Someone made a one-hour loop of Trump saying "winning" repeatedly.
Trump thought it appropriate to put it up on the White House site, and post it on Twitter/X.
 |
| Winning: Click |
Trump surprises. Trump offends. He is tiresome, but never boring. There is something new every day. As the DJs of my youth said on KYJC and KBOY, the local AM top-40 stations, "The hits keep on coming."
It took Trump several months into his 2016 campaign before he made winning the triumphant finale of his speeches. In the fall and winter of 2015-2016 he talked about immigration while criticizing Obama and Obamacare. But by March, 2016, I described a rally in Boca Raton, Florida:
He ended his talk assuring people that "You will start to win if I am elected. Win. Win. Win. You will win so much you will start to tire of it. But we will keep winning. You will call out to me, "Let's stop winning so much, we are tired of winning,but I won't stop. I will keep us winning and winning."
Trump frames relationships as a transaction, with a winner and a loser. It isn't just the theme of his book, The Art of the Deal; it is fundamental Trump and Trump-ism. Trump's casual disregard for alliances and trade relationships that had been built over decades is explained by that frame. Trump doesn't value cooperation and win-win arrangements. Win-win means half losing. One left "money on the table."
Our political system was not prepared for Trump, although the writers of the Constitution presumed that a Trump-like figure would come along, so the tools are in place to use if Americans dare. Other presidents have overstepped their power, but they did not really test the system because they did it in bits and pieces, tentatively, carefully, and hypocritically.
President Biden's attempt to forgive some student loans was an example, something he declared and tried, then got shot down by courts, with Biden promptly succumbing. President Obama faced the situation of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Muslim cleric and high-level Al Qaeda operative. Obama arranged a CIA-led drone strike against him in Yemen on September 30, 2011. There was no practical way to stop al-Awiaki through normal criminal police apprehension, removal to the U.S., and trial. Obama argued that he was an "imminent threat" and was in the act of waging war against the U.S. and therefore a legal military target.
Trump doesn't care about normative fair-play boundaries and therefore doesn't tiptoe and nudge. He blasts past former norms and dares someone to stop him. He doesn't obey in advance. He disobeys in advance and demands that the courts, Congress or anyone else confront him if they are to stop him.
Foreign powers have done a better job than domestic ones in saying "no" to Trump. Iran did not obey in advance. They are still fighting, not consenting. Denmark and the countries of NATO who moved warships toward Greenland did not obey in advance. Canada, which immediately started making side-deals with China did not obey in advance. The House obeyed in advance on the Epstein matter until, finally, a fifth GOP member stepped up, which meant there was a majority when added to Democratic votes to demand Trump release the Epstein files. When Congress played the cards it had, Trump folded.
There is a huge difference between Trump 45 and Trump 47. In his first term, Trump's top people obeyed the rules of the game. In his second term his top people obey Trump.
If Congress doesn't impeach and convict him, he will continue to do as he pleases on tariffs. He will make war on Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, Greenland or anyone else if he can get away with it.
Trump will assure that Republicans win every race in the 2026 midterm election if he can get away with it. He will assert whatever pretext serves his purpose. States with GOP control will let him. Ones without full GOP control will resist. Federalism is a partial check on Trump. Congress is not.
Trump can be stopped, but he doesn't stop on his own. He plays to win it all. It requires opposition to Trump to have a play-to-win attitude as well, otherwise he will steamroll right over opponents.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
3 comments:
There’s something seriously wrong with a system that puts such a blatantly deceitful, malicious, corrupt convicted felon in our nation’s highest office, and with the people who support him.
Insiders at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) have reportedly been looking to oust Ken Martin as chair, believing he failed to help the party recover from the 2024 election.
A report from The Bulwark spoke with at least three anonymous sources inside the DNC who confirmed that the party has grown increasingly frustrated with Martin’s leadership, especially after he appeared on Pod Save America where defended himself “against charges that he has backed out of his promise to release an after-action report about what went wrong in the 2024 election, as well as accusations that the DNC has had trouble raising money and balancing its budget.”
“The concerns have become so pronounced in recent weeks that some DNC members have privately discussed trying to force Martin out of the job, according to three people familiar with these conversations,” the report said. “The idea was put on hold after members failed to identify an alternative candidate willing to step into the role.”
The frustration over Martin’s leadership has only worsened in recent months, with some members entertaining resolutions that might force him to balance the DNC budget.
“I think that would be a very hard job, no matter who has it. But [Martin] seems to be uniquely ill-suited for it,” Democratic strategist Jesse Lehrich told The Bulwark. “The Pod Save interview was mind-blowing to me.”
Under Martin’s leadership, the DNC has spent more money than it has raised, while the RNC retains a “roughly seven-to-one money advantage,” with Martin taking out a $15 million loan last October for elections in Virginia and New Jersey. Insiders say he may take a similar loan this summer or else lay off staff.
“The biggest strike against him is that he seems to be utterly incapable of managing a budget,” said one anonymous source. “To put the DNC in such a bad financial situation going into what is … likely to be the most wild [presidential] primary we’ve had in a while — it reeks of irresponsibility and immaturity.”
“It just feels like we’re being gaslit at this point,” the source added.
Michael Kapp, a California-based DNC member, defended Martin’s tenure, saying he has been “shifting the party away from a consultant-centered model and toward one that is more centered on state parties and organizers — and that was always going to create friction.”
“The loudest people in D.C. — including the Pod Save America folks — are often the furthest away from the doors that are being knocked. What I’m hearing from state parties, organizers, and activists on the ground is overwhelmingly positive,” Kapp added. “Since [Martin’s] become DNC chair, we won 30 out of 30 State House legislative flips. The strategy is working.”
I’d like to hear more about this. It seems that shifting from consultants to state parties would be a good move. Deficit spending not so much, but organizations can get away with it for a while. DNC certainly knows how to purge troublemakers - witness David Hogg. Maybe we do get the “Leaders We Deserve.” (Snark)
Post a Comment