Small Bites: Madison Square Garden edition

Occasionally, I’ll have a strong reaction (usually a bit snarky) to some irritating political news. More rarely these days, my spirits will be lifted by some positive story. In either case, I am moved to write something about it. The problem is that any resulting post would not be long enough to justify an entire column here. In the past, that’s when I went to Twitter. But now that X is overwhelmed by the foul stench of Elon Musk, I don’t go there anymore. So…instead I thought I would combine several of these brief observations into one column — which I am calling Small Bites. Here’s the first one.

Trump is so not off the hook for his MSG rally. Numerous comments made by the warm-up acts at Trump’s Madison Square Garden debacle were so offensive and so filled with racial hatred, that the Trump campaign was forced to issue “a rare statement distancing itself” from the remarks (especially one comedian’s insult to the island of Puerto Rico). Rare indeed, like this may be the first time an apology of any sort has come from the Trump campaign. That should tell you just how bad this all was.

Trump campaign officials can do all the disavowing they want. However, unless and until an apology comes from Trump himself, it means nothing. Trump most certainly approved of these speakers beforehand; he can’t evade responsibility for the consequences of those choices. But more importantly, Trump himself has not said a single word of contrition about any of this. His only comments thus far are to say “Last night, we had a great rally at Madison Square Garden” and boast about (you guessed it!) the crowd size. Trump, as always, is sticking to his Roy Cohn playbook. It’s all he knows how to do. And, at least up till now, it has generally worked for him. Let’s hope it will fail spectacularly next week.

By the way, Trump’s own speech did not shift the tone in any way, but you will never see any apology for that.

Scott Jennings falls flat (again). Speaking of the Garden disaster, when the matter was discussed on CNN yesterday, Scott Jennings (CNN’s resident Trump sycophant) had the rare good sense to not defend Trump. Unfortunately, he couldn’t let it rest there. He had to resort to his inevitable “what-aboutism” and claim that some Democrats have insulted Trump in ways comparable to how the speakers at MSG insulted Harris.

I won’t waste my time arguing whether or not his claim has any validity. It doesn’t have much and it doesn’t matter. The point is that Kamala Harris does not have control over every Democrat, podcaster, and late-night comedian in the country. She’s not responsible for them and couldn’t limit what they say even if she wanted to do so. That’s the big difference. The Garden event was a Trump-sanctioned, Trump-featured major political rally — probably the biggest of his campaign. Everything about it was under the direct control and oversight of Trump and his campaign staff. So what happened there is very much Trump’s responsibility. As usual, Jennings’ lame attempt to paint Harris as no different than Trump fell as flat as a pancake after it’s been run over by a steamroller.

Mass Deportation: the ignorance of Trump and his supporters. One of the pillars of Trump’s rickety platform, touted at the Madison Square Garden rally, is his promise of “mass deportation” of all illegal immigrants, starting on “day 1.” The absurdity and impossibility of actually trying to implement such a policy has now been covered in several venues — including a segment on the most recent 60 Minutes. But for my money, the best takedown was from John Oliver. Not only did he clearly lay out just how costly, unworkable and ultimately counterproductive the plan would be (not to mention immoral), he showcased the mindless support that the plan has from Trump’s MAGA-heads. Paraphrasing here, they essentially said: “I support mass deportation. Yes, absolutely, if they are not here legally, we should get rid of them…all of them.”

It’s all so sadly typical. Trump pushes some bit of fear-mongering that he believes will be a good soundbite for his campaign — while giving exactly zero thought to whether it is possible to carry out the idea — or even whether it would be wise to try. He revels in his ignorance. And then, just as surely, like mindless robots, his followers enthusiastically echo everything he says. It’s truly scary to contemplate what will happen if this man becomes President again.

The real “October surprise.” One could argue that John Kelly’s revelation that Trump fits the definition of a fascist was an October surprise. Some in the press have claimed that the Madison Square Rally amounts to an October surprise. But I’m not sure they qualify for the label. The problem is that neither of these things were especially surprising. It’s exactly what you would expect to hear about Trump and from Trump.

Paradoxically, if there was any October surprise at all this election cycle, it is that there was no surprise involving Kamala Harris. I don’t mean that we should have expected some negative story about her. Far from it. But, given that you can be sure that the Trump campaign has spent more money and resources trying to dig up some dirt on Harris than most countries spend in a year — their inability to find anything amounts to a pleasant surprise.

When is enough enough? Years ago, something like the Madison Square Garden rally might have been a determinative event, assuring a victory for Harris. But we don’t live in such times anymore. No one thing seems to move the needle significantly. Everything seems so “baked in.” And events that seem critical one day seem almost forgotten by the next.

Still, I have to ask myself: If not the MSG rally, then what? What does Trump have to do to get persuadable Trump voters (assuming any exist) to say “Enough already. This is a bridge too far. I can no longer support this guy.”? Are they really willing to look the other way at all the crap that comes out of his mouth — all the lies and violent rhetoric and fascist threats— and say: “Yes, that’s the guy I want as President“? Is this really someone they admire? Do they really want such person in charge of the country? Who knows, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe this time, it will make a difference. I can only hope.

