"Performing a Character"

"The genuinely complicated factor in these negotiations is that 'winning' with Trump is often impossible, because the relationship itself is lose-lose. Trump does not appear to recognize the possibility of a positive-sum engagement, and his attempts to turn a productive connection into an exploitative one create losses for both sides. This is most obvious in trade, where Trump's protectionist instincts have spread pain around the globe without generating any gains. His extortion of domestic firms and civil society has likewise undermined some of America's most admired sources of innovation, for no offsetting benefit other than the expansion of Trump's own power."

At The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait reacts to Donald Trump's backing down from the trade war with China.

"Proto-Trumpian Themes"

"The left dissented from Obama's optimistic analysis, seeing American history as a long and bloody reprise of racism and exploitation with no clearly defined trajectory. Buchanan adopts a similar analysis, except that he presents the qualities derided by the left as necessary, even praiseworthy. America is 'the product of ethnonationalism,' he asserts without judgment. 'No American war was fought for egalitarian ends, postwar propaganda notwithstanding.' Likewise, 'no one would suggest the Indian wars were about equality. They were about racism and subjugation.' Lincoln, he reminds the reader, was a white supremacist. As a descriptive account, Buchanan's history hardly differs from what you'd encounter in a text such as the 1619 Project or Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, only with the moral valence of the events flipped."

Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic calls Pat Buchanan "The Godfather of the Woke Right."

Trump U

Various writers discuss Donald Trump's attacks on higher education:

Jonathan V. Last does so at The Bulwark.

As Owen Jones does at The Guardian.

As Jonathan Chait, Edith Olmsted, Jonathan W. Gray, and Felipe De La Hoz do at The New Republic.

"No Longer the Vessel Into Which People Can Pour Their Discontent with the Status Quo"

"Many voters were desperate for a straightforward alternative to what they saw as the stale establishmentarian liberalism of the Biden-Harris administration. So they projected its opposite, as they understood it, onto their only other viable option—and Trump, ever attuned to the needs of his audience, was more than happy to humor their hopes. But in actuality, the 2024 election was not a traditional binary choice between two coherently opposed political alternatives, the electoral equivalent of the Yankees versus the Red Sox. It was the Yankees versus a flaming tennis ball launched into orbit by a Tesla rocket—a choice not between two teams but between completely different sports. Many voters who thought they knew the rules to the game and would turn out the winners are now discovering that they didn't and won't."

Yair Rosenberg at The Atlantic discusses "[t]he Trump Backers Who Have Buyer's Remorse."

Ezra Levin and Leah Greenberg at The Nation give advice regarding "How to Organize Our Way Out of the Trump-Musk Putsch."

At Newsweek, Ross Rosenfeld writes that "Trump Is Creating a Deep State."

David Brooks at The New York Times asserts that Trump "campaigns as a populist, but once he has power, he is the betrayer of populism."

And Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic argues that "[a] president who maintains that the law means whatever he wants it to mean is a constitutional crisis."

"Civil Servants Are Not America's Enemies"

"Every bureaucracy has some bloat. But there are no more civil servants now than there were in the late 1960s, even as the population they serve has grown by two-thirds. The tasks these 2.2 million employees perform are often uncontroversial; the Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the largest employers, and 70 percent of the civil service works in defense and security-related agencies. Moreover, federal workers are more efficient than private workers; they are less expensive to hire too."

Annie Lowrey at The Atlantic defends the civil service from Donald Trump.

Steven Levitsky describes the rise of "competitive authoritarianism."

And Jonathan Chait writes that "bribery is basically legal now, as long as you support, or are, Donald Trump."

"Some of the People and Moments That Got Me Through Week One"

"This is a terrible moment, but it's also a historic and challenging one. We can't avoid it and we shouldn't try to. Even if we occasionally have an inexplicable compulsion to put a blanket over our head, move to another country, or dive into a household chore we've put off for forty years."

Jill Lawrence at The Bulwark offers a "Sanity Check After Trump's First Week Back in Office."

Ed Kilgore at New York argues that "Trump's 'Shock and Awe' Looks More Like Chaos and Confusion."

At The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait writes that, at the recent Democratic National Committee meeting, "The Democrats Show Why They Lost."

And John Avlon at The Bulwark says that the Democratic Party "should look back to the message from Bill Clinton."

