RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Rich writes: "Is there a chance in hell that this book will at long last be the catalyst for Trump's demise?"

Donald Trump. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

Trump Has Moved a Step Closer to Implosion

By Frank Rich, New York Magazine

11 January 18

Most weeks, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich speaks with contributor Alex Carp about the biggest stories in politics and culture. Today: the fallout from Michael Wolff’s White House tell-all, the fall of Steve Bannon, and the politics of the Golden Globes.

ichael Wolff’s publisher is rushing to print more copies of Fire and Fury even as a chorus of journalists, politicians, and pundits — including Wolff himself — call its details into question. Once the dust settles, will this book actually have any lasting effect?

The only effect anyone really cares about, of course, is the bottom line: Is there a chance in hell that this book will at long last be the catalyst for Trump’s demise? After all the other turning points that failed to fell Trump, from his ridicule of John McCain’s war record to the Access Hollywood tape to his pat on the head for neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, it would be foolhardy to say it will. But it may be a not-insignificant step on this president’s path to implosion.

First, it’s important to know what Fire and Fury will not accomplish.
It is not going to shake the loyalty of a single member of the Trump base, which, like it or not, accounts for roughly a third of Americans and the overwhelming majority of one of the nation’s two major political parties. Nor is it going to spur a revolt among Republicans in Congress. Indeed, the GOP senator who most questioned Trump’s fitness for office, the soon-to-retire Bob Corker, having sold out his ostensible fiscal principles on the budget-busting tax bill, is now back palling around with Trump on Air Force One. It remains a liberal wet dream that a GOP-controlled Congress would impeach Trump, or that members of his Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment to yank him out of the White House. (The notion of Ben Carson standing in judgment on anyone’s mental health may be clinically insane in its own right.)

The only way Trump leaves office absent a Democratic sweep in the 2018 midterms is if he does so of his own volition: poisoning himself with his binges of Big Macs and Diet Coke; making a deal to head off pending indictments of himself, his son, or son-in-law; or breaking down mentally to the point where he is so unhappy, angry, and unmoored that he’d rather declare victory and take his marbles home to Mar-a-Lago. Fire and Fury has moved the latter process along. That Trump would feel compelled to declare himself a “very stable genius” and turn this book into an epic best seller by (impotently) threatening legal action to suppress it suggests that Wolff has quite successfully gaslighted him. Though it’s Ivanka Trump whom Steve Bannon described as “dumb as a brick,” her father’s self-immolating actions from the moment New York posted its Fire and Fury excerpt is proof positive that the apple didn’t fall far from the orange tree.

Let me add one other point I never thought I’d make: a modest defense of Michael Wolff. I am one of many journalists who have been the target of insults and scurrilous speculation in a Wolff piece at some point or another. It’s entirely consistent with his career that he’s gotten some things wrong in this book. But not that many things wrong, and not the big things; the book confirms what many others have reported about this White House, and the specific refutations of most of the major new anecdotes have actually been quite few. Wolff also writes with more humor than is usual for the inside–the–Oval Office genre. Would those journalistic critics who are ostentatiously holding their noses as they read Fire and Fury prefer the Bob Woodward version instead? Woodward’s instant histories have their own strong points of view — usually favoring those sources who were most cooperative, and tilting toward the Washington Establishment’s received wisdom about any post-Nixon presidency — even if they are written in a deadpan, just-the-facts-ma’am tone. Wolff’s re-creations of scenes are no more or less plausible than Woodward’s, and Wolff should not be faulted for favoring direct editorialization over Woodward’s technique of encoding his judgments in subtext. People are reading and buying Fire and Fury because the story rings true. It would also be highly entertaining, as pure and utter farce, if only the fate of America and perhaps the world were not at stake.

After losing allies and funders, Steve Bannon has been forced out of his position at Breitbart News. Is this the end of any influence he had on this year’s midterm elections?

The sudden fall of Steve Bannon has been entertaining in its own way, but in terms of the political equation in America right now it will have zero effect. Bannon didn’t create the angry Trump base and its signature cause of white nationalism. It grew out of Sarah Palin’s incendiary campaign on the 2008 GOP ticket and the tea-party insurrection, violent reactions to the prospect and then the reality of America’s first African-American president. Before Bannon glommed on to Trump, he’d toyed with hitching his star to both Palin and Michele Bachmann, two of the most prominent (and, for a while, successful) pre-Trump Trumpists. Trump and Trumpism will survive Bannon’s demise, and in 2018 there will still be Trumpian-Bannon candidates challenging the sort of Republicans favored by Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. No sooner had Bannon stepped down, after all, than Joe Arpaio, as grotesque a representative of Trumpism as Roy Moore, announced his candidacy for the Senate seat being vacated by the retiring anti-Trump conservative Jeff Flake, in Arizona. Arpaio and his followers could care less about Bannon or who is running Breitbart.