The closing argument (revised): Beyond Fascism

I firmly believe Trump is a fascist and that his threat to democracy is very real. The claim is based not only on what Trump has already done (which is bad enough, as I argued in my prior column), but on what he has promised to do if re-elected and on his absolute ability and intent to carry out those threats. He will act on them. As The New York Times shouted from its op-ed page yesterday: When Trump says these things, BELIEVE HIM.

I pair this with the vulgar lies — and incoherent rants — he (and his allies) spew at every opportunity — as in his racist hate-filled Madison Square Garden rally last night — and I remain stunned that his candidacy can survive this rhetoric. But somehow it does.

The hard face-slapping truth is that, in the final weeks of the campaign, Kamala Harris has not widened her lead. On the contrary, Trump has narrowed the gap. Like just about everyone, I take polling data with a huge grain of salt. But when almost all of them show the same trends, you have to take notice. I would still rather be Harris than Trump, but not by as much as I had hoped or expected at this point.

Nothing Trump has said or done in the last few weeks should have improved his chances of winning; on the contrary, unless doing nothing more than shoring up your hard-core base with lies and fear-mongering is the way to go, he remains his own worst enemy. That’s why I am reluctantly forced to consider that Harris’ seemingly stalled campaign is more a case of what she is or isn’t doing. Something is not clicking for her. As Robert Reich put it today:

“In more recent weeks, she’s focused mostly on Trump’s particular threat to democracy. Her campaign seems to have decided that she can draw additional voters from moderate Republican suburban women upset by Trump’s role in fomenting the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

That’s why she’s been campaigning with Liz Cheney and gathering Republican officials as supporters. And why she has chosen to give her closing message on the Ellipse — where Trump summoned his followers to march on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Yet when she shifted gears from the economy to Trump’s attacks on democracy, Harris’s campaign stalled. I think that’s because Americans continue to focus on the economy and want an answer to why they are still struggling economically.”

What’s the chicken and egg here? Has her campaign stalled because she shifted her focus to threats on democracy? Or was the decision to shift precipitated by a slowing of progress already happening for other reasons? Or was the shift decision independent of any of these considerations — and was going to happen anyway, exactly as planned. I don’t know. Still, it is a troubling sign. I have argued that the shift was exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right moment. I confess to having some doubts now.

Update: A New York Times article today offers a bit of encouraging news on this front.

Trump, on the other hand, gets by with making no arguments at all — other than “Things are horrible now and I will make them better. Trust me.” It seems pathetic. But it remains a tight race.

It’s apparent that a significant portion of this country is either unpersuaded that Trump is the danger that he clearly is — or they don’t care. I will never understand how such a self-evidently unqualified and vile human being can be even close to winning. But I cannot deny the reality of it.

I’m not sure that any sort of course-correction is needed at this point. The Harris campaign has done — and continues to do — an amazing job overall. And there really isn’t much time left to do any correcting anyway. Still, for whatever it is worth, my recommendation would be to keep hammering on democracy issues. Definitely. It’s critical. But just as importantly, perhaps more so, emphasize why a vote for Harris is a vote to make people’s lives better — economically, socially and every other way imaginable. Because it is! Whatever your problems are — Trump is not the solution!

Harris is still favored to win. I believe she will do so. But it’s going to be a nail-biter. Hang on.

Yes, Trump can be a fascist. His defenders are wrong.

When critics of Donald Trump assert that he is a “threat to democracy” and a “fascist,” his defenders often respond by scoffing. The implication is that the fascist claim is too extreme to be taken seriously. I agree that fascist is an extreme assertion — not to be made lightly.* But that doesn’t make it untrue. Extreme claims are sometimes deserved. This is one such case — as I have argued before.

Trump’s defenders (when they aren’t completely lying) typically offer two more specific arguments against labelling Trump as a fascist. Let’s take a closer look at each one — and see why each is wrong.

Things will be different (and worse) this time

The first argument is: “We survived Trump’s first term as President without our country succumbing to autocracy. Why should we think things would be different this time?”

Here’s why:

  1. Yes, we survived the four years of Trump but not unscathed. There was (to cite just a few of the most salient examples) Charlottesville, the botched pandemic response, the separation of children from their parents at the border, the Muslim ban, hush money payments leading to a felony conviction, and two impeachments with the latter one centered on Trump’s actual attempt to overthrow our democracy — culminating in the violent insurrection on January 6.
  2. Trump attempted to do much more damage than he accomplished. Among other things, he wanted the military to shoot George Floyd protesters in Washington in 2020. He was restrained by the military leaders and the people who worked for him…who now describe Trump as both a threat to democracy…and incompetent (yes, you can be both!). The problem going forward is that these people would not return to power with him — if he is re-elected. He will instead be surrounded by lackeys who will be eager to carry out his threats unrestrained.
  3. Trump himself is worse now than he was four years ago. His threats are more dire and more explicit. At the same time, his cognitive abilities are markedly diminished. He can speak both of the “enemy within” and Hannibal Lector. Trump is telling us he intends to behave as a fascist. We should believe him.

