Some reflections from an unapologetic Rip Roaring Zionist, an Urban Scavenger for the unexpected. Stephen Darori (#stephendarori,@stephendarori) is a Finance and Marketing Whiz,Social Media Publicist, Strategist ,Investor. Journalist,Author, Editor & Prolific Blogger.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Share. This is well worth a visit!!! .....A New Memorial to all those who have Fallen in Defence of Israel ( plus via acts terrorism ) has opened Mount Herzl with the names of all those who have fallen ( plus a database on each) .It is 250 meters from the graves of Zeev Jabotinsky and his wingman Theodore Herzl the two founders of Zionism and Israel and some of his well known footmen, Menachem Begin,Yitzhak Shamir, Levi Eshkol, Zalman Shazar, Poodle Peres, Renegade Rabin,Yitzchak Navon,Ephraim Katzir....Quite recently when I visited Har Herzl sat on Zeev Jabotisky Grave ( Hey, Steve take a load off your feet ) for an hour and a half reading an excellent new work on the founder of Zionism and group after group lead by the official guides of the site chose to give his grave a miss.....it is the last grave before exited the "official (tourist) path", ..... DON'T LET Don't let these Meretz , Ratz, remnants of Social Zionism skip the grave of the most important person on Har Zion .....PM Netanyahu At The Inauguration Of The Hall of Remembrance
Ceremony marks opening of Israel's new Hall of Remembrance
On Mount Herzl, Israel's government and military officials gathered in the new Hall of Remembrance for a dedication ceremony on the eve of Yom HaZikaron. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it: "The hall of remembrance, grief, pride and heroism."
In the presence of Israel's government and military officials, a ceremony marking the inauguration of the new Hall of Remembrance on Mount Herzl took place on Sunday morning. During the ceremony, a mezuzah was placed at the entrance to the site and a memorial torch was lit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In addition, the heads of all of the Israeli security forces lit together the 23,544 candles in the hall in memory of all of Israel’s fallen soldiers.
Netanyahu called the new site "the hall of remembrance, grief, pride and heroism, a hall that perfectly combines everything.” He added: “This memorial hall is now one of Israel's symbols." According to Netanyahu, "Each of us carries on our back the generations that came before and marches with them forward."
"Generation after generation, we pray so our sons and daughters will have no more war and generation after generation, we are forced to lay to rest like eternal flowers our best sons and daughters, young people whose lives and dreams had just begun to take shape,” said Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman. “It is the terrible and painful price of the rebirth of Israel, of the decision of the Jewish people to hold their fate in their own hands and to build this fate in their homeland forever.”
Rivlin: "The memory of our beloved sons and daughters will be preserved in our hearts, in the heart of the nation" Photo Credit: Hillel Meir, TRS/Channel 2 News
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin stated, "I know that many parents ask, 'Who will remember our child after we have left?' Today, more than ever, we promise: the memory of our beloved sons and daughters will be preserved in our hearts, in the heart of the nation, for generations and generations."
23,544 candles lit in memory of Israel's fallen Photo Credit: Channel 2 News
As previously reported by JOL, the hall is made up of a mountain of stones piled one on top of the other, reaching a height of 60 feet. More than 23,000 bricks make up the walls, each with the engraved name of a fallen soldier, the date that he or she was killed and a candle that will be lit on the anniversary of their death.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
A hundred days of Folly and #OyVeyDonaldTrump. With his narcissistic nativist and purely transactional view of politics, he threatens to be democracy’s most reckless caretaker.#AmericaHangsItsHeadInShame #RIPUSA
Illustrations by Tom Bachtell
On April 29th, Donald Trump will have occupied the Oval Office for a hundred days. For most people, the luxury of living in a relatively stable democracy is the luxury of not following politics with a nerve-racked constancy. Trump does not afford this. His Presidency has become the demoralizing daily obsession of anyone concerned with global security, the vitality of the natural world, the national health, constitutionalism, civil rights, criminal justice, a free press, science, public education, and the distinction between fact and its opposite. The hundred-day marker is never an entirely reliable indicator of a four-year term, but it’s worth remembering that Franklin Roosevelt and Barack Obama were among those who came to office at a moment of national crisis and had the discipline, the preparation, and the rigor to set an entirely new course. Impulsive, egocentric, and mendacious, Trump has, in the same span, set fire to the integrity of his office.
Trump has never gone out of his way to conceal the essence of his relationship to the truth and how he chooses to navigate the world. In 1980, when he was about to announce plans to build Trump Tower, a fifty-eight-story edifice on Fifth Avenue and Fifty-sixth Street, he coached his architect before meeting with a group of reporters. “Give them the old Trump bullshit,” he said. “Tell them it’s going to be a million square feet, sixty-eight stories.”
This is the brand that Trump has created for himself—that of an unprincipled, cocky, value-free con who will insult, stiff, or betray anyone to achieve his gaudiest purposes. “I am what I am,” he has said. But what was once a parochial amusement is now a national and global peril. Trump flouts truth and liberal values so brazenly that he undermines the country he has been elected to serve and the stability he is pledged to insure. His bluster creates a generalized anxiety such that the President of the United States can appear to be scarcely more reliable than any of the world’s autocrats. When Kim In-ryong, a representative of North Korea’s radical regime, warns that Trump and his tweets of provocation are creating “a dangerous situation in which a thermonuclear war may break out at any moment,” does one man sound more immediately rational than the other? When Trump rushes to congratulate Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for passing a referendum that bolsters autocratic rule in Turkey—or when a sullen and insulting meeting with Angela Merkel is followed by a swoon session with Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, the military dictator of Egypt—how are the supporters of liberal and democratic values throughout Europe meant to react to American leadership?
Trump appears to strut through the world forever studying his own image. He thinks out loud, and is incapable of reflection. He is unserious, unfocussed, and, at times, it seems, unhinged. Journalists are invited to the Oval Office to ask about infrastructure; he turns the subject to how Bill O’Reilly, late of Fox News, is a “good person,” blameless, like him, in matters of sexual harassment. A reporter asks about the missile attack on Syria; he feeds her a self-satisfied description of how he informed his Chinese guests at Mar-a-Lago of the strike over “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen.”
Little about this Presidency remains a secret for long. The reporters who cover the White House say that, despite their persistent concerns about Trump’s attempts to marginalize the media, they are flooded with information. Everyone leaks on everyone else. Rather than demand discipline around him, Trump sits back and watches the results on cable news. His Administration is not so much a team of rivals as it is a new form of reality entertainment: “The Circular Firing Squad.”
This Presidency is so dispiriting that, at the first glimmer of relative ordinariness, Trump is graded on a curve. When he restrains himself from trolling Kim Jong-un about the failure of a North Korean missile test, he is credited with the strategic self-possession of a Dean Acheson. The urge to normalize Trump’s adolescent outbursts, his flagrant incompetence and dishonesty—to wish it all away, if only for a news cycle or two—is connected to the fear of what fresh hell might come next. Every day brings another outrage or embarrassment: the dressing down of the Australian Prime Minister or a shoutout for the “amazing job” that Frederick Douglass is doing. One day nato is “obsolete”; the next it is “no longer obsolete.” The Chinese are “grand champions” of currency manipulation; then they are not. When Julian Assange is benefitting Trump’s campaign, it’s “I love WikiLeaks!”; now, with the Presidency won, the Justice Department is preparing criminal charges against him. News of Trump’s casual reversals of policy comes with such alarming regularity that the impulse to locate a patch of firm ground is understandable. It’s soothing. But it’s untenable.
There is frustration all around. During his first hundred days in office, Trump has not done away with populist rhetoric, but he has acted almost entirely as a plutocrat. His Cabinet and his cast of advisers are stocked with multimillionaires and billionaires. His positions on health care, tax reform, and financial regulation are of greatest appeal to the super-wealthy. How he intends to improve the situation of the middle class remains obscure. A report in Politico described thirty staffers holed up in a conference room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, attempting a “rebranding” of this first chapter of the Trump Administration. The aides furiously assembled “lists of early successes” on whiteboards.
One success they can name is the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, although Democrats rightly judge that his seat was stolen from Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. The first hundred days are marked most indelibly by Trump’s attempted ban of travellers from six Muslim countries, which failed in the courts, and the effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act, which imploded in the House of Representatives. The list of domestic initiatives is largely confined to reversals of achievements of the Obama era. Trump has proposed an expansion of the prison at Guantánamo and ordered the easing of Dodd-Frank financial regulations. He has reversed plans to save wetlands and protect waterways from coal waste; he has reversed executive orders that banned gun sales to the mentally ill and that protected L.G.B.T. federal employees from discrimination; his Vice-President voted in a Senate tiebreaker to allow states to defund Planned Parenthood clinics. Trump, because of the lavish travel habits of his family, is shaping up to be the most expensive executive in history to guard. At the same time, his budget proposals would, if passed in Congress, cut the funding of after-school programs, rental-assistance programs, the Community Development Block Grant program, legal assistance for the poor, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Scorekeepers will credit these as promises kept. Guardians of democratic values and the environment, champions of economic opportunity and the national well-being will view them as an ever-growing damage report.
“There’s a slight madness to thinking you should be the leader of the free world,” Obama admitted before he went ahead and ran for President. But even after Richard Nixon’s anti-Semitic rants and Ronald Reagan’s astrology-influenced daily schedule, we are at a new level of strangeness with Donald Trump—something that his biography had always suggested.
Trump emerged from neither a log cabin nor the contemporary meritocracy. He inherited his father’s outer-borough real-estate empire—a considerable enterprise distinguished by racist federal-housing violations—and brought it to Manhattan. He entered a world of contractors, casino operators, Roy Cohn, professional-wrestling stars, Rupert Murdoch, multiple bankruptcies, tabloid divorces, Mar-a-Lago golf tournaments, and reality television. He had no real civic presence in New York. A wealthy man, he gave almost nothing to charity. He cultivated a kind of louche glamour. At Studio 54, he said, “I would watch supermodels getting screwed . . . on a bench in the middle of the room.” He had no close friends. Mainly, he preferred to work, play golf, and spend long hours at home watching TV. His misogyny and his low character were always manifest. Displeased with a harmless Palm Beach society journalist named Shannon Donnelly, he told her in a letter that if she adhered to his standards of discretion, “I will promise not to show you as the crude, fat and obnoxious slob which everyone knows you are.” Insofar as he had political opinions, they were inconsistent and mainly another form of performance art, part of his talk-show patter. His contributions to political campaigns were unrelated to conviction; he gave solely to curry favor with those who could do his business some good. He believed in nothing.
