Mediaboss Marketing

On Sunday, Breitbart published a column by Susan Berry, who began by invoking the web sites late founder: Andrew Breitbart famously said, Politics is downstream of culture, she began, using the hyperlink to direct readers to this Red State post:

Andrew Breitbart, the late ever-controversial right-wing gonzo journalist (not to be confused with the dreary Trump-propaganda organ that now bears his name) used to have a saying that politics is downstream of culture.

Meaning that:

After approvingly linking to that article describing todays Breitbart as a dreary, Trump-propaganda organ, Berry proceeded with her own Breitbart article:

Andrew Breitbart famously said, Politics is downstream of culture, and while establishment Republicans seem unwilling to defend Americas culture and values on many fronts, President Donald Trump is already changing the countrys politics by taking back its culture from progressives.

Heres how.

She then offered seven examples: Trump banned transgender people in the military; signed an executive order pertaining to abortion; signed another executive order on religious freedom; signed a bill that affects state funding of Planned Parenthood; appointed a Supreme Court justice; made sound appointments to the Department of Health and Human Services; and vowed to defend law enforcement.

Notice that Berry inverted Andrew Breitbarts claim: She cited what are largely political actions, arguing that cultural change is downstream from them.

The inadequacy of the metaphor is part of the problem here. Streams always flow in one direction. Culture often influences politics, but culture is often influenced by politics, too. In fact, much of the Republican Party has gambled that political gains they expect from the Trump administration outweigh the cultural costs that Trump is exacting.

Fans of Andrew Breitbart who believe that politics is downstream of culture should look not just at Trumps political actions, but also at how he is changing American culture.

1.

Way back in 2011, the public moralist Dennis Prager wrote a column titled F-Word Laced Speech Disqualifies Donald Trump from the Presidency. In it, he argued that there is an enormous moral difference between using an expletive in private and using one in a public speech, that the latter is degrading to the user, to the listener and to society, and that Trump didnt merely use an expletive in a political speech, but upon seeing the enthusiastic reaction, felt encouraged to use it again and again.

He continued:

The audience's reaction is even more importantand more distressingthan Trump's use of the word. Had there been booing, or had someone who invited him arisen to ask that he not use such language, or had some of the women walked out, the good name of the Republican Party and of conservative values would have been preserved. But if Republican womenand I emphasize both the party and the genderfind the F-word used by a potential candidate for president of the United States amusing, America is more coarsened than I had imagined. If we cannot count on Republicans and conservatives to maintain standards of public decency and civility, to whom shall we look?

Today, weve gone far beyond curse words in a speech. Trump is unapologetically and publicly indecent or uncivil on almost a daily basis. And there is no way for the Republican Party to credibly advocate for public decency and civility so long as it supports Trump.

2.

As Peggy Noonan observed in an astute Wall Street Journal column, Trumps sharp break from traditional norms and forms of American masculinity and public displays of weaknessin her words, his continually acting like a drama queenis giving young boys, like the ones that he addressed recently at the Boy Scout Jamboree, a new, self-obsessed, and overindulgent template for what maleness is:

The way American men used to like seeing themselves, the template they most admired, was the strong silent type celebrated in classic mid-20th century filmsGary Cooper, John Wayne, Henry Fonda. In time the style shifted, and we wound up with the nervous and chattery. More than a decade ago the producer and writer David Chase had his Tony Soprano mourn the disappearance of the old style: What they didnt know is once they got Gary Cooper in touch with his feelings they wouldnt be able to shut him up! The new style was more like that of Woody Allen. His characters couldnt stop talking about their emotions, their resentments and needs. They were self-justifying as they acted out their cowardice and anger.

But he was a comic. It was funny. He wasnt putting it out as a new template for maleness. Donald Trump now is like an unfunny Woody Allen. Who needs a template for how to be a man? A lot of boys and young men, whove grown up in a culture confused about what men are and do.

3.

In just the last week, Trump has twice attacked the rule of law. Andrew Sullivan wrote about one example in New York magazine. Day after day, the president has publicly savaged his own attorney general for doing the only thing possible with an investigation into a political campaign he was a key part of: recusing himself, he observed. And the point of the presidents fulminations was that the recusal prevented Sessions from obstructing that very investigation. The president, in other words, has been openly attacking his own attorney general for not subverting the rule of law.

And in a speech to police officers, Trump said:

When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don't be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over. Like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody. Don't hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?

This prompted clapping from many of the police officers immediately behind Trump in footage of the speech and cheering from some of the people in the crowdthe words were immediately corrosive to their culturefollowed by a series of criticisms of Trump from cops in leadership positions in cities all over the United States.