In other words, the first Trump administration was not nearly the joy ride his defenders would like to claim. And there’s every reason to believe a second administration will be far worse.

The level of support for Trump is not a shield against claims of fascism

The second argument is: “Trump cannot be a fascist because half the country is supporting him.” How could so many people, so the argument goes, support someone if he was that dangerous?

Beyond the obvious circular fallacious reasoning of this statement — and beyond the excellent rebuttals offered in a New York magazine article — I would add one more: In 1933, Germany held its “last free and fair elections before the Nazis seized power the following year.” The Nazi party, with Hitler at its head, got 33% of the vote: over 11,700,000 people. While not a majority (because several parties were competing), the Nazis got a greater percentage of the vote than any other party. And it quickly led to Hitler’s complete takeover of the country. You know the rest.

So yes, it’s definitely possible to both be a fascist and have huge popular support. And yes, Trump can remain a threat to democracy even if his initial attempts at autocracy failed.

Addendum

* Trump is somehow held to a different standard. He uses the term with no sense of caution at all. He has accused Harris of being a “fascist” (and a “Communist”) — obviously with no evidence — so many times that people don’t even take notice anymore. This is just another example of Trump’s typical propensity for projection: accusing others of that which you yourself are guilty. That’s also how, with the deepest of irony and hypocrisy, GOP Congressional leaders can criticize Harris for her singular use of the term, with no reference to Trump’s much more frequent and baseless usage.

The closing argument: Trump is a fascist

Trump is a fascist.

Period. Full stop.

That what John Kelly, Trump’s longest-serving Chief of Staff, said. As if that wasn’t enough, Kelly added that Trump often spoke positively of Hitler and wished our generals were more like Hitler’s.

“Trump is a total fascist.”

That’s what retired General Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Trump administration, said. For good measure, he added that the former president “is now the most dangerous person to this country.”

In case you’re wondering, a fascist is someone who: “exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition.”

Trump is viewed as a fascist because these are the ideals he aspires to, as repeatedly evidenced by his own words and actions — most recently with his comments referring to people such as Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi as the “enemy within” and promising he would punish them if he is elected.

Other members of the former President’s staff have chimed in to support Kelly’s and Millley’s assessments. These are not partisan attacks. These are heart-felt beliefs from people who worked with Trump and knew him best.

Trump’s defenders, as per usual, are trying to gaslight the country — telling them that Trump didn’t really say what he clearly said. It’s not working.

Vice President Harris has picked up this baton and is now running with it — stating that Trump is indeed a fascist.

This is shaping up to be her closing argument.

There is debate as to whether or not this is the best strategy. I believe it is definitely the right way to go.* However, it requires more than just name-calling. You have back it up with convincing evidence that Trump is truly the danger to this country that the label implies. I obviously believe you can.

Trump stands exposed. And Americans have a clear choice. Either you vote against Trump because you are against electing a fascist as President, no matter what your other policy preferences might be — or you’re okay with, and perhaps even prefer, the leader of our country be a fascist. Harris is correct to frame the stark choice this way.

Shockingly, given the lunacy of Trump supporters, I expect most of them will go with the latter. But surely there must be enough sane voters left to hand victory to Harris. If I am wrong, then I despair for the future of this country.

Addenda

* I don’t mean to suggest that the economy is irrelevant to how people vote. It obviously isn’t. As this New York Times article makes clear, many working class voters continue to view it as the decisive factor:

“Working people worry much more about payday than they do Jan. 6. Fair enough: But why turn to a lying, abusive billionaire to help them solve their economic problems? Their explanation is simple. Times were good when Trump was president.”

I could argue that they are wrong to not worry about Jan. 6. If Trump truly becomes a dictator, they won’t see a return to the country they yearn for. And I could argue that Trump isn’t likely to lead the way to a better economy in any case (most economists worry much more about a coming Trump economy than a Harris one).

But evidence suggests this will likely fall on deaf ears. Which is my point. At this stage of the campaign, Harris is unlikely to gain many new votes with a sole emphasis on her already-stated economic plans. The voters interviewed in this article are so obviously committed to Trump that nothing Harris could say about the economy would change their vote. My cynical self suspects that many of these people would be in Trump’s camp even if they felt Harris would be better for the economy. They are his “base.”

So yes, Harris should continue making her economic case. But I firmly believe that the primary hope for shifting any remaining votes is to stress the danger to democracy that Trump poses.

Update: October 27: New York Times columnist Janelle Bouie agrees with our assessment here, writing: “To my mind, it is now the only story worth telling about the 2024 presidential election. It should be the only thing Americans talk about between now and Nov. 5. And every one of Trump’s allies and surrogates should have to answer the question of whether or not they agree that their boss is a “fascist to the core,” as Milley put it.