Götterdämmerung

"I know Trump voters told pollsters that it was all about the economy, and maybe it was. Eggs and milk are higher. I'm not disputing that, but people like me thought our fellow Americans recognized that the cause of that inflation, and which the Trump administration initiated and the Biden administration continued, kept the economy afloat, and that President Biden steered the nation towards the soft recovery every economist believed was impossible. People like me were wrong."

Michael Ian Black at The Daily Beast reacts to Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election.

As do David Frum and Spencer Kornhaber at The Atlantic.

As do John F. Harris, Steven Waldman, and other writers at Politico.

As do Mona Charen and Scott Conway at The Bulwark.

As do Robert Kuttner and David Dayen at The American Prospect.

As do Ed Kilgore and Jonathan Chait at New York.

As do Timothy Noah, Kate Aronoff, Greg Sargent, Jonathan Zimmerman, Eric Schmeltzer, and Michael Tomasky at The New Republic.

As does Sophie Clark at Newsweek.

As does Sam Wolfson (in an interview with Richard Reeves), Ben Davis, and John Harris at The Guardian.

As does Ashleigh Fields (in an interview with Sen. John Fetterman) at The Hill.

As do Paul Rosenberg and Jim Sleeper at Salon.

As do John West and Kara Dapena at The Wall Street Journal.

As do Jeet Heer and Joan Walsh at The Nation.

As does David Brooks of The New York Times.

As do John Halpin and Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot (who earlier argued that "the progressive moment is well and truly over").

And in subsequent week, reactions continue from:

James K. Galbraith, Jeet Heer, and Neil Kraus and Jon Shelton at The Nation.

Chauncey DeVega at Salon.

Jesse Ferguson and Austin Sarat at The Hill.

Jared Abbott, Dustin Guastella, and Sean Mason at Jacobin.

Conor Friedersdorf, Jon Favreau, Annie Lowrey, Ed Kilgore, and Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic.

Andrew Prokop at Vox.

Walter Russell Mead at Tablet.

Bharat Ramamurti at The Bully Pulpit blog.

And Michael Bahraeen, Juan David Rojas, Justin Vassallo, and Ruy Teixeira at The Liberal Patriot.

"My Goal Is to See the Democratic Party, Once Again, Become the Party of the Working Class"

"I think that to the degree that [Harris] and Walz can focus on working-class issues and understanding that there are a lot of people in this country hurting, we have had good success in the last three and a half years in a number of areas. But we need to recognize the pain that's out there and bring forth an agenda that speaks to the needs of the working class, and not just wealthy campaign donors. And if we do that I believe that Kamala Harris not only will be the next president, I think she can win by a decent margin."

Jason Lemon at Newsweek interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders about the 2024 presidential election.

While Jonathan Chait at New York argues that Kamala Harris should emulate Barack Obama's 2008 campaign.

Though Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect says that Harris should ignore Chait.

Breaking Ranks?

"Moral clarity and fervor can be useful at times. But they invoke fundamentally unrealistic ideas of how politics and governing can be conducted, and they make it difficult to identify and correct errors on one's own side. To ask a liberal to join a movement without critiquing its errors and excesses is to ask them to jump aboard a car with no brakes."

Jonathan Chait at New York defends liberals criticizing leftists.

Anti v. Anti-Anti

"The 'no enemies to the left' posture makes it difficult to separate the democratic left from its undemocratic elements. If you meet any objection to abuses on your own side by changing the subject to the greater evil on the opposing side, then you never have to define what kinds of ideas or behaviors by your allies you won't accept. If they are willing to justify authoritarian abuses abroad, they would be willing to justify them domestically if given the opportunity."

Jonathan Chait at New York writes that "[w]hether to denounce illiberalism on the left when it occurs or instead to aim all hostile fire rightward is, in my observation, the key divide within the progressive intelligentsia."

"A Menu of High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

"House Democrats have calculated that an impeachment focused narrowly on the Ukraine scandal will make the strongest legal case against President Trump. But that's not Trump's only impeachable offense. A full accounting would include a wide array of dangerous and authoritarian acts—82, to be precise. His violations fall into seven broad categories of potentially impeachable misconduct that should be weighed, if not by the House, then at least by history."

At New York, Jonathan Chait presents "The (Full) Case for Impeachment."

