the will of the people, and those who want to participate peacefully in the political process should never have to fear for their lives. It is heartbreaking that a rally attendee was killed that day and that two others were seriously wounded. The country is fortunate a former president was not murdered.
That said, I feel it is also important to echo words I have said following dozens of moments like this in the past: This nation has an unhealthy relationship with guns and it is beyond time to regulate them. The shooter used a semi-automatic AR-15 style rifle, a weapon of war frequently used in other high-profile mass shootings, including those that occurred at a country music festival in Las Vegas and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. It is a firearm designed to kill multiple people quickly. It has no place in a civilized society.
The AR-15, however, has become a symbol of gun rights advocacy in the United States, where gun rights proponents have made the defense of one of the most dangerous weapons available to average Americans the frontline in the debate over the scope of the Second Amendment. Republican Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia, a gun shop owner himself, distributed AR-15 pins to his fellow members of Congress this term. Other Republican members of Congress have gone so far as to include pictures of themselves and their families (including young children) holding assault rifles on their Christmas cards and in Christmas photos. This week at the RNC, a Wisconsin-based gun rights vendor is giving away a free AR-15 to a lucky convention attendee.
As I have written before, recent events have demonstrated that gun rights advocates have run out of arguments that can justify widespread gun ownership in the United States. The assassination attempt on Donald Trump only proves that point yet again. If the shooter turns out to be a “bad and crazy” person, he will only have been declared “bad and crazy” posthumously. What is lost on people who make the “bad and crazy” argument is that this country makes it extraordinarily easy for anyone to get ahold of extremely dangerous weapons and hurt people with them. (It appears in this case that the 20-year-old shooter may have had to do nothing more than take the gun from his father’s collection.)
Furthermore, this incident demolishes the “good guys with guns” self-defense argument. Trump’s rally prohibited “good citizens with guns” from entering the rally space because of the obvious danger those guns posed to the former president and the security of those in attendance. It should be abundantly clear now that there are numerous situations in which people for good reason cannot be expected to carry guns to defend themselves. Had those in attendance been carrying guns for self-defense, those guns would not have been used until people were already killed and wounded, most attendees would have been unable to locate the shooter to target him (and most of those would have struggled to neutralize him) and the chaos would have made the situation exponentially more dangerous, especially with security attempting to ascertain who was a potential threat. The “good guys with guns” who were in attendance—the Secret Service agents—did stop the shooter, but not before he had killed and wounded people and not before they themselves had failed to properly secure the area. This is not an argument against law enforcement, but rather an argument to make law enforcement’s job easier by doing away with the myth that we ought to flood society with guns so society is better able to defend itself. That myth is only making life in America more dangerous.
Finally, gun rights advocates have argued citizens need guns as a counterweight to a potentially oppressive government. Just last week, Republican Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, who is currently running for Senate, refused to say whether he opposes armed rebellion in the United States. Yet here we are today reminding one another that violence has no place in politics. I’ve always said this: If, as gun rights advocates claim, the Second Amendment is necessary to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then the protections the Constitution offers are illusory. A democracy must put its ultimate political faith in parchment, not bullets.
Moving on to the political consequences of this past weekend’s events, I think the only real honest reaction is this: We have no idea what the political consequences will be.
Most people’s political instincts tell them the attempt on Trump’s life will boost him. It makes him appear heroic and strong, particularly in contrast to Biden, who looks enfeebled at the weakest political moment of his presidency. Trump will campaign as a survivor, someone willing to run at great personal risk on behalf of the people, and those inclined to vote for him will be even more motivated to do so. Trump will probably get a bump in the polls heading into the convention, which millions of curious Americans may now watch to see what Trump has to say following his near-death experience. He has a tremendous opportunity to rally the nation behind his cause. Meanwhile, Democrats and liberals are in a tough spot: They have to momentarily temper their criticism of Trump just as millions of Americans are wondering if Democrats’ dislike of the former president somehow motivated the attempt on his life.