By the mid-nineties, Trump’s investment prospects had foundered. Banks cut him off. He turned to increasingly dubious sources of credit and branding opportunities at home and abroad. A typical deal, involving a hotel in Baku, Azerbaijan (described at length in these pages by Adam Davidson), included as partners an Azerbaijani family distinguished for its outsized corruption and for its connections to some Iranian brothers who worked as a profit front for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There is little mystery as to why Trump has broken with custom and refuses to release his tax returns. A record of his colossal tax breaks, associations, deals, and net worth resides in those forms. It may turn out that deals like the one in Baku will haunt his Presidency no less than his grotesque conflicts of interest or any of the possible connections to Russia now being investigated by the F.B.I. and congressional committees will.
As Trump struggled in business, he made a deal with NBC to star in “The Apprentice,” which, for fourteen seasons, featured him in a role of corporate dominance. It was there that he honed his peculiar showmanship and connected to a mass audience well beyond New York City, perfecting the persona that became the core of his Presidential campaign: the billionaire populist. That role is not unknown in American history: in the eighteen-seventies, wealthy leaders of the Redeemer movement, a southern faction of the Bourbon Democrats linked to the Ku Klux Klan and other white paramilitary groups, set out to defund public schools, shrink government, lower taxes for land owners, and undercut the rise of a generation of black politicians.
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump
And yet Trump has discovered that it’s far more difficult to manage the realities of national politics than the set of “The Apprentice.” In the transitional period between Election Day and the Inauguration, Obama’s aides were told that Trump, who has the attention span of a hummingbird, would not read reports of any depth; he prefers one- or two-page summaries, pictures, and graphics. Obama met with Trump once and talked with him on the telephone roughly ten times. The discussions did little to change Obama’s mind that Trump was “uniquely unqualified” to be President. His grasp of issues was rudimentary, at best. After listening to Obama describe the framework of the nuclear agreement with Iran—a deal that Trump had previously assessed as “terrible” and vowed to dismantle—he conceded that maybe it made sense after all. In one of the many books published under his name, “Trump: Think Like a Billionaire,” he said, “The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience.”
On Inauguration Day, at the Capitol, Trump no longer affected any awe of the task before him or respect for his predecessors. He furiously rebuked the elected officials seated behind him and the international order that they served. Using the language of populist demagogues, from Huey Long to George Wallace to Silvio Berlusconi, the new President implied that he, the Leader, was in perfect communion with the People, and that together they would repair the landscape of “American carnage” and return it to its prelapsarian state of grace. In this union, it seemed, there was no place for the majority of the electorate, which had voted for Hillary Clinton. African-Americans, Muslim Americans, Latinos, immigrants—it was hard to tell if Trump counted them as the People, too. More likely, they remained the objects of anxiety, fear, and disdain that they had been during the campaign. As George W. Bush was leaving the grandstand, according to New York, he was heard to say, “That was some weird shit.”
By all accounts, the West Wing has become a battlefield of opposing factions. The most influential of them is also the only one with a guarantee of permanence—the Family, particularly Trump’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. (His sons Eric and Donald, Jr., have remained in New York to run the family business. Despite the responsibility to put country before personal profit, the President refuses to divest from the business.) Kushner has no relevant experience in foreign or domestic policy, but he has been tasked with forging a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, steering U.S. relations with China and Mexico, reorganizing the federal government, and helping to lead the fight against the epidemic of opioid use. It is hard to know if Kushner, as an executive, is in charge of everything or of nothing at all. But, as a counsellor, he clearly is powerful enough to whisper in his father-in-law’s ear and diminish the prospects of rival counsellors, including those of the Administration’s most lurid white nationalist, Steve Bannon. Ivanka Trump’s duties are gauzier than her husband’s, but they seem to relate to getting her father to go easier on L.G.B.T. and women’s-rights issues and calming his temper.
The way that Trump has established his family members in positions of power and profit is redolent of tin-pot dictatorships. He may waver on matters of ideology, but his commitment to the family firm is unshakable and resists ethical norms. The conflicts and the privileges are shameless, the potential revenues unthinkable. On the day that the Trump family hosted Xi Jinping in Palm Beach, the Chinese government extended trademarks to Ivanka’s businesses so that she could sell her shoes and handbags to the vast market from Harbin to Guangzhou.
Trump is wary of expertise. During the campaign, he expressed his distrust of scientists, military strategists, university professors, diplomats, and intelligence officers. He filled the executive branch accordingly, appointing a climate-change denier as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; a Secretary of Education who, during her confirmation hearing, displayed stunning ignorance of public education; an Energy Secretary who previously called for closing the Department of Energy; a United Nations Ambassador whose international experience is limited to trade missions for the state of South Carolina; and a national-security adviser who trafficked in Islamophobic conspiracy theories until, three weeks into the job, he was forced to resign because he lied to Vice-President Pence about his ties to the Russian government.
Trump has left open hundreds of important positions in government, largely because he sees no value in them. “A lot of those jobs, I don’t want to appoint, because they’re unnecessary to have,” he has said. “I say, ‘What do all these people do?’ You don’t need all those jobs.” Among the many federal bureaucracies that are now languishing with countless empty offices are the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Defense. A recent article in The Atlantic described the State Department as “adrift and listless,” with officials unsure of their duties, hanging around the cafeteria gossiping, and leaving work early.
And yet Trump has discovered that it’s far more difficult to manage the realities of national politics than the set of “The Apprentice.” In the transitional period between Election Day and the Inauguration, Obama’s aides were told that Trump, who has the attention span of a hummingbird, would not read reports of any depth; he prefers one- or two-page summaries, pictures, and graphics. Obama met with Trump once and talked with him on the telephone roughly ten times. The discussions did little to change Obama’s mind that Trump was “uniquely unqualified” to be President. His grasp of issues was rudimentary, at best. After listening to Obama describe the framework of the nuclear agreement with Iran—a deal that Trump had previously assessed as “terrible” and vowed to dismantle—he conceded that maybe it made sense after all. In one of the many books published under his name, “Trump: Think Like a Billionaire,” he said, “The day I realized it can be smart to be shallow was, for me, a deep experience.”
On Inauguration Day, at the Capitol, Trump no longer affected any awe of the task before him or respect for his predecessors. He furiously rebuked the elected officials seated behind him and the international order that they served. Using the language of populist demagogues, from Huey Long to George Wallace to Silvio Berlusconi, the new President implied that he, the Leader, was in perfect communion with the People, and that together they would repair the landscape of “American carnage” and return it to its prelapsarian state of grace. In this union, it seemed, there was no place for the majority of the electorate, which had voted for Hillary Clinton. African-Americans, Muslim Americans, Latinos, immigrants—it was hard to tell if Trump counted them as the People, too. More likely, they remained the objects of anxiety, fear, and disdain that they had been during the campaign. As George W. Bush was leaving the grandstand, according to New York, he was heard to say, “That was some weird shit.”
By all accounts, the West Wing has become a battlefield of opposing factions. The most influential of them is also the only one with a guarantee of permanence—the Family, particularly Trump’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. (His sons Eric and Donald, Jr., have remained in New York to run the family business. Despite the responsibility to put country before personal profit, the President refuses to divest from the business.) Kushner has no relevant experience in foreign or domestic policy, but he has been tasked with forging a peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, steering U.S. relations with China and Mexico, reorganizing the federal government, and helping to lead the fight against the epidemic of opioid use. It is hard to know if Kushner, as an executive, is in charge of everything or of nothing at all. But, as a counsellor, he clearly is powerful enough to whisper in his father-in-law’s ear and diminish the prospects of rival counsellors, including those of the Administration’s most lurid white nationalist, Steve Bannon. Ivanka Trump’s duties are gauzier than her husband’s, but they seem to relate to getting her father to go easier on L.G.B.T. and women’s-rights issues and calming his temper.
The way that Trump has established his family members in positions of power and profit is redolent of tin-pot dictatorships. He may waver on matters of ideology, but his commitment to the family firm is unshakable and resists ethical norms. The conflicts and the privileges are shameless, the potential revenues unthinkable. On the day that the Trump family hosted Xi Jinping in Palm Beach, the Chinese government extended trademarks to Ivanka’s businesses so that she could sell her shoes and handbags to the vast market from Harbin to Guangzhou.
Trump is wary of expertise. During the campaign, he expressed his distrust of scientists, military strategists, university professors, diplomats, and intelligence officers. He filled the executive branch accordingly, appointing a climate-change denier as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency; a Secretary of Education who, during her confirmation hearing, displayed stunning ignorance of public education; an Energy Secretary who previously called for closing the Department of Energy; a United Nations Ambassador whose international experience is limited to trade missions for the state of South Carolina; and a national-security adviser who trafficked in Islamophobic conspiracy theories until, three weeks into the job, he was forced to resign because he lied to Vice-President Pence about his ties to the Russian government.
Trump has left open hundreds of important positions in government, largely because he sees no value in them. “A lot of those jobs, I don’t want to appoint, because they’re unnecessary to have,” he has said. “I say, ‘What do all these people do?’ You don’t need all those jobs.” Among the many federal bureaucracies that are now languishing with countless empty offices are the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Defense. A recent article in The Atlantic described the State Department as “adrift and listless,” with officials unsure of their duties, hanging around the cafeteria gossiping, and leaving work early.
Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
Trump seems to believe that foreign affairs require only modest depths of thought. It’s the generals who are the authoritative voices in his Administration. To a President whose idea of a strategic move is to “bomb the shit out of” isis, they are the ones who have to make the case for international law, the efficacy of nato, the immorality of torture, and the inadvisability of using the rhetoric of “radical Islamic terrorism.” At the same time, the pace of bombing in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen appears to have increased; tensions with Iran, Russia, and North Korea have intensified. Trump, an erratic and impulsive spokesman for his own policy, needs competent civilian advisers, if only as a counterweight to the military point of view and his own self-admiring caprices. When conservative columnists write about Trump and fondly recall Richard Nixon’s “madman theory” of international relations—a calculated unpredictability directed at the North Vietnamese—they tend to leave out that it did not work. The war in Southeast Asia went on for years after Nixon’s brinksmanship.
The Trump Presidency represents a rebellion against liberalism itself—an angry assault on the advances of groups of people who have experienced profound, if fitful, empowerment over the past half century. There is nothing about Trump’s public pronouncements that indicates that he has welcomed these moral advances; his language, his tone, his personal behavior, and his policies all suggest, and foster, a politics of resentment. It is the Other—the ethnic minority, the immigrant—who has closed your factory, taken your job, threatened your safety.
