Saturday, February 11, 2017

Corporate politicking

[Update 8/15/17: Kevin Plank is back in the news today for being the second CEO to resign from President Trump's manufacturing council. Under Armour's Kevin Plank makes confusing statement in resigning from Trump council]

President Trump is overseeing potentially far reaching transformations in our country's governance and electoral politics. One of these is how corporations may plunge, or be drawn, into full fledged politicking.

The typical traditional approach was that most businesses preferred political neutrality, and didn't want to offend one or another set of customers or business relationships by reason of public political advocacy. In this traditional mode, businesses, in a low keyed way, might advocate on matters having specific bearing on their business, but avoided politicking on issues not having a direct bearing on themselves that could alienate customers and other business relationships.

President Trump's personal "art of the deal" proclivities and style may be greatly transformational from the traditional mode.

Congress needs to inform itself about this development and make determinations about whether such alterations to the country's form of politicking and governance are advisable for the country, and, if not, what Congress might do to address the matter. This should be thrown into the hopper of what the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform should be addressing at this juncture. See Chaffetz letter.

The below Baltimore Business Journal article highlights the foregoing.

Joanna Sullivan
Editor-in-Chief

Baltimore Business Journal
I'm going to start this column by saying right off the bat that I expect to take heat from both the pro-Trump and anti-Trump contingents among our readers and social media followers.
As a journalist for three decades, I'm pretty used to criticism. I take complaint calls about everything from grammar mistakes, headlines to unflattering photos. Way before trolls picked apart posts on Twitter, I was getting copies of our stories mailed back to us covered in red marker pointing out everything the reader didn't like about them.

Enlarge

Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank is taking heat for his praise of President Donald Trump.
PATRICK T. FALLON/BLOOMBERG

There are fraught times in our country — where no opinion goes unnoticed. Biting your tongue has become an art form and staying neutral means ignoring the obvious rise in your blood pressure.
But I'm paid to put aside my own personal biases and see both sides of an issue. So I just couldn't go the rest of the week without stepping into the mess that Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank got himself into when an interviewer on CNBC asked him what he thought about President Donald Trump.
The question came after a sweeping interview that focused on the Baltimore sportswear company's disappointing earnings. Plank was speaking a mile a minute, defending his company and its slower-than-usual growth.
"My two feet are planted in this company,” Plank said during the interview. “My management team’s two feet are planted in this company as well. As I tell you, everybody’s got a little bit of a chip on their shoulder right now but we look forward to making that right.”
The newsroom TV — always tuned to CNBC except during March Madness — was turned up and reporter Holden Wilen was busy reporting on what Plank had to say. I, too, was taking notes, making sure we didn't miss anything. The less-than-stellar earnings a week before was big news for what's now Baltimore's largest public company.
Then came the Trump question. It's one almost every CEO has faced in the past few months on CNBC. Some have clearly taken sides, while others have been careful to stay out of the fray. You never know how your brand will be thrown into the mix. Just ask Nordstrom, Boeing or Starbucks.
CEOs are in and out of the White House on a daily basis as Trump holds CEOs are in and out of the White House on a daily basis as Trump holds meetings with leaders from Wall Street and seemingly every industry. Plank was among a group of CEOs who met with Trump last month to discuss the future of manufacturing in the U.S., and is one of 28 executives named to a White House jobs initiative.
So it was only natural that the interview would focus on Plank’s relationship with the president. He was obviously prepared for the question — perhaps too prepared. What he wasn't prepared for was the enormous backlash by customers and the company's star endorsers Steph Curry, Misty Copeland and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
Plank described Trump as “highly passionate."
"To have such a pro-business President is something that is a real asset for the country," he said. "People can really grab that opportunity. He loves to build I don't think there's any surprises here. When you look at the president he wants to build things. He wants to build things he wants to make bold decisions and be really decisive. I'm a big fan of people that operate in the world of publish and iterate versus think, think, think, think, think. So there's a lot that I respect there."
Plank's answers didn't seem unusual for anyone running a business. I've heard the same sentiments during the campaign from many of the businesspeople we cover, even in very blue Maryland. It's no surprise that small business and large business support a businessman president. It's one of the reasons why he won. The Trump stock market rally is further proof of what investors feel in the early days of this controversial administration. Simply put, a CEO offering an opinion on a sitting president’s potential impact on business while being interviewed on a cable business news show should shock no one.
But in today’s environment, so many of the people commenting on Plank’s remarks didn’t see the full interview. To be fair to Plank, his comments weren't all glowing. Asked about Trump's anti-free trade policies, he said.
“The border tax would have an absolutely very, very difficult effect on all companies in the consumer space, particularly retailers. It’s the No. 1 issue when you ask me about the new administration.”
Those words didn't quite resonate. Nor did Under Armour's (NYSE: UAA) statements the next day defending itself, saying "We engage in policy, not politics." The statement also said:
“We believe in advocating for fair trade, an inclusive immigration policy that welcomes the best and the brightest and those seeking opportunity in the great tradition of our country, and tax reform that drives hiring to help create new jobs globally, across America and in Baltimore,” Under Armour said, referring to several initiatives by the Trump White House. “We have teammates from different religions, races, nationalities, genders and sexual orientations; different ages, life experiences and opinions. This is the core of our company. At Under Armour, our diversity is our strength, and we will continue to advocate for policies that Protect Our House, our business, our team, and our community.”
Plank saying too much was a reminder why so many businesses stay on the sidelines when it comes to politics. You really can't win, especially in a time when being for or against Trump can wreck personal and business relationships in a second.
Some people plan to boycott Under Armour products after Plank's comments. It's an effective threat. As Curry and Copeland know well, the best way to get your message across is using your economic power. I have a feeling Plank got the message. His next CNBC interview probably won't be so free-wheeling.
But I'm hoping any boycott or lingering effect won't hurt the company and CEO. Not everyone may embrace every project that Plank is spearheading in Baltimore, but I can say almost unequivocally that Plank and Under Armour are investing in and boosting Baltimore and Maryland more than anyone we’ve covered over the years.
Baltimore needs the jobs, the redevelopment Plank has undertaken, the philanthropy and the pride the Under Armour brand has brought to this town.