But it’s all still relatively early. There’s a lot that could change the public’s understanding of what happened this past weekend and a lot that could happen between now and Election Day that might upend the race yet again. One thing to remember is that Trump is a well-defined political figure who is very polarizing. The assassination attempt may have made him a more sympathetic figure to many Americans, but unless he emerges from this incident as a different kind of candidate, it’s likely there’s still a ceiling on his support (albeit a slightly higher one, which could make all the difference in a close election.) Eventually the shock we’ve experienced will wear off and attention will turn back to the issues and the grind of the campaign trail. Trump can capitalize on the good will he now has and potentially reframe the election, but the American people won’t vote for him simply because he was shot at. Trump can’t coast on that. Voters know there’s too much at stake.
We also don’t know the motive of the shooter, which can shape people’s perceptions of what happened. Assassins and would-be assassins sometimes have idiosyncratic motivations that do not track with our major political divides and therefore defy expectations.1 Information about Trump’s would-be assassin is scarce. He donated $15 to a liberal group on Inauguration Day in 2021 but registered to vote a few months later as a Republican. High school classmates have stated he was a loner who expressed conservative views, was good at math, and was interested in guns. His employers said he never gave any indication he was capable of violence or that he was a disturbed individual. Perhaps investigators will find a political motivation or discover something completely unexpected was behind the attack. Maybe we’ll never know, which could allow people to assign to him any motivation they like.
There’s also still a decent chance Biden will step aside as the Democratic nominee. For the two-and-a-half weeks prior to the shooting, questions about Biden’s viability as his party’s standard bearer dominated political news. That talk died down after last Saturday’s events. Some have speculated Democrats will now rally around Biden out of a desire to unify the party against a strengthened opposition. It also sounds like the reason some Democrats are now standing by Biden is that they’ve resigned themselves to a loss in November.
Yet if reports are true that congressional Democrats and Democratic donors have lost confidence in Biden, and if there is a belief that the race remains winnable, I would not be surprised if calls for Biden to step aside begin bubbling up again. This may be a pivotal week for the president: With Biden out of the spotlight due to the RNC, he may find himself drawn into some tough conversations about the state of the race. If he continues to resist (while continuing to turn in poor performances like his Monday NBC interview with Lester Holt) there’s the chance the dam will break. In my mind, the situation is untenable: People are tuning in to Trump to watch him take a victory lap, while people are tuning in to Biden to watch a car crash. Switching nominees now may be too little, too late for Democrats or come across as an act of desperation, but it’s also possible a new nominee could reset the race by offering voters a break with the chaos of the past ten years.
Finally, we shouldn’t underestimate Trump’s ability to overplay the hand he has been dealt. Trump could emerge from the assassination attempt a changed man who seeks to unite the country behind a positive message rather than divide it. Or he could take the stage as vitriolic as ever, more determined than before to lash out at and seek revenge against those he considers both his and America’s enemies. I suspect it’s highly likely Trump eventually returns to type (maybe not during the RNC, but soon thereafter if polls continue to show a tight race) which would serve to remind Americans he is the person chiefly responsible for normalizing violent political rhetoric over the past decade. (For reference, see “Donald Trump is the Accelerant: A Comprehensive Timeline of Trump Encouraging Hate Groups and Political Violence” by Fabiola Cineas of Vox from January 9, 2021; “Incitement: A Timeline of Trump’s Inflammatory Rhetoric Before the Capitol Riot” by Ed Pilkington of The Guardian; “A Brief History of Trump and Violence” by Sasha Abramsky of The Nation; and “‘No Blame?’ ABC News Finds 54 Cases Invoking ‘Trump’ in Connection with Violence, Threats, Alleged Assaults” by Mike Levine of ABC News.)
So give Biden some credit for his Oval Office speech last Sunday, when he put Trump in a corner by saying this:
Tonight, I want to speak to what we do know: A former president was shot. An American citizen killed while simply exercising his freedom to support the candidate of his choosing.
We cannot — we must not go down this road in America. We’ve traveled it before throughout our history. Violence has never been the answer, whether it’s with members of Congress in both parties being targeted in the shot [sic], or a violent mob attacking the Capitol on January 6th, or a brutal attack on the spouse of former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or information and intimidation on election officials, or the kidnapping plot against a sitting governor, or an attempted assassination on Donald Trump.
There is no place in America for this kind of violence or for any violence ever. Period. No exceptions. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.
You know, the political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated. It’s time to cool it down. And we all have a responsibility to do that.