4.

As I noted last September, Trump has a cruel streak. He willfully causes pain and distress to others. And he repeats this public behavior so frequently that its fair to call it a character trait. Any single example would be off-putting but forgivable. Being shown many examples across many years should make any decent person recoil in disgust.

The list of examples has only grown in the interimand we have every indication that Trump will continue to flaunt his cruelty to others in public regularly for the next four years.

* * *

Later on in that Red State post that I quoted at the top, Berry writes that Andrew Breitbart himself thought Donald Trump was a con man and no conservative, but he doubtlessly would have enjoyed the showmanship and sheer disruption of Trumps primary campaign. And as we sift through the rubble left in his wake and look for a path forward, we should not overlook Breitbarts dictum. Because for all the talk about the politics of Trumpism, a major part of what allowed Trump to rise and prevail in the primary was his prominence in popular culture as well as the generally debased state of American culture in general these days.

That is true. And it doesnt speak well of Breitbarts legacy that the website and populist ethos he helped to create did so much to elevate someone he saw as a con man.

The Republican Party should be more farsighted about embracing nihilistic populism.

As David French put it, Words still matter, and the presidents words are often reprehensible. A conservative can fight for tax reform, celebrate military victories over ISIS in Mosul, and applaud Trumps judicial appointments while also condemning Trumps vile tweets and criticizing his impulsiveness and lack of discipline. A good conservative can even step back and take a longer view, resolving to fight for the cultural values that tribalism degrades. Presidents matter not just because of their policies but also because of their impact on the character of the people they govern.

Republicans should turn on Trump, en masse, right now. The longer the president enjoys a large degree of institutional support, rather than being regarded as a pariah by all, the more likely it is that other indecent, uncivil, weak, self-justifying, overindulgent, cruel men with little regard for truth or the rule of law will rise.

Visit link:
Depravity Is Downstream of Donald Trump - The Atlantic

J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter series, apologized Monday for incorrectly suggesting on Twitter that President Donald Trump had snubbed a disabled child during a press conference on healthcare in late July.

Rowling's apology came hours after PolitiFact rated her original tweets which have all since been deleted as "Pants on Fire," concluding that her comments were founded on an edited clip from which Trump's greeting to 3-year-old Monty Weer was cut. Weer is confined to a wheelchair because of a spinal birth defect.

"Multiple sources have informed me that that was not a full or accurate representation of their interaction," Rowling tweeted.

"I very clearly projected my own sensitivities around the issue of disabled people being overlooked or ignored onto the images I saw and if that caused any distress to that boy or his family, I apologise unreservedly," she continued.

The writer, a regular Twitter critic of Trump and his policies, first reacted last Friday to the edited video from a July 24 press conference, according to PolitiFact, during which Trump delivered a speech on health care.

"Trump imitated a disabled reporter . Now he pretends not to see a child in a wheelchair, as though frightened he might catch his condition," Rowling originally tweeted based on the spliced footage. (While she has since deleted them, an archived of the tweets still exists.)

White House video of the same press conference, however, showed Trump appearing to bow down and greet Weer as he entered the venue, PolitiFact said.

Marjorie Kelly Weer, Monty's mother, also appeared to have called out Rowling's wrong interpretation of events on Facebook , the BBC reports .

"If someone can please get a message to J.K. Rowling: Trump didn't snub my son & Monty wasn't even trying to shake his hand," she wrote, adding that Monty wasn't into hand shaking anyway.

See the rest here:
JK Rowling Apologizes for Falsely Suggesting President Trump Dissed a Disabled Boy - TIME

A majority of voters think President Donald Trump's administration is in chaos, according to a new poll released Monday in the midst of several White House firings .

The Morning Consult/Politico poll found that 60% of registered voters think Trump's administration is running "somewhat chaotically" or "very chaotically." Just 33% of voters said the administration is running somewhat or very well.

The survey revealed a stark split along party lines. Most Democrats and Independents thought the administration was running chaotically, while most Republicans thought it was running somewhat or very well.

Anthony Scaramucci was fired from his post as White House communications director, just 10 days after he was introduced as the incoming communications chief. Scaramucci's arrival led to the departure of Press Secretary Sean Spicer and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus , though Trump has denied reports of dysfunction. "No WH chaos!" he tweeted Monday morning.

" A great day at the White House!" he added later Monday night.

The poll which surveyed 1,972 registered voters between July 27 and July 29 had a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

Excerpt from:
Poll: Most Voters Think President Trump's White House is in Chaos - TIME

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses a rally against the Iran nuclear deal on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol September 9, 2015 in Washington, DC.

By Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

The New York Times's Peter Baker wrote, No longer daunted by a president with a Twitter account that he uses like a Gatling gun, members of his own party made clear that they were increasingly willing to stand against him on issues like healthcare and Russia.

Gatling gun? I had to reconnect with Julia Keller, a Pulitzer-winning former Chicago Tribune stalwart and author of Mr. Gatling's terrible marvel: The gun that changed everything and the misunderstood genius who invented it. (Amazon)

In my catalog of the cultural significance of Richard Jordan Gatling's great invention, I've seen the Gatling gun used as a metaphor in everything from Gilmore Girls (Lorelei and Rory and their 'Gatling Gun dialogue') to Green Acres ('someone knitted a vest for Arnold the pig, and included 'a little pocket for his Gat.')

It's an apt and nifty metaphor for President Trump's tweeting a Gatling Gun is fast, efficient and leaves a lot of destruction in its wake. And once you get the hang of it, you can do it with your eyes closed.

The right movie analogy for Trump

Have you seen the film version of David Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross, about a bunch of desperate real estate salesmen? It includes Blake, a character written for the movie and played by Alec Baldwin with nasty gusto as he berates the likes of Shelley Levene (played with brilliant melancholy by Jack Lemmon in the movie).

Well, Kevin Williamson is right on the mark in The National Review about the movie version's relevance to Anthony Scaramucci's "cartoon tough-guy act."

As he writes, Scaramuccis star didnt fade when he gave that batty and profane interview in which he reimagined Steve Bannon as a kind of autoerotic yogi. Thats Scaramuccis best impersonation of the sort of man the president of these United States, God help us, aspires to be.

But he isnt that guy. He isnt Blake. Hes poor sad old Shelley Levene, who cannot close the deal, who spends his nights whining about the unfairness of it all.

So, listen up, team Trump: 'Put that coffee down. Coffee is for closers only.' Got that?

If you've not seen the Baldwin monologue in the movie, it's a classic, so take a look.

Teen Vogues unsparing critique

There have been no hotter topics than John McCain and Anthony Scaramucci. There have been no more tough-minded analyses than in Teen Vogue.

That's right. Yes, there are reams of reporting and punditry in Politico, National Review, The Washington Post or Rachel Maddow, among other venues. But Teen Vogue has been very sharp.

As the press, present company included, lavished praise on McCain after his dramatic return to the Senate last week, the magazine offered five "problematic things John McCain has done during his 40-year career in politics."

The bill of particulars included, "McCain voted against the creation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day," "McCain has been quoted using a racial slur in reference to Vietnamese people" and "In 2013, McCain made a racist joke about Iran's former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Did those undermine the thrust of his Senate speech? No. But they did offer some needed leavening, perhaps, of the reflexive thrust to unequivocally laud the nervy Arizonan.

Sunday brought Rebecca Chamaa's op-ed in the publication, "I Have Paranoid Schizophrenia, and This Is Why Scaramucci's Insult Was Offensive."

It's a response to his nasty comment about then-White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus in his stunning phone chat with The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza.

"I have paranoid schizophrenia, hid my diagnosis for almost 20 years and came out publicly approximately two years ago," she writes. "Yet my diagnosis has not held me back from being happily married and working as a social worker, library technician, and marketing coordinator."

"The fact that I was able to live without even my in-laws and friends knowing about my mental illness for almost two decades proves that people with schizophrenia dont always stand out like the stereotypes suggest. Whats more, my story is not remarkable or unique. Many people live under the radar with schizophrenia, and their lives should not be distilled down to an insult."

Of course, there is no evidence that Priebus has been diagnosed with it. But Chamaa's point remains: "Schizophrenia is a disturbance of thought and not of character. To use it as an insult is degrading to those of us who live with this brain disorder or disease."

She concludes with the reminder that all of us can make the environment around us less harsh for those who do indeed have mental illnesses. That includes the language we all use.

"This includes both reporters and news anchors, who could take the conversation a step further by calling people like Scaramucci out on his insults of choice. Because people are listening, and whether you are the Director of Communications or someone tweeting at Donald Trump, how you communicate matters."

A giant media merger tanks

"Charter Communications Inc. said it isnt interested in buying Sprint Corp., rebuffing a gigantic merger offer and potentially ending several weeks of deal talks between the media and communications companies." (The Wall Street Journal)

Two rivals, one truth

It's the day's great newspaper war: The New York Times and The Washington Post competing ferociously in covering the new disorder in Washington. Top talent, serious investment, a story that gets more notable and confounding just when you figured it could not.