Joanna Sullivan oversees the Baltimore Business Journal editorial staff.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Tweeting for South Dakota

There is much anti-corruption work going on at state and local government levels. The effects of this work may percolate up to the Congressional level.

A full blown national story is happening in South Dakota, where, on November 8th, the South Dakota voters approved a South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act, and last week the South Dakota legislature overturned the will of the voters and repealed the Act. (For more information, see South Dakota.)

@RepresentDotUs is leading the charge for a South Dakota citizen effort to get the South Dakota legislature to reverse the action it took to repeal the South Dakota Anti-Corruption Act.

Contact @RepresentDotUs if you would like to help out.

There is a stark confrontation going on between South Dakota lawmakers and South Dakota citizens.

The confrontation threatens to expose much. Particularly it may expose the extent to which the reality of government in South Dakota is anti-democratic (or undemocratic), compared to what a democracy (or a representative democracy) is supposed to be.

Concern about this is not applicable only to South Dakota, and it is realistically a concern in other States and also regarding Congress.

State lawmakers and members of Congress need to answer up to their constituents on this concern.

The problem is many lawmakers will do everything they can to avoid facing up to their consitutuents on this, and massive demand by the voters acting in unison is needed to force their lawmakers to address the issue.

I tried to force facing up to this issue by running for Congress in the Alabama 6th Congressional district in 2014 but was ignored and got all of 500 votes. (If you want to investigate this dismal story, start with Just answer the question, Gary Palmer.)

The situation in South Dakota is a superlative opportunity for exhibiting what voters acting in unison can do to get their lawmakers to face up to their constituents.

As stated, @RepresentDotUs is leading the charge on this in South Dakota and is seeking to bring to bear public opinion from publicity outside South Dakota.

As discussed in the link given above (South Dakota), I am advocating that @RepresentDotUs use tweeting banks in carrying out its South Dakota efforts. (See How should tweeting banks be used.)