Biden did exactly what he needed to do here: Call out violence perpetrated by people and directed at political figures from across the political spectrum, and then call on everyone to tone it down. It’s a high-minded, bipartisan appeal. It specifically condemns the attack on Trump. But by listing those instances, it also reminds Americans at a moment when they seek a more civil public discourse that Trump revels in the violent rhetoric they denounce. The burden is now on Trump: Can he reject the vitriolic brand of politics that has fueled his rise in politics? I’m skeptical.
This is a profoundly dangerous moment in American history. The concern stretches beyond heated political rhetoric and the potential for other isolated incidents of political violence. The attempt on Trump’s life has granted the former president a degree of esteem and admiration he has never experienced over the course of his political career. It has simultaneously humanized and mythologized him. It has also normalized his aggrieved MAGA supporters, who were transformed overnight from a cult of personality into the heart and soul of a mainstream American political party despite their illiberal inclinations. It is not hard to imagine support for Trump surging and propelling him to the White House once more.
Yet Trump remains a wannabe autocrat whose disdain for democratic norms poses a legitimate threat to American democracy. Despite all the talk about “turning down the heated political rhetoric,” it is not inappropriate to say that the presidency of the man who was nearly killed by a detestable act of political violence this past weekend culminated less than four years ago in an attempt to undermine a fair and free election by sending a violent mob he had riled up with his own speech into the halls of Congress. As Adam Serwer of The Atlantic wrote, “The attempted assassination of Trump is a wicked act against the self-determination of the American people. It does not erase all the crimes that Trump himself has committed against that right of self-determination.”
Trump may seem like a more sympathetic figure today, but he is still a demagogue who instinctively knows how to capitalize on these recent events. When a demagogue speaks of “unity,” it is a unity founded not on civic ideals but on the demagogue’s own nationalistic agenda. When a demagogue speaks of “tolerance,” it is often a demand that civic-minded citizens ignore their consciences and tolerate the intolerable. When a demagogue speaks of “strength,” it is not the strength of a diverse, multitudinous nation but the strength of a man empowered by the masses to wield public power efficiently and without restraint. When a demagogue’s supporters—many of whom delight in the demagogue’s violent rhetoric—urge their fellow citizens to “tone it down,” they are not drawing a line between overheated rhetoric and legitimate criticism; they instead aim to shame their critics into silence at a moment when that criticism is more necessary than ever.
Trump has been given a prime opportunity to demonize his enemies. In due time, he and his supporters will begin conflating the shooter who, for reasons unknown, tried to silence him with those who have stood in the way of his political rise: Electoral opponents; the legislative opposition; judges, lawyers, and law enforcement officials who have attempted to hold him accountable for his alleged crimes; and members of the media who have criticized him or simply reported on his actions. These enemies of Trump will become enemies of the people, and, like the shooter, will be regarded more than ever before as a dire mortal threat. Again, the leader of this charge is a man with autocratic tendencies who revels in violence and is promising his followers that he will be a more capable, ambitious, and unhindered leader during his second stint as president. That is a terrifying prospect.
Now more than ever is the time for the American people to wake up to the very real threat Trump poses to American democracy and come together politically to stop him at the ballot box. That extends from voters and volunteers in battleground states all the way to Joe Biden, who should step aside and do what he can to ensure the Democrats have the strongest possible presidential ticket this fall. But even if voters do wise up to Trump, I fear how he and his supporters—prone as they are to hyperbole, lies, conspiracy theories, and threats of violence—would react to their flagging political misfortunes. Convinced now that Trump is destined to win, how would they react if he lost, if they were convinced yet another election was “stolen” from them? Lose or win, it no longer seems this election will end well for America.
Trump has been extraordinarily fortunate over the past month. He seems like a man of destiny. His followers certainly think of him that way, with many going so far as to say God spared his life. (They have yet to explain why God didn’t save the life of the man who was killed.) But while men are forever at the mercy of fortune, they do have a hand in shaping their fate. Politics is a creative force capable of altering the future. We need not resign ourselves to the inevitability of Trump. There is still time for Americans to use political action to change their destiny.
Further Reading: “The Gunman and the Would-Be Dictator” by David Frum of The Atlantic (“Nobody seems to have language to say: We abhor, reject, repudiate, and punish all political violence, even as we maintain that Trump remains himself a promoter of such violence, a subverter of American institutions, and the very opposite of everything decent and patriotic in American life.”)