Here's my long take for Vanity Fair, with the ultimate question involving the role of quality journalism in a nation where increasing numbers of conservatives may not buy into the notion of the media's watchdog role in a democracy.

Headline of the weekend

The Emoji Movie got dumped on by critics. These are the best lines from their reviews who could have possibly predicted this was a bad idea, except everyone?" (Recode)

A New Yorker traffic record

As of Sunday, Anthony Scaramucci's telephonic tirade with Ryan Lizza "has generated: 4.4 million unique visitors, making it newyorker.com's most-read piece of 2017 so far and 1.7 million entries from social-media platforms."

It also generated "more than 100,000 concurrent visitors in the hours following publication, a record for newyorker.com." And brought a hike in typical average new subscriptions for July. (Poynter)

Oh, if you haven't signed up for New Yorker podcasts, this might be a good week to start as Lizza and executive editor Dorothy Wickenden discuss the call.

Drew on Trump

In The New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Drew dissects the healthcare vote in the Senate, notably the not necessarily stunning vote of John McCain, whom she's chronicled for many years:

"And there was another thing: candidate Trump had delivered a particularly low blow to McCain by saying that he had greater respect for military personnel who werent captured. He charged McCain with not helping veterans. McCain doesnt forget such things. McCain also had long had an at-best tense relationship with McConnell the leading Senate opponent of campaign finance reform. Besides, the rather free-spirited McCain and the grim, win-with-whatever-works McConnell, both of them big figures in the Senate, were rarely in tune."

"And so Congress prepared to recess for August with many of its members as well as political observers concerned that Trump might create chaos by trying to stamp out the Russia investigation, and nervously wondering how the tempestuous presidents fractured and faltering administration, even with a new chief of staff, would perform in an international crisis."

Chance the Rapper

Nice work by the Chicago Tribune's Christopher Borrelli on Chicago's very own Chance the Rapper:

"Chance the Rapper has become a cultural nesting doll, occupying many spaces simultaneously and seamlessly. He is a national act who also maintains an intimately Chicago footprint. He is a broad pop culture figure who also remains woven into a tight, Chicago-centered collaborative circle. All of this is funneled through a constant online presence that is complex, promotional yet nuanced, agreeable yet opinionated, blunt yet familial. But that he's done it without appearing cloying that he seems approachable, eager to be all things to all people, and not too insistent is his greatest feat. His brand is no brand, a shrewd marketing of independence that often seems a lot like a brand."

Hammered from the right

Writes Mona Charen, "Having viciously attacked and humiliated his attorney general for acting ethically; hinting that he would abuse the pardon power for his family and himself; threatening Republican senators who voted against health care reform; and 'joking' that he might fire his Health and Human Services secretary, Trump may have thought to toss some red meat to conservatives in the form of the transgender military ban."

Rising to Blumenthal's defense

Writing in The Atlantic, James Fallows defends Sidney Blumenthal, the journalist-author and controversial longtime ally of the Clintons, from a broadside via Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa.

Grassley somehow responded to disclosures that one-time Trump campaign boss Paul Manafort had not registered as a foreign agent by saying that Blumenthal hadn't, either. Huh?

"Love him or hate him, no one has produced any documents indicating that at any point he was in the pay of any foreign government, which is a clear contrast to Manafort."

A new Times podcast

The New York Times' The Daily is a huge success. (Poynter) Now comes The New Washington, on Trump's Washington, with analysis weekly from reporter Carl Hulse and colleagues in the paper's D.C. bureau.

The morning babble

Can John Kelly restore order to the White House and understand Trump is the problem? That was the Morning Joe question to Andrew Card, a George W. Bush-era chief of staff, who made clear what's required, which does not include lots of end-arounds the chief of staff by other allies, friends and family.

CNN's New Day wondered about that and the future of Jeff Sessions, with Republicans nervous about Sessions being moved elsewhere as a prelude to dumping Robert Mueller as special counsel. John Avlon of The Daily Beast called moving Sessions "idiot cunning," while Vladimir Putin's retaliation over the congressional sanctions bill (a rebuff to Trump) and the North Korean missile tests were both cited as evidence of Trump fumbling.

Trump & Friends line of attack, ah, inquiry partly involved the failures of, yes, Nancy Pelosi. It also had a "Fox News Alert" about a prison break in Alabama, albeit one that mistakenly included the chyron at the bottom, "Sen. McCain Battles Brain Cancer" and a photo of a smiling Joe Biden. Oops, it's a Monday.

Corrections? Tips? Please email me: jwarren@poynter.org. Would you like to get this roundup emailed to you every morning? Sign up here.