Tweeting banks require organization, formulation of appealing messaging, and some volunteers who are willing to initiate tweeting to get the pyramiding of tweets going that is the goal of the tweeting bank.

@RepresentDotUs has not yet been responsive to the idea. It has not given any explanation why it has not been responsive. Perhaps it is a lack of resources of @RepresentDotUs to consider or experiment with the idea, or that @RepresentDotUs believes it could not get any volunteers to start the tweeting.

Readers of this blog entry are solicited to give their comments about tweeting banks being used in the South Dakota efforts and for other political messaging purposes.

"We can be babies"

President Trump has had an interview with Bill O'Reilly, which is going to air in full before the Super Bowl today.

In the below preview, President Trump says, "look, Bill, we can be babies".

This "we can be babies" comment is directed towards those who disbelieve President Trump's claim that three million illegal immigrants voted in the election. Have a listen.

Watch Bill O’Reilly’s interview w/ Pres. @realDonaldTrump Sunday at 4p ET during the #SuperBowl pregame show on FOX. https://t.co/h6qG375hkH pic.twitter.com/4wZ01jYp1e
— Fox News (@FoxNews) February 5, 2017

I would like to ask who are being babies regarding the Trump Foundation contribution to Pam Bondi.

Candidate Trump said in the first Republican debate that, when he gave to politicians (and he gave a lot), they were "there" for him when he "needed" them.

Have a listen.

So candidate Trump confesses that he gives to politicians to get favors.

Then, later in the campaign, candidate Trump turns around and says, "naw it's not true" when it comes to a donation he made to Florida AG Pam Bondi. Have this further listen.

So let's all be babies with President Trump. Let's believe he did not give a donation to Florida AG Pam Bondi to get a favor from her. Let's believe the donation had nothing to do with Trump University.

Saturday, February 4, 2017

Dodd-Frank

In his inaugural address, President Trump pledged: "The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer." and "You will never be ignored again."

With President Trump's announced goal of rolling back Dodd-Frank, who is he looking out for? Is President Trump looking out for the forgotten men and women of our country, or is he looking out for Wall Street?

Elizabeth Warren

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Getting richer

The sky's the limit on how much richer the Trumps are going to get off Trump's Presidency.

EXCLUSIVE: Mar-a-Lago, the Florida resort owned by the Trump Org., has doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 https://t.co/YAWKXh3vNW
— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) January 25, 2017

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

People power

In his inaugural address, President Trump said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.
For too long, a small group in our nation’s Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America.
This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.
January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

Who out there is not in favor of transferring power from Washington DC and giving it back to the American people?

Where are your reps in Congress on this?

Are you getting your reps in Congress to speak to this?

I am trying to do it in Alabama. See Please speak.

You should do the same in your state.

Friday, January 20, 2017

This hotel

January 20, 2017

Announcing

Trump International Hotel, Washington DC

"this hotel" in "this town"

The New York Times

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is (Duh!) Washington

‘This Town,’ by Mark Leibovich

Books of The Times

By DAVID M. SHRIBMAN JULY 7, 2013

Of all the irritating things about Washington — the phoniness, the showy cars, the utter inability of a metropolitan area of 6.9 million people to produce a single decent slice of pizza or a passable submarine sandwich with oil and not mayonnaise — none is more infuriating than the local insider habit of referring to the place as “this town,” as in “He’s the most important power broker in this town” or, more likely (and worse), “The way to get ahead in this town is to seem not to be trying to get ahead.”

So when Mark Leibovich sketches a portrait of the nation’s capital — a phrase used only by people who don’t live there — and calls it “This Town,” you know he’s got a sharp ear, and a sharp eye to accompany it. You also know that he’s got the sharp knives out.

Here it is, Washington in all its splendid, sordid glory: the pols, the pundits, the Porsches. Plus the hangers-on, the strivers, the image makers and the sellouts, all comprising what Mr. Leibovich calls “a political herd that never dies or gets older, only jowlier, richer and more heavily made-up.”