The Trumpian rebellion against liberal democracy is not a local event; it is part of a disturbing global trend. When the Berlin Wall fell, in 1989, and the Soviet Union dissolved, two years later, the democratic movement grew and liberalism advanced, and not only in Eastern and Central Europe. During the course of thirty years, the number of democracies in the world expanded from thirty to roughly a hundred. But, since 2000, nation-states of major consequence—Russia, Hungary, Thailand, and the Philippines among them—have gone in the opposite, authoritarian direction. India, Indonesia, and Great Britain have become more nationalistic. The Arab Spring failed nearly everywhere. The prestige and the efficacy of democracy itself is in question. The Chinese Communist Party, which crushed a pro-democracy movement on Tiananmen Square, in 1989, then set out to make the case that it could achieve enormous economic growth while ignoring the demand for human rights and political liberties. In Russia, Vladimir Putin has suppressed political competition, a nascent independent media, and any hope for an independent judiciary or legislature while managing to convince millions of his countrymen that the United States is hypocritical and immoral, no more democratic than any other country. In Turkey, Erdoğan has jailed tens of thousands of political opponents, muzzled the press, and narrowly won a referendum providing him with nearly dictatorial powers. Western Europe is also in question. In France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, is polling credibly in a Presidential campaign guided by two of her longtime associates and fascist sympathizers, Frédéric Chatillon and Axel Loustau.
The stakes of this anti-democratic wave cannot be overestimated. Nor can it be ignored to what degree authoritarian states have been able to point out the failures of the West—including the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya—and use them to diminish the moral prestige of democracy itself. As Edward Luce writes, in “The Retreat of Western Liberalism,” “What we do not yet know is whether the world’s democratic recession will turn into a global depression.”
If we were ever naïve enough to believe that progress in political life is inevitable, we are experiencing the contradiction. Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization that researches global trends in political liberty, has identified an eleven-year decline in democracies around the globe and now issues a list of “countries to watch.” These are nations that “may be approaching important turning points in their democratic trajectory.” The ones that most concern Freedom House include South Africa, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, and, the largest of them, the United States. The reason the group includes the U.S. is Trump’s “unorthodox” Presidential campaign and his “approach to civil liberties and the role of the United States in the world.”
In 1814, John Adams evoked the Aristotelian notion that democracy will inevitably lapse into anarchy. “Remember, democracy never lasts long,” he wrote to John Taylor, a former U.S. senator from Virginia, in 1814. “It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” As President, Donald Trump, with his nativist and purely transactional view of politics, threatens to be democracy’s most reckless caretaker, and a fulfillment of Adams’s dark prophecy.
Pushing back against Trumpism will not be easy. Even if the President drops some of his most brutal promises, even if he throws his smartphone into the Potomac, and ceases to titillate his base with racist dog-whistling and to provoke his enemies with a rhetoric of heedless bravado, he still commands a Republican Congress, and he is still going to score some distressing political victories. He is certainly not finished with his efforts to repeal Obamacare in a way that would deprive millions of people of their health insurance; he is certainly not going to relax his effort to enact hard-line immigration restrictions; he is certainly not through trying to dismantle legislative and international efforts to rescue an environment that is already suffering the grievous effects of climate change.
“Can you ask them to do a little dance?”
Trump forces us to recognize the fragility of precious things. Yet there are signs that Adams and the doomsayers of democratic values will be proved wrong. Hope can be found in the extraordinary crowds at the many women’s marches across the country on the day after the Inauguration; in the recent marches in support of science and a more compassionate, reasonable immigration policy; in the earnest work of the courts that have blocked the “Muslim ban” and of various senators and House members in both parties who, unlike Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, have refused to put cynicism and expedience before integrity; in the exemplary investigative journalism being done by traditional and new media outlets; in the performance of anti-Trump candidates in recent congressional races in Kansas and Georgia.
The opposition to Trump also has to give deeper thought to why a demagogue with such modest and eccentric experience could speak with such immediacy to tens of millions of voters anxious about their lives and their prospects, while the Democratic nominee could not. The intellectual and political task ahead is at once to resist the ugliest manifestations of the new right-wing populism—the fears it plays on, the divisions it engenders—and to confront the consequences of globalism, technology, and cultural change. Politicians and citizens who intend to defeat the forces of reaction, of Trumpism, need to confront questions of jobs lost to automation and offshoring head on. Unemployment is at five per cent, but that does not provide an accurate picture of an endangered middle and working class.
The political math is clarifying: four hundred and eighty-nine of the wealthiest counties in the country voted for Clinton; the remaining two thousand six hundred and twenty-three counties, largely made up of small towns, suburbs, and rural areas, voted for Trump. Slightly fewer than fifty-five per cent of all voting-age adults bestirred themselves to go to the polls. That statistic is at least as painful to process as the Comey letter, the Russian hack of the D.N.C., the strategic failures of the Clinton campaign, and the over-all darkness of the Trump campaign. It’s a statistic about passivity, which is just what a democracy in the era of Trump can no longer afford.
There is still time for younger politicians to gather themselves for the 2018 midterms and the 2020 Presidential race. One well-established figure, Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, just published “This Fight Is Our Fight,” a book on the decline of middle-class prospects and conservative ideology since the Reagan era. It’s the sort of manifesto, like “The Audacity of Hope,” that frequently augurs higher political ambition. Warren came by our offices last week for an hour-long interview, and, while she made the ritual demurrals about a run for the Presidency, she spoke with a combative focus on precisely the issues that Clinton ceded to Trump in the 2016 race. Warren will be sixty-nine when it comes time to make a decision, but it would be foolish to think that she is not among those who are testing the waters.
The clownish veneer of Trumpism conceals its true danger. Trump’s way of lying is not a joke; it is a strategy, a way of clouding our capacity to think, to live in a realm of truth. It is said that each epoch dreams the one to follow. The task now is not merely to recognize this Presidency for the emergency it is, and to resist its assault on the principles of reality and the values of liberal democracy, but to devise a future, to debate, to hear one another, to organize, to preserve and revive precious things
Trump seems to believe that foreign affairs require only modest depths of thought. It’s the generals who are the authoritative voices in his Administration. To a President whose idea of a strategic move is to “bomb the shit out of” isis, they are the ones who have to make the case for international law, the efficacy of nato, the immorality of torture, and the inadvisability of using the rhetoric of “radical Islamic terrorism.” At the same time, the pace of bombing in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen appears to have increased; tensions with Iran, Russia, and North Korea have intensified. Trump, an erratic and impulsive spokesman for his own policy, needs competent civilian advisers, if only as a counterweight to the military point of view and his own self-admiring caprices. When conservative columnists write about Trump and fondly recall Richard Nixon’s “madman theory” of international relations—a calculated unpredictability directed at the North Vietnamese—they tend to leave out that it did not work. The war in Southeast Asia went on for years after Nixon’s brinksmanship.
The Trump Presidency represents a rebellion against liberalism itself—an angry assault on the advances of groups of people who have experienced profound, if fitful, empowerment over the past half century. There is nothing about Trump’s public pronouncements that indicates that he has welcomed these moral advances; his language, his tone, his personal behavior, and his policies all suggest, and foster, a politics of resentment. It is the Other—the ethnic minority, the immigrant—who has closed your factory, taken your job, threatened your safety.
The Trumpian rebellion against liberal democracy is not a local event; it is part of a disturbing global trend. When the Berlin Wall fell, in 1989, and the Soviet Union dissolved, two years later, the democratic movement grew and liberalism advanced, and not only in Eastern and Central Europe. During the course of thirty years, the number of democracies in the world expanded from thirty to roughly a hundred. But, since 2000, nation-states of major consequence—Russia, Hungary, Thailand, and the Philippines among them—have gone in the opposite, authoritarian direction. India, Indonesia, and Great Britain have become more nationalistic. The Arab Spring failed nearly everywhere. The prestige and the efficacy of democracy itself is in question. The Chinese Communist Party, which crushed a pro-democracy movement on Tiananmen Square, in 1989, then set out to make the case that it could achieve enormous economic growth while ignoring the demand for human rights and political liberties. In Russia, Vladimir Putin has suppressed political competition, a nascent independent media, and any hope for an independent judiciary or legislature while managing to convince millions of his countrymen that the United States is hypocritical and immoral, no more democratic than any other country. In Turkey, Erdoğan has jailed tens of thousands of political opponents, muzzled the press, and narrowly won a referendum providing him with nearly dictatorial powers. Western Europe is also in question. In France, Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front, is polling credibly in a Presidential campaign guided by two of her longtime associates and fascist sympathizers, Frédéric Chatillon and Axel Loustau.
The stakes of this anti-democratic wave cannot be overestimated. Nor can it be ignored to what degree authoritarian states have been able to point out the failures of the West—including the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya—and use them to diminish the moral prestige of democracy itself. As Edward Luce writes, in “The Retreat of Western Liberalism,” “What we do not yet know is whether the world’s democratic recession will turn into a global depression.”
If we were ever naïve enough to believe that progress in political life is inevitable, we are experiencing the contradiction. Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization that researches global trends in political liberty, has identified an eleven-year decline in democracies around the globe and now issues a list of “countries to watch.” These are nations that “may be approaching important turning points in their democratic trajectory.” The ones that most concern Freedom House include South Africa, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Ecuador, Zimbabwe, and, the largest of them, the United States. The reason the group includes the U.S. is Trump’s “unorthodox” Presidential campaign and his “approach to civil liberties and the role of the United States in the world.”
In 1814, John Adams evoked the Aristotelian notion that democracy will inevitably lapse into anarchy. “Remember, democracy never lasts long,” he wrote to John Taylor, a former U.S. senator from Virginia, in 1814. “It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” As President, Donald Trump, with his nativist and purely transactional view of politics, threatens to be democracy’s most reckless caretaker, and a fulfillment of Adams’s dark prophecy.
Pushing back against Trumpism will not be easy. Even if the President drops some of his most brutal promises, even if he throws his smartphone into the Potomac, and ceases to titillate his base with racist dog-whistling and to provoke his enemies with a rhetoric of heedless bravado, he still commands a Republican Congress, and he is still going to score some distressing political victories. He is certainly not finished with his efforts to repeal Obamacare in a way that would deprive millions of people of their health insurance; he is certainly not going to relax his effort to enact hard-line immigration restrictions; he is certainly not through trying to dismantle legislative and international efforts to rescue an environment that is already suffering the grievous effects of climate change.
“Can you ask them to do a little dance?”
Trump forces us to recognize the fragility of precious things. Yet there are signs that Adams and the doomsayers of democratic values will be proved wrong. Hope can be found in the extraordinary crowds at the many women’s marches across the country on the day after the Inauguration; in the recent marches in support of science and a more compassionate, reasonable immigration policy; in the earnest work of the courts that have blocked the “Muslim ban” and of various senators and House members in both parties who, unlike Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, have refused to put cynicism and expedience before integrity; in the exemplary investigative journalism being done by traditional and new media outlets; in the performance of anti-Trump candidates in recent congressional races in Kansas and Georgia.