If anything, Bannon’s absence may leave Trump more vulnerable to the rages of his base. As long as the two were seemingly in touch — as they continued to be after Bannon was ousted from the White House — the crazies could assume they were being heard in the Oval Office. No more. Witness Ann Coulter’s Twitter tantrum yesterday when Trump, in a desperate effort to prove his stability and genius, televised his faux bipartisan White House negotiating session over the fate of the immigrant Dreamers. Coulter’s response: “Nothing Michael Wolff could say about @realDonaldTrump has hurt him as much as the DACA lovefest right now.” And: “This DACA lovefest confirms a main thesis of Michael Wolff’s book: When Bannon left, liberal Dems Jared, Ivanka, Cohn & Goldman Sachs took over.” Be assured the base’s abuse of the White House’s so-called “liberal Dems” (an interesting way to categorize a list of names transparently scapegoated for their Jewishness, not their liberalism) has only just begun.

Since Sunday’s Golden Globes, politicians and pundits have spent a lot of time dissecting Oprah Winfrey’s speech trying to decide if she’d be a great candidate for president or a terrible one. They’re making little progress.  What does this debate tell us about where things stand for the Democrats?

It tells us that Democrats don’t have a plan, and don’t have a candidate for 2020. (They don’t have to yet, by the way.) They are also far from united. Oprah’s sort of generalized liberalism, unburdened for the most part by having to take forceful or controversial stands on the issues that divide the party, is a salve for all wounds. With the possible exception of Jonathan Franzen, who doesn’t like Oprah? Such is life in the Age of Trump that even Bill Kristol has joined Meryl Streep on this bandwagon.

The fact that Oprah would be another celebrity candidate should not be held against her just because Trump is a celebrity. If we use Trump as a precedent, no man should ever be a president again either. Nor should Oprah’s lack of a record in government be a deterrent; she won’t have to defend (as, say, Joe Biden would) a long and sometimes compromised Washington past that might include the undermining of the #MeToo testimony of Anita Hill or voting for the Iraq war. Oprah may have had her own embarrassments, but her cheerleading for the likes of Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil should not be confused with Vietnam.

That said, the coy speculation and hints (including from her partner, Stedman Graham) about whether she is seriously considering a run or not is already getting tedious, and, with time, could be a dagger pointed at the Democrats’ 2020 prospects. If the idea of her running remains seriously in play, say, a year from now, her stature will deprive other contenders of the political oxygen of both media attention and donors’ dollars. Having opened this door, Oprah now has the obligation to either walk through it or slam it shut on a responsible timeline. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+3 # wantrealdemocracy 2018-01-11 15:10
Our best hopes for a decent future is
for voters to never again for for ANY dimocrap or ANY repukelican. There ain't no "lesser evil" between these two corrupt gangs of greedy creatures from the swamp.
+15 # ER444 2018-01-11 15:12
Why doesn't Opra run for the Senate? That would make her a serious candidate and she would have a real chance to win. Then she could bring some female savy into Washington politics and get some experience.
+24 # revhen 2018-01-11 15:39
Trump is not the problem. The very rich and corporations are. Trump is just the cover, the diversion for their total takeover. It's what happened when the Roman Senate collapsed and the dictators took over.
+19 # ellen9 2018-01-11 15:57
The fact that Oprah is even being considered as Presidential material is a sign of what Trump's presidency has done to this country. Oprah seems to be a wonderful, smart person who has done many humanitarian things and helped many people and organizations. However, she has no political or governmental experience and the country needs an expert in these areas to lead our country, and at the least, repair our country after the damage that's being done now. An entertainment figure doesn't fit that bill.
+9 # ddd-rrr 2018-01-12 09:29
YES!!! Thank you, #ellen9, for that needed, and to-the-point, comment!
+6 # sbessho 2018-01-11 21:32
"It remains a liberal wet dream that a GOP-controlled Congress would impeach Trump, or that members of his Cabinet would invoke the 25th Amendment to yank him out of the White House."

What Rich and other pundits continue to ignore is the fact that even Republicans will respond if the people get together and demand impeachment. Of course they will not act on their own, but in the face of overwhelming public demand, they would have to act. And they will, just as the Republicans turned against Richard Nixon when it became politically impossible for them to continue denying that he had committed impeachable acts. All that is necessary is a mass movement--in the streets--demand ing the ouster of Trump.
+5 # Jayceecool 2018-01-11 22:44
The answer to your question: No, because Trump represents the intrinsic moral corruption of many Americans that the Obama administration revealed...
+9 # relegn 2018-01-12 06:49
Oprah for President? I don't think we need any more wealthy "cult of personality" candidates running for powerful political office. Let what's bred in Hollywood stay in Hollywood.
-3 # davehaze 2018-01-12 09:25
I am surprised that Frank Rich considers himself a journalist. He is not a journalist, not a reporter. He is a pundent, a critic who offers opinions that are center Democratic party fare and seldom insightful.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.