He’s an insider, Mr. Leibovich is, first a reporter at The Washington Post, now the chief national correspondent for The New York Times Magazine, yet he seems to wear those special glasses that allow you to X-ray the outside and see what’s really going on. An unusual parlor trick that, particularly in light of the A-list insiders jammed into his acknowledgments, not a single one of whom could have pulled off this book, even though half of them will e-mail me and say they could. (Memo to all of you: Don’t.)

He opens with an account of the 2008 funeral of the NBC Washington bureau chief and “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert, and as a quarter-century resident now in happy exile, I suppose I should stick to form and mention, hideously, that we — Tim and I — came to Washington at the same time and were friends, although mostly because I had a wife from Buffalo, and he delighted in teasing her about her bowling. The people at this funeral (and as I recall, this was an invitation-only rite) adhered to what Mr. Leibovich calls “the distinctive code of posture at the fancy-pants funeral: head bowed, conspicuously biting his lips, squinting extra hard for the full telegenic grief effect.”

The book is already generating buzz over Mr. Leibovich’s account of White House efforts to shape a profile in The New York Times of the first friend Valerie Jarrett and the administration’s apparent push to encourage Capitol reporters to disparage the conservative stalwart Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California.

Start to finish, this is a brilliant portrait — pointillist, you might say, or modern realist. So brilliant that once it lands on a front table at thePolitics & Prose Bookstore on upper Connecticut Avenue, Mr. Leibovich will never be able to have lunch in This Town again, not that there is a respectable nonexpense-account lunch to be had in those precincts.

That said, this is a different Washington from the one I departed from a decade ago (Pittsburgh: what a relief!) and surely a different one from the era when, among the Washington royalty, only Alsop (and not Reston, Broder, Kraft, Evans or Novak) required a first name, and only because there were two of them (Stewart and Joseph).

The partisanship is worse, in part because the parties are different, with no liberal wing to the Republicans and hardly a conservative wing to the Democrats. And the rhetoric is mean, in part because it is less elegant.

All of which raises a separate point: Many of the Washington monuments most worthy of attention and praise, like the three Davids of capital journalism (Espo of The Associated Press, Rogers of Politico and Wessel of The Wall Street Journal), aren’t featured in this book and would be mortified beyond words if they were. They’re not at celebrity parties but at their battle stations, notebooks in hand. Nor is there a respectful bow, much deserved, to the thousands of unknown, selfless, deeply skilled bureaucrats who, since the Reagan years, have been pilloried but who, since the Franklin D. Roosevelt years, have made the country, or at least parts of its government, work.

In the old days, Washington — then as now a place where “disproportionate numbers of residents lie about reading The Economist” — was pretty much a bar where everyone knew your name, or in the case of John Paul Hammerschmidt, a former congressman from Arkansas, all three of them. Now it’s far less personal — but the personal matters far more.

So do personalities, which is why the book that Mr. Leibovich’s seems patterned after is Lytton Strachey’s 1918 “Eminent Victorians,” a classic of its time and all time, and the book it most resembles is “The Columnist,” Jeffrey Frank’s remorselessly hilarious work of fiction from 2001. As such, it is a wiseguy’s tour d’horizon of an entire city trying out for the role of Washington wise man.

So, striding self-importantly through these pages are the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid(“harshly judgmental of fat people”); Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican (“a blister on the leadership of both chambers, or sometimes something more dangerous”); SenatorChuck Schumer, Democrat of New York (“lens-happy, even by senatorial standards”); the lobbyist and former Mississippi governor Haley Barbour (“looks like a grown version of Spanky from the Little Rascals”); the former House minority leader Richard Gephardt (“whose willingness to reverse long-held positions in the service of paying clients was egregious even by D.C.’s standards”); and the modern super-flack Kurt Bardella (possessed of “a frantic vulnerability and desperation”).

And though much of this volume is a sendup of the capital of kissing up, there are some important insights tucked in among the barbs. Such as this: “Though Barack Obama won the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton won Obama’s first term.” And this: The political culture is full of “people who’ve been around the business forever, who never go away and can’t be killed.” And this one, about Representative Paul D. Ryan, that must have befuddled the publisher’s fact checkers: “Like most members of Congress with half a brain, Ryan had a pretty low opinion of many of his colleagues and had been thinking of how to escape.”