Signals and Noise
The Republican Convention
“Whatever else can be said about crooked Joe Biden, you have to give him credit for one brilliant decision, probably the smartest decision he ever made. If Joe had picked someone even halfway competent, they would have bounced him from office years ago. But they can’t, because she’s got to be their second choice.”—The twice impeached, almost assassinated, almost octogenarian Donald Trump speaking about two weeks ago about how a president picks their running mate. What does that say about J.D. Vance?
Rachel Maddow of MSNBC uses Ohio Senator J.D. Vance’s own words to show viewers what he thinks about Donald Trump, who just selected Vance as his vice presidential running mate.
By Zack Beauchamp of Vox: “What J.D. Vance Really Believes” (“Vance has said that, had he been vice president in 2020, he would have carried out Trump’s scheme for the vice president to overturn the election results. He has fundraised for January 6 rioters. He once called on the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into a Washington Post columnist who penned a critical piece about Trump. After last week’s assassination attempt on Trump, he attempted to whitewash his radicalism by blaming the shooting on Democrats’ rhetoric about democracy without an iota of evidence….Vance’s ascendance represents the death of this ‘adults in the room’ model. Backed by people drawn from the lists of loyal staffers being prepared by places like Heritage, Vance would not only support Trump’s radical impulses but seems likely to spearhead efforts to implement them.”)
By Victoria Guida of Politico: “The Trump-Vance Ticket is a Repudiation of Free-Market Conservatism” MORE: “J.D. Vance Pick Unnerves GOP’s Business Elites, Thrills Populists” by Jeff Stein of the Washington Post and “‘CEOs are Shocked’ That J.D. Vance is Trump’s Running Mate” by Joseph Zeballos-Roig of Semafor
Will Saletan of The Bulwark notes that by picking Vance, who once said, “I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other,” Trump has rooted the GOP in isolationism.
NBC News’ Chuck Todd reviews the Vance pick, observing Vance is the guy the Biden campaign hoped Trump would pick.
Julia Azari of Good Politics/Bad Politics writes that by selecting a MAGA faithful, the Vance pick is a sign of Trump’s confidence in winning the election, but could also prove a liability since it could highlight everything voters dislike about MAGAism.
From this past March, by Ian Ward of Politico: “Is There Something More Radical than MAGA? J.D. Vance Is Dreaming It.” (Ward’s follow-up from this week: “Are Republican Voters Ready for the Nerdy Radicalness of J.D. Vance?”
From two years ago, by David Frum, J.D. Vance’s former mentor, for The Atlantic: “The J.D. Vance I Knew” (“Many who knew the early Vance ponder the question: What happened to him? I don’t overthink that question; the answer seems obvious enough. I ponder something else. The anti-populist conservative Vance persona of 2010–17 was well designed to please the individuals and constituencies that held power over his future at that juncture in his career. The angry-white-male persona of 2017–22 was as perfectly aimed at the Thiel-Trump-Tucker nexus as the earlier iteration had been to the Allen-Aspen-Atlantic one.”)
Some quick thoughts on J.D. Vance.
I read his book Hillbilly Elegy, which describes his upbringing as a member of the white underclass. My memory of it is that while I appreciated his sociological insights, my sense was Vance never reckoned with his family’s toxicity and the damage that inflicted on him. He loves his family, but he can’t bring himself to say they should have been better caretakers and that their cultural background contributed to his warped childhood. (A better, more clear-eyed take on the subject is Heartland by Sarah Smarsh.)
Vance has only held elective office for two years, and he did not perform exceptionally well in either the Republican primary or the general election. Based off both his book and what I’ve seen of him as a politician, I would say he lacks a sense of self. He has a bad case of imposter syndrome. Vance is constantly striving to fit in all while resisting his roots, searching for something profound but unable to get to the heart of the matter. Maybe he’ll play the role of VP well, but his lack of experience and self-doubt could become a serious liability on the campaign trail.
The Trump campaign will no doubt play up Vance’s white working class upbringing and his military service. But this is also true about Vance: He is an Ivy League graduate who worked for the same law firm in Chicago as Barack and Michelle Obama, got rich as a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, served as an executive producer on an Academy Award-nominated film, and is now a Washington politician. The only box on his “elite American” Bingo card he hasn’t marked off yet is “Wall Street investor.”