The opposition to Trump also has to give deeper thought to why a demagogue with such modest and eccentric experience could speak with such immediacy to tens of millions of voters anxious about their lives and their prospects, while the Democratic nominee could not. The intellectual and political task ahead is at once to resist the ugliest manifestations of the new right-wing populism—the fears it plays on, the divisions it engenders—and to confront the consequences of globalism, technology, and cultural change. Politicians and citizens who intend to defeat the forces of reaction, of Trumpism, need to confront questions of jobs lost to automation and offshoring head on. Unemployment is at five per cent, but that does not provide an accurate picture of an endangered middle and working class.
The political math is clarifying: four hundred and eighty-nine of the wealthiest counties in the country voted for Clinton; the remaining two thousand six hundred and twenty-three counties, largely made up of small towns, suburbs, and rural areas, voted for Trump. Slightly fewer than fifty-five per cent of all voting-age adults bestirred themselves to go to the polls. That statistic is at least as painful to process as the Comey letter, the Russian hack of the D.N.C., the strategic failures of the Clinton campaign, and the over-all darkness of the Trump campaign. It’s a statistic about passivity, which is just what a democracy in the era of Trump can no longer afford.
There is still time for younger politicians to gather themselves for the 2018 midterms and the 2020 Presidential race. One well-established figure, Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, just published “This Fight Is Our Fight,” a book on the decline of middle-class prospects and conservative ideology since the Reagan era. It’s the sort of manifesto, like “The Audacity of Hope,” that frequently augurs higher political ambition. Warren came by our offices last week for an hour-long interview, and, while she made the ritual demurrals about a run for the Presidency, she spoke with a combative focus on precisely the issues that Clinton ceded to Trump in the 2016 race. Warren will be sixty-nine when it comes time to make a decision, but it would be foolish to think that she is not among those who are testing the waters.
The clownish veneer of Trumpism conceals its true danger. Trump’s way of lying is not a joke; it is a strategy, a way of clouding our capacity to think, to live in a realm of truth. It is said that each epoch dreams the one to follow. The task now is not merely to recognize this Presidency for the emergency it is, and to resist its assault on the principles of reality and the values of liberal democracy, but to devise a future, to debate, to hear one another, to organize, to preserve and revive precious things
How Much Of #OyVeyDonaldTrump's 100 Day Action Plan Has He Completed? Stephen Colbert thanks #OyVeyDonaldTrump for his first 100 days: He's 'done a lot for me'
"The Late Show with Stephen Colbert"/CBS; YouTube
While Stephen Colbert is critical of President Donald Trump's record in his first 100 days in office, the late-night host also says he owes the leader some gratitude.
"It's a huge week for Donald Trump, because this Saturday he will reach 100 days in office. And, boy, it sure seems longer," the host said on Monday's episode of CBS's "Late Show."
Trump himself touted what would be his "contract" with American voters in the first 100 days in office when he was still on the campaign trail, but he has changed his tune. Last week, Trump called being graded on his first 100 days as president a "ridiculous standard."
No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
That shift may have something to do with Trump's notable failures, including a lack of promised healthcare reform and blocks to his immigration ban. He also holds a record in bypassing the legislative branch and issuing the most executive orders by a president in his first 100 days, nearly three dozen, since World War II.
"The first 100 days are traditionally a time to reflect on accomplishments of a president and Trump doesn't have a lot of those," Colbert said. "He still hasn't filled his cabinet, he didn't repeal Obamacare, there are still Muslims, but he did sign a law making it legal for mentally ill people to buy guns and for hibernating bears to be hunted. So he took care of his base: insane people who want to murder Yogi."
At the same time, Colbert has really capitalized on Trump's time in office. In making Trump a central part of the comedy and criticism on "The Late Show," Colbert became the most-watched host in late night, dethroning the former frontrunner Jimmy Fallon. And Colbert gave credit where credit is due.
"I got to say Donald Trump has done a lot for me in the first 100 days," he said. "Thank you for your service, Mr. President."
More:
Tired Of Winning Yet? Here’s What #OyVeyDonaldTrump has Accomplished In 100 Days Very tremendous numbers, believe me.
#OyVeyDonaldTrump’s first 100 days in office were full of sound and fury, as well as the realization that being the president is hard work.
He misses driving, feels as if he is in a cocoon, and is surprised how hard his new job is.
President Donald Trump on Thursday reflected on his first 100 days in office with a wistful look at his life before the White House.
“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going,” Trump told Reuters in an interview. “This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.”
A wealthy businessman from New York, Trump assumed public office for the first time when he entered the White House on Jan. 20 after he defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an upset.
More than five months after his victory and two days shy of the 100-day mark of his presidency, the election is still on Trump’s mind. Midway through a discussion about Chinese President Xi Jinping, the president paused to hand out copies of what he said were the latest figures from the 2016 electoral map.
“Here, you can take that, that’s the final map of the numbers,” the Republican president said from his desk in the Oval Office, handing out maps of the United States with areas he won marked in red. “It’s pretty good, right? The red is obviously us.”
He had copies for each of the three Reuters reporters in the room.
Trump, who said he was accustomed to not having privacy in his “old life,” expressed surprise at how little he had now. And he made clear he was still getting used to having 24-hour Secret Service protection and its accompanying constraints.
“You’re really into your own little cocoon, because you have such massive protection that you really can’t go anywhere,” he said.
When the president leaves the White House, it is usually in a limousine or an SUV.
He said he missed being behind the wheel himself.
“I like to drive,” he said. “I can’t drive any more.”
Many things about Trump have not changed from the wheeler-dealer executive and former celebrity reality show host who ran his empire from the 26th floor of Trump Tower in New York and worked the phones incessantly.
He frequently turns to outside friends and former business colleagues for advice and positive reinforcement. Senior aides say they are resigned to it.
The president has been at loggerheads with many news organizations since his election campaign and decided not to attend the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington on Saturday because he felt he had been treated unfairly by the media.
“I would come next year, absolutely,” Trump said when asked whether he would attend in the future.
The dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association. Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason is its president.
With his biggest legislative priorities stalled in Congress, the president focused on undoing his predecessor Barack Obama’s regulatory legacy, signing dozens of laws and executive orders ― but he hasn’t made much headway on his campaign promises. He saw his Supreme Court nominee
confirmed, but his travel ban was blocked by several lower courts.
In 100 Days, Donald Trump Hasn’t Done Much Except Show Off His Signature
He failed to deliver on the vast majority of his promises — but at least there’s one thing he’s kept his word on.
On Day 89 of his presidency, Donald Trump set down his felt-tipped pen and did what he’s done most and best so far in his new job: held up a piece of paper he had just signed for news cameras to record for posterity.
More than four dozen times since taking office, Trump has invited the media he regularly attacks to show off his distinctive cursive on a presidential document ― a document that, the vast majority of the time, has been completely unnecessary to accomplish the stated goal.
Previous presidents have signed executive orders and memoranda. None appeared to be compelled to hold them up and show off their penmanship.
“It’s show and tell,” Duke University historian William Chafe said. “It’s basically trying to create the impression of decisiveness.”
In Chafe’s view, it’s actually a misimpression, given the lack of a single significant piece of legislation to pass under Trump’s watch, including the 10 he specifically promised he would shepherd through Congress in his first 100 days.
“The executive orders are the only substantive things that he’s accomplished,” Chafe said, adding that even those have not been particularly substantial. All but a handful of the objectives described in the directives did not even need a formal presidential authorization for the agency heads to pursue them.
In Kenosha, for example, as employees at the Snap-on tools headquarters applauded, Trump signed his “Buy American, Hire American” executive order, which he claimed would “help protect workers and students, like those of you in the audience today.”
Except the actual language of the order affects purchasing by federal agencies he controls and asks his own departments to look for ways to tighten some work visa rules. So why issue an executive order ― a tool that historically has reinterpreted laws or rules to achieve a desired goal ― when a simple email or phone call might have done the job?
“I would come next year, absolutely,” Trump said when asked whether he would attend in the future.
The dinner is organized by the White House Correspondents’ Association. Reuters correspondent Jeff Mason is its president.
With his biggest legislative priorities stalled in Congress, the president focused on undoing his predecessor Barack Obama’s regulatory legacy, signing dozens of laws and executive orders ― but he hasn’t made much headway on his campaign promises. He saw his Supreme Court nominee
confirmed, but his travel ban was blocked by several lower courts.
In 100 Days, Donald Trump Hasn’t Done Much Except Show Off His Signature
He failed to deliver on the vast majority of his promises — but at least there’s one thing he’s kept his word on.
On Day 89 of his presidency, Donald Trump set down his felt-tipped pen and did what he’s done most and best so far in his new job: held up a piece of paper he had just signed for news cameras to record for posterity.
More than four dozen times since taking office, Trump has invited the media he regularly attacks to show off his distinctive cursive on a presidential document ― a document that, the vast majority of the time, has been completely unnecessary to accomplish the stated goal.
Previous presidents have signed executive orders and memoranda. None appeared to be compelled to hold them up and show off their penmanship.
“It’s show and tell,” Duke University historian William Chafe said. “It’s basically trying to create the impression of decisiveness.”
In Chafe’s view, it’s actually a misimpression, given the lack of a single significant piece of legislation to pass under Trump’s watch, including the 10 he specifically promised he would shepherd through Congress in his first 100 days.
“The executive orders are the only substantive things that he’s accomplished,” Chafe said, adding that even those have not been particularly substantial. All but a handful of the objectives described in the directives did not even need a formal presidential authorization for the agency heads to pursue them.
In Kenosha, for example, as employees at the Snap-on tools headquarters applauded, Trump signed his “Buy American, Hire American” executive order, which he claimed would “help protect workers and students, like those of you in the audience today.”
Except the actual language of the order affects purchasing by federal agencies he controls and asks his own departments to look for ways to tighten some work visa rules. So why issue an executive order ― a tool that historically has reinterpreted laws or rules to achieve a desired goal ― when a simple email or phone call might have done the job?
“An executive order is a signal to every single worker in the federal government, including career workers, lifelong workers, every one across the federal government, that this is an order from the president of the United States, memorialized in writing,” a senior administration official said on condition of anonymity on the Air Force One flight from Wisconsin back to Washington, D.C. “There is no higher statement of executive direction than the form of an executive order.”
Two days later, Trump signed an official memorandum before the cameras, asking his Commerce Department to look into whether steel imports were unfairly undercutting the U.S. steel industry. Why the formal memo, rather than just asking Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to look into it?