So here’s to all the big mouths, big egos, big shots, big machers and big jerks. In case you’re wondering, Mark Leibovich is on to every one of you, and his portrayal of “This Town” is spot on. Because Mr. Leibovich, perhaps alone among capital insiders, has realized that Washington, once an inside joke, now looks more and more like a bad joke.

THIS TOWN

Two Parties and a Funeral — Plus Plenty of Valet Parking! — in America’s Gilded Capital

By Mark Leibovich

386 pages. Blue Rider Press. $27.95.
David M. Shribman is the executive editor of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Pittsburgh Press and a former Washington bureau chief of The Boston Globe.

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Access

Clintons selling of access
Senator Jeff Sessions, who is now Attorney-General designate, appeared on Fox & Friends on August 25, 2016, condemning contributions to The Clinton Foundation and the buying of access to American leaders. Here is video

.@SenatorSessions: You cannot be buying access to American leaders by giving to the leader's private charityhttps://t.co/cPNjpDBIRR
— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) August 25, 2016

Hillary Clinton has lost the Presidential election, the Clinton Foundation's inventory of access has been substantially reduced, and the Foundation is shutting down its Clinton Global Initiative. Michael Sainato, in this OBSERVER article The Clinton Foundation Shuts Down Clinton Global Initiative, writes this:

The Clinton Foundation’s long list of wealthy donors and foreign government contributors during the 2016 elections provoked critics to allege conflicts of interests. Clinton partisans defended the organization’s charitable work, and dismissed claims that it served as a means for the Clintons to sell off access, market themselves on the paid speech circuit, and elevate their brand as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the presidency.
But as soon as Clinton lost the election, many of the criticisms directed toward the Clinton Foundation were reaffirmed. Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling the organization’s clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather than its philanthropic work. In November, the Australian government confirmed it “has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.” The government of Norway also drastically reduced their annual donations, which reached $20 million a year in 2015.
* * * *
The Clinton Global Initiative was created in 2005 to serve as a networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. Both the initiative’s mission and its own definition of what it seeks to accomplish are vague. “Rather than directly implementing projects, CGI facilitates action by helping members connect, collaborate, and make effective and measurable Commitments to Action—plans for addressing significant global challenges,” states the CGI website. The Clinton Global Initiative and Clinton Foundation director of media relations have not responded to requests for a comment.
WikiLeaks revealed several criticisms of the Clinton Foundation were true, as pay-to-play schemes and the foundation’s corrupt management were exposed. On October 26, The Washington Post reported a memo detailed how the Clinton Foundation was used to boost Bill Clinton’s income.
“The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department,” reported The Washington Post. “It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family—for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”
The Clinton Foundation‘s downward trajectory ever since since Hillary Clinton’s election loss provides further testimony to claims that the organization was built on greed and the lust for power and wealth—not charity.

Trump and access selling
Trump is now miring himself in charges that everyone who wants to get close to Trump and the Trump family to get access will do so by striking up business with the Trump organization.

Trump is getting his guns lined up on on behalf of the Trump Presidency being used to enrich the Trump organization and the Trump brand name.

First, after the Office of Government Ethics chief, Walter Shaub, announced at a press conference last Wednesday that President-elect Trump’s “fix” to his ethics and emoluments clause problems didn’t fix anything, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Republican head of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent Shaub a letter accusing him of unprofessionally blurring politics and ethics guidance, and demanding that Shaub make himself available for the Committee to “interview” him. The letter slams Shaub for attempting to engage in “public relations” and raises at the end of the letter Congress’s need to reauthorize the OGE.

Then, Sunday, on ABC's "This Week". Reince Priebus, the incoming White House chief of staff, warned the director of [the] federal ethics office to “be careful” about criticizing President-elect Donald Trump.