"It Might Be the Best General-Election Appeal Any of the Candidates Has Devised Yet"

"Democrats have been racing haphazardly to the left, with Warren often in the lead. Some of their ideas, like moving everybody off employer-sponsored insurance and onto a public plan, are toxic to general-election voters. But some ideas have appeal to the left and to swing voters. This is one of them."

Jonathan Chait at New York praises Elizabeth Warren's plan to increase Social Security benefits.

"He's Right"

"This illustrates how the status quo benefits the right. Most conservatives policy goals involve tax cuts, spending cuts, or hamstringing Democratic regulatory reforms by defunding them. Few of these policies need 60 votes to pass. On the other hand, lots of ideas Democrats want to pass, from (small-d) democratic voting reforms to health care, do need 60 votes."

Jonathan Chait at New York writes that Donald Trump, when regarding ending the Senate filibuster, "actually happens to be correct on the procedural merits."

"Politics Defeated Ryan, and the Country Is Immensely Better Off for It"

"The story of Paul Ryan is that of a man who set out to radically change the role of government in public life, and eventually settled for dumping hundreds of billions of dollars on the wealthiest people in the country and hoping for the best. 'I'm not one of these big-ego legacy guys,' he said last month with characteristic humility, well before unveiling of the six-part video treatment of his legacy."

Jonathan Chait at New York says goodbye to the outgoing Speaker of the House.

Wouldn't Be Prudent

"Bush's tax pledge roused conservatives but it turned out to be notoriously misjudged. Once in office, facing a federal deficit that had quietly ballooned under his predecessor, and a Congress controlled by Democrats, the 41st president was forced to renege on his promise.
"President Bush did leave two significant legislative marks: the Clean Air Act Amendments, signed into law in 1990, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which Bush made law in the same year."

Paul Lewis at The Guardian reports the death of George Bush.

Jonathan Chait at New York offers appreciations, of sorts.

As does Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo.

"The Crook Who Got Away with It"

"So a man whose path to success was formed in large part by participating in schemes to hide and launder illegal handouts from his father managed to maintain the illusion that he was a successful law-abiding president. It probably would have mattered a lot if Trump had been widely described in the news media as the crook the Times reveals him to be. But there is no undoing his election now. It is an open question whether attacks on his crooked business activity will form a potent message against him in 2020, or whether voters will, more likely, dismiss it as irrelevant history."

Jonathan Chait at New York discusses Donald Trump's criminal past.

"The Question Is Why"

"These answers omit the information the other includes. Obama left himself out of his explanation. Shapiro left everything except Obama out of his tweet. But combine them and you get something convincing: Donald Trump capitalized on fears triggered by demographic, technological, economic, social, religious, and civic change, and nothing represented or activated those fears as powerfully as Obama himself."

Ezra Klein at Vox ponders Barack Obama's speech at the University of Illinois.

As does Jonathan Chait at New York.

"How Can a Sick System Be Threatened?"

"Yet if you take their giddy expectation of incipient revolution seriously, then their sour disposition toward the democracy movement makes perfect sense. The episodes that seem to democracy scholars like harbingers of extreme danger—a president delegitimizing the news media and seeking to turn law enforcement into a political weapon—have been met on the socialist left with more equanimity. Why rouse yourself to defend a doomed and rotten system when a much brighter future beckons?

Jonathan Chait at New York explains "Why Trump's Assault on Democracy Doesn't Bother the Radical Left."

"Conservatives Are Definitely Getting a Return on Their Investment"

"In office, he has instead governed as an orthodox right-winger. This explains why Trump has lost so much of his nonconservative support. But it also helps explain the Republican Party's willingness to defend him. "

Jonathan Chait at New York reminds readers that "[i]nstead of keeping his popular promises that helped get him elected, Trump instead adopted the unpopular stances of the conservative movement, which has in turn embraced him."

"Why Trump Can't Understand"

"To see his former associates convicted of felonies, and the special counsel charging after him, must gall Trump, as though the earth has shifted under his feet and the rules have changed. Things that people used to be able to get away with are landing them in prison. But what has changed is not the rules, but Trump's own position:"

David Graham at The Atlantic writes "[a]ctions that might have escaped scrutiny for just another rich man in New York City draw much greater attention when they involve the president of the United States."

And Jonathan Chait explains that "Trump has internalized the mob ethos."