“He has issued this memorandum to stress that he would like us to make this a real priority and to expedite it,” said Ross, who acknowledged that he had already started the review the previous day, before the memo was issued.
President Donald Trump shows off an executive action after signing it at the Pentagon on Jan. 27. He said this order would begin the rebuilding of the U.S. military by “developing a plan for new planes, new ships, new resources and new tools for our men and women in uniform.”
And the very next morning, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin conceded that Trump’s executive order that afternoon to study the tax code also wasn’t really necessary, despite the televised signing and passing out of pens. “I think the purpose of the orders is to make clear what the president and the administration’s priorities are, and to signify the importance of these issues to the American people,” Mnuchin said.
Chafe and other critics remain unimpressed, and argue that the rash of meaningless signing ceremonies is simply more evidence of a White House that cannot figure out a way to get what it wants ― and maybe cannot even figure out what exactly it does want ― and so settles on PR stunts.
“This administration is still operating under chaos and capriciousness,” Chafe said of Trump. “He’s erratic. He’s all over the place.”
Promises For 100 Days
Trump had been in office for just a few weeks when he began bragging that he was already accomplishing more than any previous president.
“There has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time,” Trump proclaimed in a Feb. 16 White House news conference.
As the days slipped past and it became clear the only bills reaching his desk were feel-good measures such as the one encouraging women to pursue science careers or measures using the Congressional Review Act to undo agency rules passed in the final days of the Obama administration, Trump’s White House began recalibrating its message.
Early this month, Trump’s legislative affairs director, Marc Short, asked reporters “to consider” making the CRAs a bigger deal in their news coverage. “I think if you take into [account] in totality what we’ve been trying to do on the regulatory front, it is a news story. And so I do think it’s an accomplishment,” he said.
The White House began bragging about the increase in the stock market, decreases in illegal border crossings from Mexico and strong job growth numbers ― and attributed them all to Trump’s election.
Eventually, Trump, even as he continued to boast about how great he was doing, began diminishing the whole 100-day concept. “I think the 100 days is, you know, it’s an artificial barrier. It’s not very meaningful,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press last week.
Measuring a president by accomplishments in the first 100 days only came into vogue with the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrat who entered office at the nadir of the Great Depression. Roosevelt jammed through a significant chuck of his New Deal initiatives in those first months, and that yardstick has stuck ever since.
It is not necessarily fair, particularly to presidents who take office in times of relative peace and prosperity, said University of Texas historian H.W. Brands. Roosevelt in 1933 and Barack Obama in 2009 had to act quickly or risk seeing the nation fall even deeper into economic peril.
Trump, in contrast, took office following 75 straight months of job growth, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and the wind down of massive, post-Sept. 11 troop deployments.
“He didn’t face a crisis, he didn’t face those emergencies,” Brands said. “But he’s bringing it on himself. ... If the tax code isn’t changed in six months or two years, the world’s not going to end.”
Trump, nevertheless, has claimed he had to act quickly because he inherited “a mess” from his predecessor. That, in fact, was a central theme of his campaign: that the country was a disaster that only he could fix. And on Oct. 22, just weeks before the election, Trump traveled to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and issued a series of promises, some that he would do on his first day in office and the rest that he would accomplish in his first 100.
Based on the list Trump himself created, his track record has been abysmal. Trump actually participated in inaugural activities his first day in office, and spent much of the second day complaining about the media coverage of the first day.
In the coming days and weeks, though, Trump did follow through on some of the 18 actions he said he would start pursuing on Day One, signing orders to deport more undocumented immigrants, to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and to require that each new regulation be accompanied by the repeal of two existing regulations. He also appointed a Supreme Court justice off the list he had previously made public, as he had promised.
But Trump failed to follow through on other items from that list of Day One actions. He did not propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress. Not only did he fail to label China a currency manipulator, as he promised he would, but he later came out and specifically said that China is not one. Most famously, his promises to “cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities” and to “suspend immigration from terror-prone regions” are tied up in the courts, thanks to poorly drafted language and Trump’s own inflammatory statements about Muslims during the campaign.
And among the 10 pieces of legislation Trump promised to fight to pass “within the first 100 days of my administration,” he is zero for 10.
The End the Offshoring Act, the Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act, the Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act ― not one enjoys much of an existence outside of Trump’s October press release. Even his signature campaign promise, to build a “great wall” along the southern border with Mexico, has now been effectively put off until at least October.
If his presidency were to end tomorrow, he wouldn’t get a mention at all. Nothing has happened.H.W. Brands, University of Texas historian
The only one of those 10 bills that has moved in either chamber ― repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ― had to be pulled from the House floor just before a scheduled vote last month because of a lack of Republican support, although a revamped version could soon be up for consideration.
“If his presidency were to end tomorrow, he wouldn’t get a mention at all,” Brands said. “Nothing has happened.”
Trump has even failed to follow through on the very first promise he made in that October Gettysburg speech, which came not long after a series of women went public with accusations of Trump’s inappropriate sexual conduct toward them.
“Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign,” Trump said. “Total fabrications. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”
In fact, Trump does not appear to have sued even one of those women.
A Consistent Track Record : To Trump’s many critics, both Democratic and Republican, none of this comes as a surprise.
His decades as a publicity-hungry businessman are littered with enterprises he plunged into with impulsive, poorly researched decisions that later failed, sometimes spectacularly ― everything from his Trump Shuttle airline to his branded Trump Steaks.
In the early 1990s, Trump’s entire business empire was on the verge of collapse. His Atlantic City casinos were bleeding money, and because he had personally guaranteed nearly $1 billion in business loans, their failure would have meant personal bankruptcy for him, too.
Fortunately for Trump, his lenders risked financial ruin themselves if he went down, so they continued to work with him to keep him solvent. Over a period of years, though, his empire shrank as banks forced him to hand over ever-larger portions of his holdings and made him give up extravagances like his 281-foot yacht. They even restricted him to an allowance.
Unable to borrow money for construction projects, Trump shifted his business model toward licensing his name to hotels and condominiums that he didn’t own ― a marketing scheme that became far more successful thanks to the adaptation of his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, into a hit television series.
Trump’s track record did not suggest a brilliant and savvy businessman, but that’s what he played on “The Apprentice,” talking tough and making shrewd decisions in every episode.
He thinks he’s the best businessman of all time. He thinks he’s the most attractive man to women of all time. He’s a fabulist. None of this is real.Rick Wilson, a Florida Republican political consultant
It was an image that burned into the American popular consciousness over a dozen years, and one that tens of millions of dollars of negative advertising featuring Trump’s actual business record could not undo in the months leading up to last November’s election.
“He thinks he’s the best businessman of all time. He thinks he’s the most attractive man to women of all time,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida Republican political consultant and longtime Trump critic. “He’s a fabulist. None of this is real. ... This is also because he’s fundamentally an unserious person. He’ll say whatever it takes to get the sucker to sign on the dotted line.”
Never Afraid To Brag
Unsurprisingly, Trump brought the habit of claiming phenomenal success, regardless of the actual facts of the case, with him into the White House.
But with no obvious foils to blame as he had during the presidential campaign, Trump’s own character traits underlying his inability to get things done have become more obvious to more observers: His profound ignorance of both domestic and world affairs, an inability or unwillingness to focus, and an eagerness to lash out at perceived threats.
His short attention span and lack of interest in details became clear even to Republican House members during the initial attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act last month. Trump did not appear to know how that law or his proposed replacement actually worked, and seemed more interested in passing something ― anything ― that he could call a victory.
His defenders, who say his lack of knowledge is understandable, given his lack of previous political office, argue that Trump will be held to a different standard by voters judging his performance now, just as they did heading into the 2016 election.
Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush, said that, in any case, the voting public’s verdict about Trump will not be determined in the first 100 days. Rather, their views about whether their individual lives and the lives of their families and friends are improved or made more difficult will decide how Republicans fare in the 2018 midterm elections and whether Trump can win a second term two years later.
Be that as it may, the Trump White House this week pulled out all the stops in touting its 100 Day successes ― a new page on the White House website, daily recitations by his press shop of his accomplishments, and a flurry of televised signings of presidential pieces of paper.
Among them are orders and memos asking for studies about agriculture, federal education policy and national monuments. All could have been accomplished without a formal presidential declaration.
The White House also staged a closed-door briefing with members of Congress about North Korea (members said afterward they did not learn anything new and wondered what the point of it was), released a single page of bullet points of a “tax reform” proposal (it was so vague that it was impossible to determine how any given taxpayer’s bill would be affected), and floated the idea of an order to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico (pulling out of NAFTA could require congressional approval, which he isn’t likely to get).
Fleischer said he agrees the presidential orders have been mainly stagecraft. “Legally speaking, there isn’t a big difference between an executive order and a president telling his agencies to do something,” he said. “But, no harm done in packaging it.”
Of course, if Trump’s press team gets truly desperate for accomplishments, they can reach back to a campaign promise he made when announcing his candidacy in June 2015, following his now-famous ride down the Trump Tower escalator.
Right after criticizing the Obama administration’s deal to suspend Iran’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for sanctions relief ― ironically, a deal the Trump administration last week acknowledged Iran is living up to ― Trump laid into Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, for crashing his bicycle.
“Goes into a bicycle race at 72 years old, and falls and breaks his leg. I won’t be doing that,” Trump said. “And I promise I will never be in a bicycle race. That I can tell you.”
Trump has not, at least thus far in his presidency, participated in a single bicycle race.
On the foreign policy front, Trump launched missiles against Syria for its use of chemical weapons, but he still lacks an overarching strategy on how to deal with Syrian leader Bashar Assad. He has threatened and provoked foes and allies alike across the globe, but political leaders have begun to see him primarily as a bluffer.
Americans are deeply polarized about Trump’s performance in office. While both Obama and George W. Bush enjoyed higher ratings at the 100-day mark, just 43 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president.
Check out more facts and figures about Trump’s first 100 days below:
O Major legislative accomplishments
O Feet of concrete poured on the U.S.-Mexico border
O Obamacares repealed
1 Supreme Court justice confirmed
1 Aircraft carrier misplaced
1 Missile strike against Syria
2 Family members employed in White House
4 Allies insulted Germany, Australia, Canada and Australia
4 Days Trump’s approval has been net positive
5 Courts that have blocked his Muslim ban
Two days later, Trump signed an official memorandum before the cameras, asking his Commerce Department to look into whether steel imports were unfairly undercutting the U.S. steel industry. Why the formal memo, rather than just asking Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to look into it?