Tim Alberta reports for The Atlantic that Team Trump is planning for a landslide…but nervous about how the race could change if Democrats switched nominees.
Will Ragland and Joe Radosevich of the Center for American Progress breakdown Trump’s Project 2025. Norman Eisen and Joshua Kolb explain for Slate why Trump lied by claiming he “knows nothing” about Project 2025 (despite also saying he disagrees with some of the things in it.) (“[H]e’s trying to convince the American people that the choice between dictatorship and democracy that they face is not before them at all. That, and not just Joe Biden’s (genuine) challenges, should be the issue dominating public discourse.”)
The Wall Street Journal reports Elon Musk plans to donate $45 million a month to a Trump super PAC.
The Trump Assassination Attempt
By Jonathan Martin of Politico: “Trump Once Unified Democrats and Divided Republicans. The Shooting And Debate Turned the Tables.”
Jason Farago of the New York Times writes about “The Photographs That Made Trump an Incarnation of Defiance”
Andrew Solender of Axios finds that congressional lawmakers fear violence breaking out at their own campaign events.
Tess Owen of Wired reports on how militias throughout America are using the Trump assassination attempt to recruit new members.
Taylor Lorenz of the Washington Post examines liberal conspiracy theories that have surfaced online in response to the attempt on Trump’s life.
Imma just drop this here:
Trump’s Legal Troubles Miracle
Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed all charges against Trump in the classified documents case in Florida, claiming the appointment of special prosecutor Jack Smith violated the Constitution.
Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post has a good overview of how outrageous Judge Cannon’s ruling is, including how it flies in the face of decades of legal practice, could have been resolved months ago (and therefore appears delayed to benefit Trump), misapplies the law, and appears spun out of a solitary concurring opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as part of the Trump immunity case.
My thoughts:
This was the most straight-forward case against Trump; its dismissal is yet more proof of how unchained so many conservative-appointed judges have become.
Smith should win on appeal, but if Trump wins the election, Trump will just end the investigation.
Attorney General Merrick Garland should just prosecute the case himself.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that Smith might be able to use a victory through the appeals process to get the case moved out of Cannon’s courtroom.
The Biden Campaign Crisis
Joe Klein captures the moment well in his Substack (better to read it whole than attempt to summarize it.)
By Doug Sosnik for the New York Times: “Biden’s Path to Re-election Has All But Vanished”
By Tyler Austin Harper for The Atlantic: “Believe Your Own Eyes” (“With each day, their growing list of talking points and excuses becomes only more implausible and irrational. These arguments require—sometimes implicitly, sometimes outright—that the American people believe a variety of assertions about the president that defy our own observations and experiences, and stretch the bounds of common sense.”)
John King of CNN reports private efforts are still underway to push Biden from the presidential race. Fueling these efforts are polls that not only show voters believe Biden is too old to serve, but that Democrats are losing ground in down-ballot races as well.
Jonathan Martin of Politico writes that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi believes Biden cannot win and is working behind the scenes to nudge him from the race. Sarah Ferris of Politico has more on Pelosi’s efforts, noting she is uniquely positioned to relay to Biden that he should step aside to allow a new generation of leaders to take over since she did that herself in the House.
The Washington Post reports Democratic lawmakers and strategists believe Biden’s inner circle is not giving him an honest, complete view of the race, citing conversations with Biden in which he insists he is leading in polls against Trump. The New York Times takes a deep dive into Biden’s inner circle, which just seems to keep shrinking.
Nate Silver makes a great point: Biden’s hopes of staying in the race depend on him playing a weak hand, and Democrats who want him out can exploit that.
In a move that has infuriated Biden-skeptical congressional Democrats, the New York Times reports the DNC is moving ahead with plans to formally nominate Biden via a virtual roll call next week.
Eugene Daniels of Politico spoke to Elaine Kamarck, a longtime member of the DNC Rules Committee, about how Democrats could actually replace Biden as their nominee.
Josh Barro imagines how this will all play out over the coming months if Biden stays in the race.
Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders endorsed Biden for president in a New York Times op-ed and called for an end to the debate over Biden’s status as his party’s nominee. It’s a laughable piece, though: Sanders touts Biden’s strong record but insists Biden must “propose and fight for a bold agenda” in order to win re-election. But that’s the problem right? No Democrat is arguing Biden has a bad record; it’s that Biden can’t effectively push the message.
Leigh Ann Caldwell and Theodoric Meyer of the Washington Post look at why progressive members of Congress are standing by Biden (and what they hope to get out of that.)
Philip Bump of the Washington Post points out Biden’s poll numbers were already historically bad before the debate. Eli McKown-Dawson reminds readers in an article for Silver Bullet that it’s not enough for Biden to essentially be tied with Trump; he needs a national polling lead of 2-3 points to pull ahead in the battleground states.
Biden keeps saying you can’t trust the polls. Nate Cohn of the New York Times assesses that argument.
“If we are going on a political suicide mission, then we should at least be honest about it.”—Democratic New York Rep. Ritchie Torres
Yamiche Alcindor of NBC News reports that liberal groups are finding Kamala Harris polls better than Biden with young, female, and minority voters, although both do about the same with Democrats generally and independents.
Ben Krauss writes for Slow Boring about what has happened in other countries when parties switch leaders close to elections. His conclusion: New nominees have managed to salvage their parties’ standing in the polls but suffered due to the unpopularity of their parties. But as Krauss notes, the Democratic Party at the moment is not particularly unpopular.
Zachary Basu of Axios marks just how bad of a position the Democrats—demoralized and divided—are in right now. Punchbowl News piles on, observing how Democrats had spent much of the past one-and-a-half years hammering Republicans for being dysfunctional but are now a complete mess.
Arlette Saenz of CNN reports UAW President Shawn Fain and other board members are concerned Biden won’t be able to beat Trump this fall.
NBC News and Elena Schneider of Politico both report Biden’s fundraising has taken a massive hit. The New York Times reports one group of donors are reportedly sitting on $90 million.
By Bill Scher of Washington Monthly: “Get a Grip, Democrats. You Can Still Win This”
By Jonathan Chait of New York magazine: “The Democratic Party’s Strange Attraction to Defeatism” (“Political parties exist in order to win. Sometimes they sacrifice their chances of winning to pursue other political goals [say, advocating an unpopular position they consider important]. But the political-science models I learned as an undergraduate generally assume they are attempting to maximize their power in one form or another. There’s no factor in any model I know of to account for a party simply giving up.”)
From Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post: “Don’t Worry About the Plane Landing. The Pilot Will Give It His All.” (“You are going into surgery. Your doctor’s hands seem a little shaky. ‘Are you sure there is nobody else who can perform this surgery?’ you ask. ‘There is only one of me. Are you sure that you can operate on me in a way that means I will make it out of this alive?’ ‘Listen,’ the doctor says, as the nurse injects your anesthesia, ‘as long as I gave it my all and I did as good a job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about.’ ‘Maybe for you!’ you start to say. ‘But not for me. I have to live with the results!’”)
Keeping Up with the Republicans
David Weigel of Semafor looks at the conservative legal team plotting Trump’s “revenge” agenda.
The New York Times examines how Mar-a-Lago has become a venue for nutso right-wing gatherings—and lined Trump’s pockets in the process.
Republican Missouri Senator Josh Hawley declared himself a Christian Nationalist and said he is advocating for Christian Nationalism.
In a House floor speech, Republican Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman said the welfare state had “taken away the purpose of the man to be part of a family,” adding, “if we want to get America back to, say, 1960, where this was almost unheard of, we have to fundamentally change these programs.”
“The mainstream media wants us to think of ourselves as a democracy because that leads to socialism.”—Alabama Republican Party Chairman John Wahl
According to Corey Kilgannon of the New York Times, Bruce Blakeman, the Republican leader of Nassau County, New York, and a Trump ally, is recruiting citizens with gun permits to form a force of “special deputies” to activate in “emergencies.”
A judge dismissed Rudy Giuliani’s bankruptcy case on the grounds the Giuliani is using it to conceal his wealth and delay payments he owes to two Georgia elections workers he defamed.
Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post reports the Heritage Foundation has preemptively declared the 2024 election rigged. Jim Rutenberg and Nick Corasaniti of the New York Times write about how Republicans are already planning to contest the results of the 2024 election.
