Trump presidency is a plot to save Twitter

Posted on by

From the wonderful Dave Pell newsletter:

“We informed the White House this morning that I will not attend the work meeting scheduled for next Tuesday.” That was Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto letting the world know he had canceled his planned trip to the US over Trump’s insistence on building a wall, and further insistence that Mexico will pay for it. The message was delivered via a tweet, and was (of course) met with counter-tweets from the Oval Office. Social media spats and flame wars now have serious diplomatic ramifications. What were once harmless exchanges between a couple of bad hombres can now cause geopolitical shifts. (Sometimes I think the whole Trump presidency is part of a secret plot to save Twitter.)

Discuss (as they say in history exams).

Taking back control. Oh yeah?

Posted on by

Sobering dose of realism from the Economist as Theresa May prepares to kiss the feet of the new Emperor.

In trade negotiations, size matters. Larger economies can stipulate terms that suit them. Britain, an economy of 60m people, has much less leverage in trade talks than the EU, a market of 500m, or the United States, one of 300m. Mr Trump may promise an agreement “very quickly” and to show other countries that it is safe to leave the EU by giving Britain generous treatment. But more than anything else he is an America First deal-wrangler who knows he has the upper hand. A rushed agreement could see the National Health Service opened up to American firms and environmental and food standards diluted (think hormone-treated beef). Such concessions could upset British voters, who backed Brexit partly because Leavers said it would help the country’s health-care system. They would also frustrate a trade deal with the EU, a much more important export destination.

The curious thing is that Brexit was supposed to be about “taking back control”: immunising the country from foreign whim and interest, while asserting national dignity and independence. Increasingly that looks like a bad joke.

Yep.

Family values, Russian style

Posted on by

This from the Economist:

SHOULD it be a crime for a husband to hit his wife? In many countries this question no longer needs discussing. But not in Russia, where the Duma (parliament) voted this week to decriminalise domestic violence against family members unless it is a repeat offence or causes serious medical damage. The change is part of a state-sponsored turn to traditionalism during Vladimir Putin’s third presidential term. It has exposed deep fault lines. Many Russians now embrace the liberal notion of individual rights, but others are moving in the opposite direction.

Trump has become American media’s de-facto News Editor

Posted on by

Nice acerbic column by Jack Shafer. Presidents have always been able to shape the news agenda, he points out, but Trump is in his own category. Every time he burps, or tweets, the press jumps to attention and fills pages and saturates the ether with coverage and reaction.

For example, Page One of today’s Washington Post couldn’t be more Trumpian had the president designated coverage himself. Of the six stories on the page, four detail some Trump aspect or action—he is untethered to the facts; his relationship with FBI Director James Comey; his pipeline decisions; and his wall and sanctuary cities edicts. On the inside pages, another 14 stories about Trump, Trump appointees, or Trump actions dominate the paper’s news portfolio. Meanwhile, on the editorial pages, all eight editorials and op-eds sup from the Trump banquet.

Today’s New York Times strikes the same imbalance. Of the six stories on Page One, four are about Trump, with another 11 tucked inside. On the editorial pages, five of the seven pieces deal with Trump. The Wall Street Journal completes the sweep, with seven news stories and nine editorials or op-ed pieces dealing with Trump and his policies.

It should go without saying that every new president dictates the news agenda. But has any new president’s dominance been as complete as Trump’s?

You only have to ask the question to know the answer. Sigh.

Political views warp your judgement — and how

Posted on by

Fascinating — and scary — piece of research reported in the Washington Post. On Sunday and Monday, YouGov surveyed 1,388 American adults. Researchers showed half of them this crowd picture from each inauguration and asked which was from Trump’s inauguration and which was from Obama’s. The other half were simply asked which picture shows more people.

Simple, eh? Well, guess what?

The not-so-solid First Amendment

Posted on by

As I said the other day, my American friends are strangely confident that the Constitution will eventually keep Trump under control.

I wonder…

In the meantime, consider this sobering assessment by two academic lawyers in today’s New York Times:

When President Trump declared on Saturday that reporters are “among the most dishonest human beings on earth,” it was not the first time he had disparaged the press. Nor was it out of character when, later that same day, his press secretary threatened “to hold the press accountable” for reporting truthful information that was unflattering to Mr. Trump. Episodes like these have become all too common in recent weeks. So it’s comforting to know that the Constitution serves as a reliable stronghold against Mr. Trump’s assault on the press.

Except that it doesn’t. The truth is, legal protections for press freedom are far feebler than you may think. Even more worrisome, they have been weakening in recent years…

For example, the First Amendment offers no protection to journalists who are hounded and harassed by mobs dispatched by Trump and his minions.

Journalism is about to become a dangerous profession in the United States.

The real secret of China’s mastery of the Net: distraction

Posted on by

Last Sunday’s Observer column:

If you ever want to annoy western policymakers or politicians, then here is a surefire way to do it. Tell them that the only government in the world that really understands the internet is the Chinese communist regime. And if you want to add a killer punch, add the assertion that almost everything we think we know about Chinese management of the net is either banal (all that stuff about the great firewall, paranoia about keywords such as “Falun Gong”, “democracy”, etc) or just plain wrong. Having thus lit the fuse, retreat to a safe distance and enjoy the ensuing outburst of righteous indignation.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an apologia for the Chinese regime, which is as nasty and illiberal as they come. But it’s best to have a realistic view of one’s adversaries. China’s leaders have invented a new way of running society. It’s been christened “networked authoritarianism” by Rebecca MacKinnon, a noted scholar of these things. President Xi Jinping and his colleagues are followers of Boris Johnson in at least one respect: they believe that it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it too…

Read on

Look on the bright side: no nuclear war as of the time of writing

Posted on by

From Dave Pell:

The peaceful transfer of power that is an American hallmark took place at noon on Friday as Donald Trump became the forty-fifth President of the United States. Though I’ve been a prolific critic of Trump, I’ve never been one to join the “not my president” chant, and I was planning to lead with a hopeful message on a solemn day. But Forty-Five opened his tenure with a divisive campaign speech masquerading as an inaugural address. It was pointedly offensive to the former presidents behind him, presented a warped and hopeless version of American carnage, and delivered a harsh, off-putting and grim message to our allies abroad. Donald Trump has surprised us at every turn during this political process. And he surprised even his harshest critics today, on the downside. (On the plus side, it’s been about an hour and there’s been no nuclear war. So those who bet the over won.)

A Republic — if they can keep it

Posted on by

Watching the video of Trump’s Inaugural Address, with its authoritarian tone and its totalitarian undertones, what came to mind was a famous story about Benjamin Franklin. At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, a woman came up to him as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation and said: “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” To which Franklin replied: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

There’s been a lot of brave talk from my American friends — especially the lawyers — on how the framers of the Constitution always feared the arrival of a demagogue, and designed the institutions of the state to rein such a president in. All those wonderful checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.

Well, now they’re going to get a real stress-test.