“He has issued this memorandum to stress that he would like us to make this a real priority and to expedite it,” said Ross, who acknowledged that he had already started the review the previous day, before the memo was issued.
President Donald Trump shows off an executive action after signing it at the Pentagon on Jan. 27. He said this order would begin the rebuilding of the U.S. military by “developing a plan for new planes, new ships, new resources and new tools for our men and women in uniform.”
And the very next morning, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin conceded that Trump’s executive order that afternoon to study the tax code also wasn’t really necessary, despite the televised signing and passing out of pens. “I think the purpose of the orders is to make clear what the president and the administration’s priorities are, and to signify the importance of these issues to the American people,” Mnuchin said.
Chafe and other critics remain unimpressed, and argue that the rash of meaningless signing ceremonies is simply more evidence of a White House that cannot figure out a way to get what it wants ― and maybe cannot even figure out what exactly it does want ― and so settles on PR stunts.
“This administration is still operating under chaos and capriciousness,” Chafe said of Trump. “He’s erratic. He’s all over the place.”
Promises For 100 Days
Trump had been in office for just a few weeks when he began bragging that he was already accomplishing more than any previous president.
“There has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time,” Trump proclaimed in a Feb. 16 White House news conference.
As the days slipped past and it became clear the only bills reaching his desk were feel-good measures such as the one encouraging women to pursue science careers or measures using the Congressional Review Act to undo agency rules passed in the final days of the Obama administration, Trump’s White House began recalibrating its message.
Early this month, Trump’s legislative affairs director, Marc Short, asked reporters “to consider” making the CRAs a bigger deal in their news coverage. “I think if you take into [account] in totality what we’ve been trying to do on the regulatory front, it is a news story. And so I do think it’s an accomplishment,” he said.
The White House began bragging about the increase in the stock market, decreases in illegal border crossings from Mexico and strong job growth numbers ― and attributed them all to Trump’s election.
Eventually, Trump, even as he continued to boast about how great he was doing, began diminishing the whole 100-day concept. “I think the 100 days is, you know, it’s an artificial barrier. It’s not very meaningful,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press last week.
Measuring a president by accomplishments in the first 100 days only came into vogue with the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the Democrat who entered office at the nadir of the Great Depression. Roosevelt jammed through a significant chuck of his New Deal initiatives in those first months, and that yardstick has stuck ever since.
It is not necessarily fair, particularly to presidents who take office in times of relative peace and prosperity, said University of Texas historian H.W. Brands. Roosevelt in 1933 and Barack Obama in 2009 had to act quickly or risk seeing the nation fall even deeper into economic peril.
Trump, in contrast, took office following 75 straight months of job growth, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and the wind down of massive, post-Sept. 11 troop deployments.
“He didn’t face a crisis, he didn’t face those emergencies,” Brands said. “But he’s bringing it on himself. ... If the tax code isn’t changed in six months or two years, the world’s not going to end.”
Trump, nevertheless, has claimed he had to act quickly because he inherited “a mess” from his predecessor. That, in fact, was a central theme of his campaign: that the country was a disaster that only he could fix. And on Oct. 22, just weeks before the election, Trump traveled to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and issued a series of promises, some that he would do on his first day in office and the rest that he would accomplish in his first 100.
Based on the list Trump himself created, his track record has been abysmal. Trump actually participated in inaugural activities his first day in office, and spent much of the second day complaining about the media coverage of the first day.
In the coming days and weeks, though, Trump did follow through on some of the 18 actions he said he would start pursuing on Day One, signing orders to deport more undocumented immigrants, to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and to require that each new regulation be accompanied by the repeal of two existing regulations. He also appointed a Supreme Court justice off the list he had previously made public, as he had promised.
But Trump failed to follow through on other items from that list of Day One actions. He did not propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on Congress. Not only did he fail to label China a currency manipulator, as he promised he would, but he later came out and specifically said that China is not one. Most famously, his promises to “cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities” and to “suspend immigration from terror-prone regions” are tied up in the courts, thanks to poorly drafted language and Trump’s own inflammatory statements about Muslims during the campaign.
And among the 10 pieces of legislation Trump promised to fight to pass “within the first 100 days of my administration,” he is zero for 10.
The End the Offshoring Act, the Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act, the Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act ― not one enjoys much of an existence outside of Trump’s October press release. Even his signature campaign promise, to build a “great wall” along the southern border with Mexico, has now been effectively put off until at least October.
If his presidency were to end tomorrow, he wouldn’t get a mention at all. Nothing has happened.H.W. Brands, University of Texas historian
The only one of those 10 bills that has moved in either chamber ― repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act ― had to be pulled from the House floor just before a scheduled vote last month because of a lack of Republican support, although a revamped version could soon be up for consideration.
“If his presidency were to end tomorrow, he wouldn’t get a mention at all,” Brands said. “Nothing has happened.”
Trump has even failed to follow through on the very first promise he made in that October Gettysburg speech, which came not long after a series of women went public with accusations of Trump’s inappropriate sexual conduct toward them.
“Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign,” Trump said. “Total fabrications. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.”
In fact, Trump does not appear to have sued even one of those women.
A Consistent Track Record : To Trump’s many critics, both Democratic and Republican, none of this comes as a surprise.
His decades as a publicity-hungry businessman are littered with enterprises he plunged into with impulsive, poorly researched decisions that later failed, sometimes spectacularly ― everything from his Trump Shuttle airline to his branded Trump Steaks.
In the early 1990s, Trump’s entire business empire was on the verge of collapse. His Atlantic City casinos were bleeding money, and because he had personally guaranteed nearly $1 billion in business loans, their failure would have meant personal bankruptcy for him, too.
Fortunately for Trump, his lenders risked financial ruin themselves if he went down, so they continued to work with him to keep him solvent. Over a period of years, though, his empire shrank as banks forced him to hand over ever-larger portions of his holdings and made him give up extravagances like his 281-foot yacht. They even restricted him to an allowance.
Unable to borrow money for construction projects, Trump shifted his business model toward licensing his name to hotels and condominiums that he didn’t own ― a marketing scheme that became far more successful thanks to the adaptation of his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal, into a hit television series.
Trump’s track record did not suggest a brilliant and savvy businessman, but that’s what he played on “The Apprentice,” talking tough and making shrewd decisions in every episode.
He thinks he’s the best businessman of all time. He thinks he’s the most attractive man to women of all time. He’s a fabulist. None of this is real.Rick Wilson, a Florida Republican political consultant
It was an image that burned into the American popular consciousness over a dozen years, and one that tens of millions of dollars of negative advertising featuring Trump’s actual business record could not undo in the months leading up to last November’s election.
“He thinks he’s the best businessman of all time. He thinks he’s the most attractive man to women of all time,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida Republican political consultant and longtime Trump critic. “He’s a fabulist. None of this is real. ... This is also because he’s fundamentally an unserious person. He’ll say whatever it takes to get the sucker to sign on the dotted line.”
Never Afraid To Brag
Unsurprisingly, Trump brought the habit of claiming phenomenal success, regardless of the actual facts of the case, with him into the White House.
But with no obvious foils to blame as he had during the presidential campaign, Trump’s own character traits underlying his inability to get things done have become more obvious to more observers: His profound ignorance of both domestic and world affairs, an inability or unwillingness to focus, and an eagerness to lash out at perceived threats.
His short attention span and lack of interest in details became clear even to Republican House members during the initial attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act last month. Trump did not appear to know how that law or his proposed replacement actually worked, and seemed more interested in passing something ― anything ― that he could call a victory.
His defenders, who say his lack of knowledge is understandable, given his lack of previous political office, argue that Trump will be held to a different standard by voters judging his performance now, just as they did heading into the 2016 election.
Ari Fleischer, a former press secretary to President George W. Bush, said that, in any case, the voting public’s verdict about Trump will not be determined in the first 100 days. Rather, their views about whether their individual lives and the lives of their families and friends are improved or made more difficult will decide how Republicans fare in the 2018 midterm elections and whether Trump can win a second term two years later.
Be that as it may, the Trump White House this week pulled out all the stops in touting its 100 Day successes ― a new page on the White House website, daily recitations by his press shop of his accomplishments, and a flurry of televised signings of presidential pieces of paper.
Among them are orders and memos asking for studies about agriculture, federal education policy and national monuments. All could have been accomplished without a formal presidential declaration.
The White House also staged a closed-door briefing with members of Congress about North Korea (members said afterward they did not learn anything new and wondered what the point of it was), released a single page of bullet points of a “tax reform” proposal (it was so vague that it was impossible to determine how any given taxpayer’s bill would be affected), and floated the idea of an order to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico (pulling out of NAFTA could require congressional approval, which he isn’t likely to get).
Fleischer said he agrees the presidential orders have been mainly stagecraft. “Legally speaking, there isn’t a big difference between an executive order and a president telling his agencies to do something,” he said. “But, no harm done in packaging it.”
Of course, if Trump’s press team gets truly desperate for accomplishments, they can reach back to a campaign promise he made when announcing his candidacy in June 2015, following his now-famous ride down the Trump Tower escalator.
Right after criticizing the Obama administration’s deal to suspend Iran’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for sanctions relief ― ironically, a deal the Trump administration last week acknowledged Iran is living up to ― Trump laid into Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, for crashing his bicycle.
“Goes into a bicycle race at 72 years old, and falls and breaks his leg. I won’t be doing that,” Trump said. “And I promise I will never be in a bicycle race. That I can tell you.”
Trump has not, at least thus far in his presidency, participated in a single bicycle race.
On the foreign policy front, Trump launched missiles against Syria for its use of chemical weapons, but he still lacks an overarching strategy on how to deal with Syrian leader Bashar Assad. He has threatened and provoked foes and allies alike across the globe, but political leaders have begun to see him primarily as a bluffer.
Americans are deeply polarized about Trump’s performance in office. While both Obama and George W. Bush enjoyed higher ratings at the 100-day mark, just 43 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing as president.
Check out more facts and figures about Trump’s first 100 days below:
O Major legislative accomplishments
O Feet of concrete poured on the U.S.-Mexico border
O Obamacares repealed
1 Supreme Court justice confirmed
1 Aircraft carrier misplaced
1 Missile strike against Syria
2 Family members employed in White House
4 Allies insulted Germany, Australia, Canada and Australia
4 Days Trump’s approval has been net positive
5 Courts that have blocked his Muslim ban
5 Visits to Trump-branded properties
12 Trips to Palm Beach resorts
14 Golf trips since taking office
43 Percent approval rating at 100 days
32 Executive orders signed
12 Trips to Palm Beach resorts
14 Golf trips since taking office
20 Millions of dollars taxpayers have spent on Trump Tower security
25 of dollars taxpayers have spent on trips to Mar-a-Lago43 Percent approval rating at 100 days
32 Executive orders signed
96 Days Trump’s approval has been net negative
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Half a Dozen Major Ways Donald Trump Is Bringing Chaos to Our Lives:It’s time to separate Trump’s fake chaos from the real chaos he’s causing. A more volatile global era is taking shape.