Originally posted here:
Donald Trump's Bark Loses Its Bite - Vanity Fair

Since President Donald Trump won the Republican presidential nomination a question hangs over the right: Should the GOP survive or is it morally corrupted and politically deformed to such an extent that those of good conscience on the center-right must start anew? Having engaged in the original sin, if you will, of supporting Trump and then defending his aberrant presidency and helping thereby to define political deviancy down (as the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan described the decline of social and behavioral norms in his lifetime), has the GOP in essence forfeited political legitimacy permanently? There are several aspects to the question that deserve attention.

First, keep in mind the distinction between "should" (normative) vs. can (capacity). The former (should the GOP survive) goes to the moral culpability of those who lifted Trump to power and kept him there. They elevated a very dangerous man who has done and continues to do great damage to our country. They've in essence lost legitimacy as a constructive force; the center-right cannot fully purge the stain of Trump unless it sheds (or shreds) the skin of the GOP. Given the enormity of the GOP's malfeasance, a new party may in fact be required.

Then there is the more practical question (can the GOP survive). Given how toxic the GOP brand has become, the time and cost of rehabilitating the brand may not be worth it. Alternatively, anti-Trump Republicans might conclude that the financial, legal and organizational burden of creating a new party with new state parties may be crippling.

We think a middle ground makes sense. An accountability project (maybe not quite at the level of reconciliation processes in the wake of fallen regimes in South Africa or Chile) certainly is needed; a turnover in leadership is essential. The party must repudiate Trump and the Trump era to go forward. Those intent on turning away from the Trump era will require visible symbols underscoring the party's repudiation of Trumpism, including perhaps a name change. (The New Republican Party? The Modern Republican Party?)

Second, is such a dramatic break really needed? Yes, if, as #NeverTrump and #NoLongerTrump Republicans believe, the Trump problem is of an entirely different magnitude than, say, Watergate, and has resulted in much more serious, permanent damage to our democracy, then it is not enough to simply shuffle the presidential candidates, make some speeches and keep the platform and leadership essentially unchanged. And yes, most of the Republicans currently in the House and Senate need to go. They've put party over country, not lived up to their oaths of office and contributed to the polarization of our politics and erosion of our democratic norms. A clean, dramatic break is mandatory.

Third, both the specific agenda (a creaky facade left over from the 1980s) and the central values of the party are in need of revamping. Its positions on tax, budget, environmental, law enforcement and immigration policy are outmoded, counterproductive and in many cases not based on reality. That does not mean Republicans should copy Democrats. A second party with alternative views remains critical in a robust democracy. We need a party that favors market-based solutions where possible; cares about fiscal sanity; sees advantages in federalism; embraces a positive, essential role for government but is wary of highly centralized bureaucracy; and supports American leadership in defense of the international, liberal order. (By the way, it's always possible the current Democratic Party goes in that direction while the far left goes the full socialist route.)

Fourth, Trump's presidency should prompt center-right voters and leaders to re-define the purpose, foundational beliefs and role of the party. Civic character and dedication to democratic norms (as opposed to positions on a laundry list of issues) must be elevated in importance. The party needs to return to a mediating and moderating role whereby it weeds out the most extreme and most irresponsible elements. (Yes, here come the super-delegates.) The party needs to resume a role of gatekeeper (a goal furthered by diverting resources back to national and state parties and away from special-interest cliques and billionaire candidates and donors). Moreover, a party that believes in a strong role for civil society must dedicate itself to repairing frayed communal ties and institutions and ending rigid tribalism.

Fifth, how Republicans behave from here on out will play a huge role in determining the extent of the housecleaning/destruction of the GOP required. It makes all the difference in the world whether Democrats (by winning elections) save the country from Trump or whether the GOP (by impeachment, support for prosecution, primary challenge) takes matters into its own hands to expunge Trump. The latter would not erase entirely the original sin they committed when they backed him, but a Republican revolt against Trump (finally) would suggest internal reformation is possible. Republicans in office, running for office, in think tanks and other right-leaning groups should think long and hard about how they want the Trump presidency to end; it will become the defining event in their personal and political legacies. And the manner of Trump's political demise will largely determine whether the 2016 election was the last to produce a Republican president.

Washington Post

Jennifer Rubin is a columnist for the Washington Post.

What to read next:

When will Trump supporters wake up?

President Trump has no regard for the rule of law

What you may not know about Steve Bannon

Trump's psychological abuse of Jeff Sessions could backfire

View original post here:
Will Donald Trump be the last Republican president? - Chicago Tribune