Update 1/18/17
[Embedding of below tweet puts "media" ahead of tweet]

Presidents selling access to inauguration donors is a bipartisan problem that Trump has taken to new heights. https://t.co/TsnwoXIE1q pic.twitter.com/TexN14GMEi
— Tyler Creighton (@tylercreighton) January 17, 2017

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

A Trump family political dynasty?

The Clinton political machine
After Bill Clinton left the Presidency, the Clintons had personal goals of (i) becoming rich and (ii) nurturing Hillary Clinton's quest for the Presidency.

In 2001, there was a formidable Clinton political machine, built up by the Clintons over 20 years.

Elements of the machine included (i) a large entourage of loyalists whom the Clintons had benefited with political and governmental jobs and advancements, (ii) an extensive network of campaign donors who found advantage by giving to the Clintons, and (iii) many, many elected officeholders and office seekers the Clintons had helped over the years by Clinton endorsements and fund raising.

From 2000 on, the Clintons needed to nurture their political machine as best they could, pending when Hillary Clinton would make her own run for the Presidency.

The Clinton Foundation was brilliant for doing this.

The Clinton Foundation allowed Clinton loyalists to be put on the Foundation payroll, as would keep them dedicated to the Clinton cause and have them ready for service to a Hillary Clinton campaign when needed. The Foundation allowed for the Clinton network of campaign donors to be continued by providing opportunities for them (and new supporters) to participate in and profit from the Foundation's many worldwide projects. This participation was typically in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and for speaking fees to Bill Clinton. These funds could go to paying the Clinton entourage who were on the Foundation payroll, and also be reinvested in more projects for more Clinton supporters to participate in, leading to more donations to the Foundation. In the flexible minds of donors and the Clintons, donations to the Foundation were early expressions of support for Hillary Clinton's quest for the Presidency, to be recognized by the Clintons on a par with contributions later on to a Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign.

Yes, the Clinton Foundation was brilliant for maintaining the power of the Clinton political machine, serving as a virtual early campaign committee for a Hillary Clinton run for President, and a bedrock for a Clinton family political dynasty to be carried forward by Hillary Clinton winning the Presidency and Chelsea Clinton succeeding to the dynasty.

Clinton corruption and lying
After Hillary Clinton become Secretary of State in 2009, there was an overlap between her global governmental responsibilities and the Clinton Foundation's worldwide activities.

In his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly hit hard against Hillary Clinton on "conflicts of interest" and that she was "corrupt," "crooked." and a "liar."

The main basis for Trump's charges was that there were conflicts of interest in Hillary Clinton's public role and obligations as Secretary of State and the Clinton's personal business, charitable and political interests.

Trump said there was "pay to play" for access and governmental favors, and that Secretary Clinton lied about the use of the private email server to keep the public from learning about questionable and possibly criminal activity related to the Clinton Foundation. This contention was particularly supported by the "bleaching" of 33,000 emails when the private email server became publicly known.

Family political dynasties
Hillary Clinton lost the election, and the Clinton political machine has been weakened. Only time will tell how well the Clinton entourage of loyalists will hold together, and how well will the Clinton network of campaign donors continue to be called on, either to support another try by Hillary Clinton or to be transferred over to Chelsea Clinton.

America has experience with family political dynasties, including the Kennedys, the Bushes, and the Clintons.

Whether these family political dynasties are good for America, or should be avoided, is an ongoing question, for it would seem almost certain that 70 year old Donald Trump's mind has started contemplating a Trump family political dynasty.

What to watch out for
Family members of a political dynasty will naturally think about what will keep the dynasty going.

The elements of the Clinton political machine mentioned above are instructive. The Clintons built (i) a large entourage of loyalists whom the Clintons had benefited with political and governmental jobs and advancements, (ii) an extensive network of campaign donors who found advantage by giving to the Clintons, and (iii) many, many elected officeholders and office seekers the Clintons had helped over the years by Clinton endorsements and fund raising.

What things could Donald Trump do to aggrandize power and be in a position to pass the Presidency on to Ivanka or Jared Kushner?