This week's hyperventilating news was filled with fake chaos. It’s like watching old reruns, where you know the character’s defects and wait for the punch lines. When Trump is in trouble, he blames everyone else. Hence, he tweeted that the House’s far-right Freedom Caucus will “hurt” the “entire Republican agenda” if they don’t get on board. Then he slapped the New York Times again, which has “gotten me wrong for two solid years,” ending with a threat to “Change libel laws?”
This is not chaos. This is flailing, for failing to pass anything in Congress. What Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan tried to do to Obamacare and to Medicaid was abhorrent for the pain it would have caused millions. No one saw the far right would kill it because it wasn’t destructive enough to government. But now, as the dust settles and the nation is reminded that Republicans face their own civil war, Trump’s screeching should be seen for what it is: more fake chaos than not.
While that GOP split will have real-life implications when the House gets some version of its act together, for now it’s thankfully Exhibit A for a do-nothing body. While it might be entertaining in a politically twisted way to see Trump squirm like an "Apprentice" contestant who has yet to quit or be fired, the chamber that’s done the real harm so far is the GOP-led Senate. They have rubber-stamped Trump’s top appointees and next week will show the country how far they will go, possibly by rigging the vote-counting rules to ram through a stolen Supreme Court seat.
That takes us to the real chaos. This is an important distinction. Americans who see Trump for the sociopath that he is, and see Republicans as a party driven by a catalog of other dysfunctions, need to hold on to this to preserve their sanity. The nation and the world in the Trump era are facing more chaos and becoming destabilized in numerous ways. It’s not all Trump’s fault, although his vanities, lack of political experience, cabinet picks and advisers, and policies are making lots of matters far worse than they need to be.
Here are a half-dozen developing ways we are experiencing an escalation of real chaos under Trump.
1. America’s Overseas Wars Are Growing
Trump’s proposed $54 billion increase in Pentagon spending for the next federal budget has yet to be debated in Congress, but the military under his watch “is deepening its involvement in a string of complex wars in the Middle East that lack clear endgames,” the New York Times reported Thursday, citing the impact on ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen of Trump’s vow to unshackle soldiers from Obama-era restraints. The report noted that “no one is planning for peace” and that Trump's “military-first approach [comes] even as he has proposed cuts in diplomatic spending.” As the region’s chaotic wars are expanding, the cost of crude oil, which translates into what’s paid at the pump for gasoline and heating oil, has begun rising.
2. Tillerson Tells Repressive Regimes to Ignore Human Rights
The State Department is abandoning its defense of human rights, the glue that attempts to hold civilization’s thin skin in place. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson removed the human rights restrictions that the Obama White House put on a $2.8 billion sale of fighter jets to Bahrain, where the U.S. has a major Persian Gulf base. Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and other autocratic regimes will interpret that as a nod to repress dissidents and protesters, foreign policy experts say. Meanwhile at the UN on Wednesday, U.S. Envoy Nikki Haley attacked the UN human rights council as “so corrupt,” but gave no proof. Embracing militarism and dismissing restraint may please wartime profiteers, but it’s also a formula for more strife and chaos.
3. Splintering Alliances Bring More Volatile Global Era
This is not just Trump supporting Brexit, the departure of Great Britain, the continent’s second-largest economy, from the European Union. Brexit is indicative of the unraveling of the complex international system that has shaped the West since World War II. Trump’s signing this week of orders undoing Obama’s climate change policies, including steps to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement, signals more than an inward turning toward nationalism and self-interest. Trump is abdicating political and economic leadership and putting the nation in a position of responding to world events, not managing them to prevent crises. Thinking a bigger military is sufficient for American leadership in the 21st century is another invitation to a chaotic future.
4. Climate Denial Means Coast-to-Coast Troubles
Americans will soon know that the Trump’s administration’s willful ignorance on climate science, policies and government responses is not going to lead to bliss. When Trump allows outdated carbon-producing industries to make one last run at the bank, as his executive orders do for coal and domestic oil and gas production, he’s putting one industry ahead of the country in innumerable ways that can only backfire. Americans who live on the coasts, or whose livelihoods—like agriculture—are pegged to climate and science, will face more volatility. And that is looking with the most near-term lens. Ignoring planetary peril invites unthinkable chaos.
5. Immigration Crackdown and Growing Federal Police State
Trump’s war on America’s 11 million visa-less migrants keeps unfolding and inciting fears and chaos in immigrant communities and households across America. Unlike President Obama, whose administration cruelly deported millions but identified its targets, Trump has told federal police to go after anyone. The administration's latest responses are intended to sow fear by arresting migrant leaders in sanctuary communities and targeting ordinary people nationwide. Attorney General Sessions has upped the ante this week by threatening local police departments with revoking federal funds if they don’t join his deportation efforts. Meanwhile, undocumented immigrants who are victims of crime, domestic abuse or employer rip-offs have nowhere to turn, for fear of being held for deportation. These policies are upending millions of lives.
6. Outbursts of Hate, Racism, Misogyny by Trump Legions
Whether it’s Bill O’Reilly on Fox News making fun of an African-American congresswoman’s hair, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer scolding a female reporter who questioned his propagandistic claims, or a marked increase in hateful actions since the election, civility is ebbing in many public settings across America. In its place are brasher, more incendiary behaviors.
Paying the Price
The biggest current danger of the Trump administration is the deep chaos its appointees and their varied policies are setting the stage for, not the president's petty taunts and schoolyard incitements. Just as most Americans know we are living in a world of real and fake news, we need to distinguish between the real and fake chaos Trump and his team are inciting.
It’s another necessary survival skill in an era where Trump and the GOP are more enamored by destroying institutions and societal norms than modernizing or advancing them. The turn toward a more militant foreign policy and away from the daily tweet storms is a telling reminder. As we read the news, watch broadcasts and comment on social media, we need to separate Trump’s real chaos from the fake.
#OyVeyDonaldTrump and his first 100 Days: Presidents Haven't Always Had to Worry About Their First 100 Days. Here's How That Started
As President Donald Trump nears his 100th day in office — it falls this Saturday — pundits and voters alike are closely scrutinizing the early days of his term. Generations of presidents have faced the same treatment before him, but why?
The concept of grading the president’s first 100 days was born of the Great Depression, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew just what he’d have to do to win the White House.
Running for the White House in 1932, as the U.S. economy suffered, FDR was aware that voters were desperate for fast action from their future president. That was especially so because President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, was strongly criticized by Democrats of the day for not doing enough to help the 25% of Americans who were left jobless by the Depression. Knowing that the promise of expedient moves to ameliorate job loss, hunger and depleted national morale would set him apart, FDR became the first president to make big promises about immediate action, and then followed through in a serious way.
In fact, Roosevelt even laid out his plan for the New Deal during a September 1932 campaign speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. During this speech, FDR called for “a re-appraisal of values” in light of the Great Depression, and spoke at length about how the government should enable citizens to be economically prosperous, or at least solvent.
And it worked. Roosevelt not only beat Hoover in the election of 1932, but also went on to win an unprecedented three additional elections after.
But Barbara Perry, Director of Presidential Studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center tells TIME that when Roosevelt spoke of his “first 100 days,” he was referencing not his own first 100 days in office but rather the first 100 days of the new Congress that served during his first term. Sure enough, during that time FDR oversaw the passage of several pieces of new and significant legislation, including laws to create the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Federal Emergency Relief Administration. Though the legacy of these New Deal creations would endure for longer than those Depression-specific programs did, the 100-days metric still abides as well.
Before the concept of the 100-day metric caught on fully with the media, voters, and later presidential candidates, Roosevelt gave his administration a self-appraisal in honor of the 100-day mark during one of his fireside chats in July of 1933.( See below) After that, the first 100 days became a phenomenon.
One reason for its lasting impact is the media obsession with covering a President’s first 100 days with extra attention and scrutiny began as soon as FDR introduced the idea. Perry points out that it was not until after FDR’s election that political polling was introduced to measure a President’s performance, so the 1930s saw is the emergence of the attempt to quantify a president’s successes and failures, as well as his public perception. That innovation made the 100-days narrative a natural fit.
Since Roosevelt, presidential candidates have solidified a tradition of campaigning with promises about their hypothetical first 100 days in office, and the media and public have followed suit in keeping scrupulous tabs on these first months of a new president’s White House occupancy.
The idea still lingered even when Presidents sought to downplay it. During his inaugural address in 1961, John F. Kennedy outlined some of his plans for his term, telling the crowd: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.”
Contemporary presidential candidates have frequently laid out “100-day plans” in order to woo the public as FDR did. In his 100-day plan, which he called a “Contract With the American Voter,” Trump promised, among other things: “a hiring freeze on all federal employees, ... direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator, …[and] cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs.”
Overall, Perry believes that the first 100 days is not necessarily the most important time period in a president’s career. There’s a real learning curve to the White House that takes more than 100 days to catch up with, even for presidents who have prior experience in politics, which President Trump did not.. Many Presidents have agreed with Perry, downplaying the importance of the first 100 days.
From the perspective of presidential history, Perry says that because the 100-day mark was born of a specific financial crisis, there’s no real need to pay more attention to the first 100 days than we do the first five or the first 1,000. “It can be helpful to monitor in terms of ongoing crises, but why should it be more meaningful than how presidents responds to major events that fall outside of the first 100 days?” she asks.
The short and arbitrary 100-day measurement may, however, provide some insight into how a president will run their administration. Citing Bill Clinton as an example, Perry describes how his first term began chaotically, presaging an administration that was politically chaotic even amid its successes.