Watch Republican Ohio Senate candidate Bernie Moreno speak at length about how he’ll answer any tough question thrown at him and then immediately duck a question on abortion.
Kevin McCarthy and Matt Gaetz got into it on the floor of the RNC. Eventually, accusations of pedophilia flew.
The San Antonio Express News finds Ted “Cancun” Cruz only ahead of Democratic challenger Colin Allred by three points in his Texas Senate race. If only there was a way to stir up enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket…
Miscellany
Eli Hager of ProPublica reports on Arizona’s school voucher program, a model for other recently adopted voucher programs in other states that has helped blow a $1.4 billion hole in the state’s budget. (“[A]s it turns out, the parents most likely to apply for these vouchers are the ones who were already sending their kids to private school or homeschooling. They use the dollars to subsidize what they were already paying for.”)
Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez was found guilty on all charges of corruption. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called on him to resign.
From Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer of the Washington Post: “Biden to Announce Support for Major Supreme Court Changes” (“President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans. He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.”)
Border arrests in June dropped to their lowest level since the height of the pandemic in January 2021. Border arrests have fallen by half since their peak in December. Total arrests were under 100,000 people in June.
Zoë Schlanger of The Atlantic looks at how Trump’s Project 2025 would all but eliminate NOAA, the federal agency that provides free weather reports to news services Americans rely upon when dealing with severe weather.
Daniel Cox noted an interesting survey result: While married individuals are more likely to vote Republican than single individuals, there is a noticeable split among the divorced, with women trending Democratic and men supporting Trump.
I did not know this: Hawaii is not protected by NATO. The treaty stipulates that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, so long as the attack occurs north of the Tropic of Cancer, which Hawaii is not. (Guess that answers my question as to why the US didn’t go to war with Argentina when it attacked the British-administrated Falkland Islands in the 1980s.)
International News
In a surprise result, the left-wing New Popular Front coalition won the most seats in France’s snap parliamentary elections. President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Together alliance came in second while the far-right National Rally—which had a commanding lead in the first-round of voting—came in third. The leftists and centrists engaged in tactical voting to ensure their supporters did not dilute the vote and leave National Rally with a plurality. No party has an outright majority, however, and it remains unclear if the leftists and centrists can cooperate with one another to form a government.
Julian E. Barnes and Eric Schmitt of the New York Times report that U.S. officials believe Russia will be unable to take territory in Ukraine in the immediate future, as Ukraine has hardened its defensive lines and inflicted heavy casualties on advancing Russian forces over the past few months. At the same time, Ukraine is not in a position to reclaim territory and remains vulnerable to missile attacks. That leaves the war in a stalemate, with Ukraine moving toward deeper integration with the EU and NATO.
Russian missile strikes left at least 36 dead across Ukraine. One of the attacks struck Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made his first visit to Russia since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Modi greeted Putin with a bear hug and referred to him as “my dear friend.”
And Something Completely Different…
The New York Times published a list of the 100 Best Books of the 21st Century. You can check it out here. The top five:
5. The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen (2001)
4. The Known World by Edward P. Jones (2003)
3. Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel (2009)
2. The Warmth of Other Suns by Isabel Wilkerson (2010)
1. My Brilliant Friend by Elena Ferrante (2012)
Exit Music: “Shake It Out” by Florence + the Machine (2011, Ceremonials)
For instance: Andrew Jackson’s would-be assassin was found not guilty by reason of insanity. James Garfield’s assassin was a deranged office-seeker. Theodore Roosevelt’s would-be assassin said the ghost of William McKinley had asked him to avenge McKinley’s death. Franklin Roosevelt’s would-be assassin expressed “hate for all rulers.” Huey Long’s assassin was angry Long had orchestrated a redistricting plan that ousted his father. Harry Truman’s would-be assassins were Puerto Rican nationalists. Malcolm X’s assassins were members of the Nation of Islam. Robert Kennedy’s assassin was an anti-Israeli Palestinian. George Wallace’s would-be assassin sought fame. Of Gerald Ford’s would-be assassins, one was a radical environmentalist affiliated with the Manson cult and the other was motivated by anger and a desire to start a revolution. Ronald Reagan’s would-be assassin acted out of a desire to impress actress Jodie Foster.