First, he would give Ivanka and Jared the maximum political exposure possible. This is already in the works. It is hard to imagine any greater political exposure right off the bat than Ivanka and Jared being installed in the West Wing of the White House.

Second, keeping the Trump business empire going can be an avenue to augment Trump political power. Untold numbers of persons and businesses will want to be close, or try to be close, to Trump and the Trump family. Doing business with the Trump organizations is an initial entree, and people will endeavor to express their affinity and support for Donald Trump, and these contacts can be turned to political usefulness for Ivanka or Jared.

Trump's direct contacting of, and negotiating deals with, corporations will afford opportunities for augmenting Trump's political power and for introducing Ivanka and Jared to new contacts who may aid their political aspirations.

It may be expected that Trump will apply his deal making propensities to lawmakers in Congress, and his dealmaking could similarly involve bringing in Ivanka and Jared, who could find that politically useful for them. Ivanka and Jared could start picking up political chits by doing fundraising for the lawmakers they are introduced to and for other office seekers.

Trump lovers who believe in Trump as the Second Coming and savior of the country may want to keep a close eye on whether Trump has an unspoken objective of creating a Trump family political dynasty, and that he may be less than exclusively serving the American people in all things Trump does.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Explaining Trump

My current theory of Donald Trump's conduct is that he has a goal of destroying trust, eviscerating concepts of truth and facts, ratcheting up divisions, and ultimately creating chaos and paralysis in our national governance, all with a view to getting himself in a position to seize extraordinary powers on the basis of that being the only way for the country to be saved. [Related blog entry: A Trump speech - Not]

THE NEW YORKER

JOHN CASSIDY

DONALD TRUMP’S ALARMINGLY TRUMPIAN TRANSITION

By John Cassidy

January 4, 2017

With the House Republicans reversing themselves (temporarily, perhaps) on gutting the Office of Congressional Ethics, and Megyn Kelly jumping from Fox News to NBC News, the 2017 political-news cycle began with a bang on Tuesday. But there was no getting away from the story that overwhelms all others: in sixteen days, Donald Trump will become the forty-fifth President of the United States. Outside the Trump family and the alt-right, is there anyone who didn’t shudder a little as the ball dropped in Times Square on Saturday night?

There have long been serious doubts, even among members of his own party, about Trump’s suitability for any public office, let alone the Presidency. His opponents in the Republican primary described him as a “con artist” (Marco Rubio), a “delusional narcissist” (Rand Paul), a purveyor of dangerous falsehoods (John Kasich), and a descendant of Joseph McCarthy (Lindsey Graham). When President Obama suggested, last August, that Trump “doesn’t have the judgment, the temperament, the understanding” to be President, many senior Republicans privately agreed with him.

If anybody was expecting that Trump would use the lengthy interregnum between Election Day and Inauguration Day to offer reassurances about what lies ahead, he has gone out of his way to disabuse them. For the past two months, he has spent his time publicly congratulating himself on his victory (while greatly exaggerating its scale) and taunting those he defeated; putting together a Cabinet of conservative ideologues, billionaires, and generals; blithely dismissing calls for him to divest his business interests; and—this almost every day—running his mouth on Twitter. In short, it has been a distinctly Trumpian transition.

Perhaps, as the Times’ David Brooks has suggested, we should regard Trump’s online efflorescences as nothing more than perishable Snapchat messages or Baudrillardian simulacra. It is a challenge, though, to be cavalier about a President-elect one day issuing menacing statements about North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and the next day publicly trashing the intelligence services whose job it will be to inform him about nuclear proliferation and other global dangers. Evidently, Trump doesn’t think he needs much professional advice: he already regards himself as an expert on foreign-policy issues, including nuclear negotiations.

And he’s just days away from gaining access to codes that could be used to launch a nuclear attack within minutes—a prospect that has many Americans and citizens of other countries unnerved. The Ploughshares Fund, a venerable arms-control organization, has circulated a petition urging Obama to take U.S. nuclear missiles off high alert before he leaves office. “It’s too late to stop Donald Trump from becoming president,” Joe Cirincione, the president of the Fund, wrote recently. “But it is not too late to stop him from impulsively blowing up the planet.”