The first 100 days is a time period we mark not because it’s inherently important, but because it’s just what we’ve been doing since 1933.
|
Secondly, I wanted a few weeks in which to set up the new administrative organization and to see the first fruits of our careful planning. I think it will interest you if I set forth the fundamentals of this planning for national recovery; and this I am very certain will make it abundantly clear to you that all of the proposals and all of the legislation since the fourth day of March have not been just a collection of haphazard schemes, but rather the orderly component parts of a connected and logical whole. Long before Inauguration Day I became convinced that individual effort and local effort and even disjointed Federal effort had failed and of necessity would fail and, therefore, that a rounded leadership by the Federal Government had become a necessity both of theory and of fact. Such leadership, however, had its beginning in preserving and strengthening the credit of the United States Government, because without that no leadership was a possibility. For years the Government had not lived within its income. The immediate task was to bring our regular expenses within our revenues. That has been done. It may seem inconsistent for a government to cut down its regular expenses and at the same time to borrow and to spend billions for an emergency. But it is not inconsistent because a large portion of the emergency money has been paid out in the form of sound loans which will be repaid to the Treasury over a period of years; and to cover the rest of the emergency money we have imposed taxes to pay the interest and the installments on that part of the debt. So you will see that we have kept our credit good. We have built a granite foundation in a period of confusion. That foundation of the Federal credit stands there broad and sure. It is the base of the whole recovery plan. Then came the part of the problem that concerned the credit of the individual citizens themselves. You and I know of the banking crisis and of the great danger to the savings of our people. On March sixth every national bank was closed. One month later 90 percent of the deposits in the national banks had been made available to the depositors. Today only about 5 percent of the deposits in national banks are still tied up. The condition relating to State banks, while not quite so good on a percentage basis, is showing a steady reduction in the total of frozen deposits —a result much better than we had expected three months ago. The problem of the credit of the individual was made more difficult because of another fact. The dollar was a different dollar from the one with which the average debt had been incurred. For this reason large numbers of people were actually losing possession of and title to their farms and homes. All of you know the financial steps which have been taken to correct this inequality. In addition the Home Loan Act, the Farm Loan Act and the Bankruptcy Act were passed. It was a vital necessity to restore purchasing power by reducing the debt and interest charges upon our people, but while we were helping people to save their credit it was at the same time absolutely essential to do something about the physical needs of hundreds of thousands who were in dire straits at that very moment. Municipal and State aid were being stretched to the limit. We appropriated half a billion dollars to supplement their efforts and in addition, as you know, we have put 300,000 young men into practical and useful work in our forests and to prevent flood and soil erosion. The wages they earn are going in greater part to the support of the nearly one million people who constitute their families. In this same classification we can properly place the great public works program running to a total of over three billion dollars—to be used for highways and ships and flood prevention and inland navigation and thousands of self-sustaining State and municipal improvements. Two points should be made clear in the allotting and administration of these projects: first, we are using the utmost care to choose labor-creating, quick-acting, useful projects, avoiding the smell of the pork barrel; and second, we are hoping that at least half of the money will come back to the Government from projects which will pay for themselves over a period of years. Thus far I have spoken primarily of the foundation stones-the measures that were necessary to reestablish credit and to head people in the opposite direction by preventing distress and providing as much work as possible through governmental agencies. Now I come to the links which will build us a more lasting prosperity. I have said that we cannot attain that in a Nation half boom and half broke. If all of our people have work and fair wages and fair profits, they can buy the products of their neighbors, and business is good. But if you take away the wages and the profits of half of them, business is only half as good. It does not help much if the fortunate half is very prosperous; the best way is for everybody to be reasonably prosperous. For many years the two great barriers to a normal prosperity have been low farm prices and the creeping paralysis of unemployment. These factors have cut the purchasing power of the country in half. I promised action. Congress did its part when it passed the Farm and the Industrial Recovery Acts. Today we are putting these two Acts to work and they will work if people understand their plain objectives. First, the Farm Act: It is based on the fact that the purchasing power of nearly half our population depends on adequate prices for farm products. We have been producing more of some crops than we consume or can sell in a depressed world market. The cure is not to produce so much. Without our help the farmers cannot get together and cut production, and the Farm Bill gives them a method of bringing their production down to a reasonable level and of obtaining reasonable prices for their crops. I have clearly stated that this method is in a sense experimental, but so far as we have gone we have reason to believe that it will produce good results. It is obvious that if we can greatly increase the purchasing power of the tens of millions of our people who make a living from farming and the distribution of farm crops, we shall greatly increase the consumption of those goods which are turned out by industry. That brings me to the final step—bringing back industry along sound lines. Last Autumn, on several occasions, I expressed my faith that we can make possible by democratic self-discipline in industry general increases in wages and shortening of hours sufficient to enable industry to pay its own workers enough to let those workers buy and use the things that their labor produces. This can be done only if we permit and encourage cooperative action in industry, because it is obvious that without united action a few selfish men in each competitive group will pay starvation wages and insist on long hours of work. Others in that group must either follow suit or close up shop. We have seen the result of action of that kind in the continuing descent into the economic hell of the past four years. There is a clear way to reverse that process: If all employers in each competitive group agree to pay their workers the same wages —reasonable wages—and require the same hours—reasonable hours—then higher wages and shorter hours will hurt no employer. Moreover, such action is better for the employer than unemployment and low wages, because it makes more buyers for his product. That is the simple idea which is the very heart of the Industrial Recovery Act. On the basis of this simple principle of everybody doing things together, we are starting out on this nationwide attack on unemployment. It will succeed if our people understand it— in the big industries, in the little shops, in the great cities and in the small villages. There is nothing complicated about it and there is nothing particularly new in the principle. It goes back to the basic idea of society and of the Nation itself that people acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about. Here is an example. In the Cotton Textile Code and in other agreements already signed, child labor has been abolished. That makes me personally happier than any other one thing with which I have been connected since I came to Washington. In the textile industry—an industry which came to me spontaneously and with a splendid cooperation as soon as the Recovery Act was signed—child labor was an old evil. But no employer acting alone was able to wipe it out. If one employer tried it, or if one State tried it, the costs of operation rose so high that it was impossible to compete with the employers or States which had failed to act. The moment the Recovery Act was passed, this monstrous thing which neither opinion nor law could reach through years of effort went out in a flash. As a British editorial put it, we did more under a Code in one day than they in England had been able to do under the common law in eighty-five years of effort. I use this incident, my friends, not to boast of what has already been done but to point the way to you for even greater cooperative efforts this summer and autumn. We are not going through another winter like the last. I doubt if ever any people so bravely and cheerfully endured a season half so bitter. We cannot ask America to continue to face such needless hardships. It is time for courageous action, and the Recovery Bill gives us the means to conquer unemployment with exactly the same weapon that we have used to strike down child labor. The proposition is simply this: If all employers will act together to shorten hours and raise wages we can put people back to work. No employer will suffer, because the relative level of competitive cost will advance by the same amount for all. But if any considerable group should lag or shirk, this great opportunity will pass us by and we shall go into another desperate winter. This must not happen. We have sent out to all employers an agreement which is the result of weeks of consultation. This agreement checks against the voluntary codes of nearly all the large industries which have already been submitted. This blanket agreement carries the unanimous approval of the three boards which I have appointed to advise in this, boards representing the great leaders in labor, in industry, and in social service. The agreement has already brought a flood of approval from every State, and from so wide a cross-section of the common calling of industry that I know it is fair for all. It is a plan—deliberate, reasonable and just-intended to put into effect at once the most important of the broad principles which are being established, industry by industry, through codes. Naturally, it takes a good deal of organizing and a great many hearings and many months, to get these codes perfected and signed, and we cannot wait for all of them to go through. The blanket agreements, however, which I am sending to every employer will start the wheels turning now, and not six months from now. There are, of course, men, a few men, who might thwart this great common purpose by seeking selfish advantage. There are adequate penalties in the law, but I am now asking the cooperation that comes from opinion and from conscience. These are the only instruments we shall use in this great summer offensive against unemployment. But we shall use them to the limit to protect the willing from the laggard and to make the plan succeed. In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure that comrades do not fire on comrades. On that principle, those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance. That is why we have provided a badge of honor for this purpose, a simple design with a legend, "We do our part," and I ask that all those who join with me shall display that badge prominently. It is essential to our purpose. Already all the great, basic industries have come forward willingly with proposed codes, and in these codes they accept the principles leading to mass reemployment. But, important as is this heartening demonstration, the richest field for results is among the small employers, those whose contribution will be to give new work for from one to ten people. These smaller employers are indeed a vital part of the backbone of the country, and the success of our plan lies largely in their hands. Already the telegrams and letters are pouring into the White House—messages from employers who ask that their names be placed on this special Roll of Honor. They represent great corporations and companies, and partnerships and individuals. I ask that even before the dates set in the agreements which we have sent out, the employers of the country who have not already done so—the big fellows and the little fellows—shall at once write or telegraph to me personally at the White House, expressing their intentions of going through with the plan. And it is my purpose to keep posted in the post office of every town, a Roll of Honor of all those who join with me. I want to take this occasion to say to the twenty-four Governors who are now in conference in San Francisco, that nothing thus far has helped in strengthening this great movement more than their resolutions adopted at the very outset of their meeting, giving this plan their instant and unanimous approval, and pledging to support it in their States. To the men and women whose lives have been darkened by the fact or the fear of unemployment, I am justified in saying a word of encouragement because the codes and the agreements already approved, or about to be passed upon, prove that the plan does raise wages, and that it does put people back to work. You can look on every employer who adopts the plan as one who is doing his part, and those employers deserve well of every-one who works for a living. It will be clear to you, as it is to me, that while the shirking employer may undersell his competitor, the saving he thus makes is made at the expense of his country's welfare. While we are making this great common effort there should be no discord and dispute. This is no time to cavil or to question the standard set by this universal agreement. It is time for patience and understanding and cooperation. The workers of this country have rights under this law which cannot be taken from them, and nobody will be permitted to whittle them away but, on the other hand, no aggression is now necessary to attain those rights. The whole country will be united to get them for you. The principle that applies to the employers applies to the workers as well, and I ask you workers to cooperate in the same spirit. When Andrew Jackson, "Old Hickory," died, someone asked, "Will he go to Heaven?" and the answer was, "He will if he wants to." If I am asked whether the American people will pull themselves out of this depression, I answer, "They will if they want to." The essence of the plan is a universal limitation of hours of work per week for any individual by common consent, and a universal payment of wages above a minimum, also by common consent. I cannot guarantee the success of this nationwide plan, but the people of this country can guarantee its success. I have no faith in "cure-alls" but I believe that we can greatly influence economic forces. I have no sympathy with the professional economists who insist that things must run their course and that human agencies can have no influence on economic ills. One reason is that I happen to know that professional economists have changed their definition of economic laws every five or ten years for a very long time, but I do have faith, and retain faith, in the strength of the common purpose, and in the strength of unified action taken by the American people. That is why I am describing to you the simple purposes and the solid foundations upon which our program of recovery is built. That is why I am asking the employers of the Nation to sign this common covenant with me—to sign it in the name of patriotism and humanity. That is why I am asking the workers to go along with us in a spirit of understanding and of helpfulness. Citation: Franklin D. Roosevelt: "Fireside Chat (Recovery Program).," July 24, 1933. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14488. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)