To be sure, other men who were ill-qualified, ethically challenged, or potentially unhinged have occupied the Oval Office during the Republic’s long history. John Tyler and Millard Fillmore, two mid-nineteenth-century Whigs, are sometimes cited in the first category. During the nineteen-twenties, Warren G. Harding brought the stench of corruption right into the West Wing, where he played poker with his cronies from Ohio, some of whom were busy enriching themselves at federal expense. And, when it comes to addled Presidents, we have the accounts that have been handed down of Richard Nixon as the Watergate scandal reached its climax—brooding, cursing, drinking heavily, driven to the edge of madness.

But historical comparisons to Trump only go so far. Tyler and Fillmore, the tenth and thirteenth Presidents, were both experienced politicians who were serving as Vice-Presidents when their bosses died. (Tyler had been the governor of Virginia and also represented the state in the U.S. Senate. Fillmore was a former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.) Although Harding’s name will forever be associated with the Teapot Dome scandal, which involved the secret leasing out of federal oil reserves, he wasn’t accused of lining his own pockets. Nixon, a Shakespearean figure racked by personal insecurities, was also an intelligent man blessed with great powers of concentration. According to Arthur Burns, the economist he appointed to head the Federal Reserve, Nixon could have “held down a chair in political science or law in any of our major universities.”

Trump, then, is sui generis. He has no experience in elected office—in these demented times, that was part of his popular appeal. His reputation as a hugely successful businessman has little basis in fact, as does his claim of being worth ten billion dollars. Until he launched his Presidential campaign, in which he showed some genuine skill as a rabble-rouser, his talents had lain in attracting other people’s money, promoting himself in the media, and playing a role on reality television—the role of Donald Trump, the great dealmaker.

If Trump has any ethics, they are self-serving ones. In his business dealings, he has a record of chiselling suppliers; bankrupting public companies; and operating a private outfit, Trump University, that recently settled charges that it was little more than a scam designed to part Americans of modest means from their savings. For many years, it seems, Trump exploited a loophole in the tax code to avoid paying any federal taxes. At times, he has associated with alleged mobsters and shadowy foreign businessmen, including rich Russians who have invested in some of his real-estate projects. (On this, a lengthy article in The American Interest gathers much of what can be gleaned from public filings and court records.) Although Trump poses as a champion of the common man, he is a prime exemplar and beneficiary of oligarchical capitalism.

He is also, as he displayed many times over the past year and a half, an inveterate bully who views the world almost exclusively in terms of winning and losing. Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote Trump’s book “The Art of the Deal,” which helped define Trump’s public brand, has described him as a compulsive liar and a sociopath. Trump’s history of denigrating minorities, inciting racial fears, promoting birtherism, and boasting about sexually assaulting women surely doesn’t need recounting, but one lesser-known incident is perhaps worth recalling. In 2000, after some family members went to court and challenged his father’s will, Trump cut off health coverage to a nephew’s young son who was suffering from a chronic neurological disorder that caused violent seizures and brain damage. Asked by the Times why he took this action, he said, “I was angry because they sued.”

This is the man about to join the lineage of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. In the coming days and weeks, some cynical Republican leaders who have made their self-serving peace with Trump will put on a show of support for him and claim that all is proceeding normally. Obama himself, whether out of a desire to go by protocol or in the hope of exercising some restraining influence, has so far avoided making any public criticisms, even though Trump has shown little sign of heeding the advice Obama offered a few days after the election, when he said, “There are going to be certain elements of his temperament that will not serve him well, unless he recognizes them and corrects them. Because when you’re a candidate and you say something that is inaccurate or controversial, it has less impact than it does when you’re President of the United States.”

Come two weeks from Friday, Trump will be in that position. It is to be fervently hoped that, as Obama predicted in November, entering the Oval Office will awaken Trump to the reality and enormousness of the responsibilities he faces and change the way he behaves. Such a possibility can’t be entirely discounted, I suppose. But, at this stage, does anybody really believe it will happen?

John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a column about politics, economics, and more for newyorker.com.