He is Frank Underwood.

Once again, we should be paying attention to the lessons of history.  As the oft-quoted saying goes, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  The best example which proves the case is the Marshall Plan. After the fall of the Axis powers, Allied governments understood humiliation of the defeated would only result in the rise of new demagogues rallying their countrymen under a banner of nationalism.  While no one would argue Adolph Hitler or Nazism was a good response to what ailed post-World War I Germany, historians recognize conditions in the Rhineland, including the imposition of wartime reparations, hyper-inflation and high unemployment, were a perfect storm which contributed to the rise of an authoritarian ruler.  In 1932, German voters, who legitimately feared for their economic and social well-being, made a bad but somewhat logical choice supporting the Nazi party, leading to Hitler’s appointment as chancellor.

Here’s what makes little sense to me. If the United States was going to have a similar swing towards authoritarianism, one would have expected it to come eight years ago.  In 2008, world financial markets were facing collapse, the value of personal assets (pensions, homes and stock portfolios) were tanking and unemployment was approaching double-digits.  Yet, voters elected a candidate who offered hope, not draconian measures to counter despair.  At the end of eight years in office, President Obama left his successor with a much healthier economy and less foreign military engagement than he inherited. Unemployment is now 4.7 percent, the Dow stands three times higher than it did in January 2009 and housing values have rebounded in most of the country.  American service men and women are not daily casualties.  There has been no equivalent to 9/11.

Which brings us to Donald Trump and Frank Underwood.  In the final episode of Season 4 of House of Cards, Underwood appears to be a presidential candidate headed for defeat.  Then Frank and his wife/running mate Claire join in a game of chicken with the leader of ICO (the fictional equivalent of ISIS) resulting in the violent death of an American hostage.  Underwood’s response, “We do not submit to terror. We make the terror.”  Such a statement might be viewed as a warning to ICO.  However, one suspects Underwood hopes the electorate will be as rattled as the ICO caliphate.

Similarly, in Trump’s alternate world, if conditions do not justify support for authoritarian rule, change the conditions.  Manufactured chaos is the order of the day.  Consider the following analysis by Mother Jones reporter Kevin Drum in which he questions whether there is a method in what looked like an amateurish roll-out of the immigration ban.

In cases like this, the smart money is usually on incompetence, not malice. But this looks more like deliberate malice to me. (Trump advisor Steve) Bannon wanted turmoil and condemnation. He wanted this executive order to get as much publicity as possible. He wanted the ACLU involved. He thinks this will be a PR win…Bannon thinks middle America will be appalled that lefties and the elite media are taking the side of terrorists.

A word to the wise.  If you are in a Washington Metro station and you see Steve Bannon, don’t stand too close to the edge of the platform.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

One of the challenges of writing a blog, particularly one which focuses on politics, is finding fresh perspectives on under-reported events.  The last thing you want to do is be part of an echo chamber.  For that reason, I have tried to avoid piling on where other reporters and pundits have done a sufficient job of making a case against the current occupant in the White House.

However, there is always a breaking point.  So rather than trying to be original, my goal in this post is to start connecting the dots between what Donald Trump says and the way different pundits are addressing his comments.  The particular event which triggered this post was Trump’s use of an example to fortify his claim (though widely discredited) he would have won the popular vote if not for 3-5 million illegal votes cast for Hillary Clinton.  Ironically, the first person charged with voter fraud during the 2016 election was Terri Lynn Rote, a 55 year-old Trump supporter from Des Moines, Iowa.

During a Monday White House reception for the bi-partisan leadership of Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked what evidence Trump had to justify the claim of massive voter fraud.  According to several attendees, Trump used the example of professional golfer Bernard Langer, who he said is a friend and had told him about his voting experience in Florida on election day.  According to Trump, Langer was not allowed to vote while watching others who did not appear to be eligible voters (Trump suggested they were likely from Latin American countries) were allowed to cast provisional ballots.

Langer’s daughter Christina responded to Trump’s claim as follows:

He is a citizen of Germany. He is not a friend of President Trump’s, and I don’t know why he would talk about him.

In other words, within a single, short narrative, Trump again chose “alternative facts” over reality.  To paraphrase Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “How much do I lie to thee, let me count the ways?”

1. Langer is in the United States on a permanent residence status and is therefore barred from voting.
2. Therefore, Langer had no reason to be in a line on election day.
3. Therefore, he would not be in a position to judge who else in line might be an ineligible voter.
4. Therefore, he was not blocked from voting.
5. Although Langer has played golf with Trump, he is neither a friend nor supporter.

Five lies in a single anecdote.  Possibly a new Trump record.  What the Lyin’ King didn’t realize is his anecdote, if actually true, makes the opposite case.  A non-citizen was blocked from voting.  And questionable voters had to go through the provisional ballot process.  The voting integrity process works exactly as it is designed to do.

I thought about calling this post, “The Man-Child Who Cried Wolf,” but Bob Cesca, managing editor of The Daily Banter, beat me to it.  Yesterday, on the Stephanie Miller radio show, he explained why lying about the little things will have serious future implications.  Cesca expects there will be a real crisis when Trump needs Americans to believe him about the perceived threat and his chosen response.  The longer and more consistently Trump and his minions present lies as reality, the less likely he will be able to rally Americans behind any course of action regardless how legitimate it might be.

Which brings me to Keith Olberman.  After observing the first few days of the new administration, he believes Trump represents a clear and present danger to the future of the United States and the planet.  In commentary for Gentleman’s Quarterly he warns any attempt to oust Trump from office must not be seen as a liberal, Democratic plot.  Rational conservatives and Republicans must be part of the group that walks into the oval office and says, “Enough is enough.”

But how does one make that happen? Olberman suggests we forego disagreements about policy in the short term.  Instead, based on Trump’s behavior since the inauguration, we approach Trump supporters and only ask one question.  “Can you look me straight in the eyes and honestly say there is not something seriously wrong with this man?”  Olberman admits that a small segment of Trump supporters are as unstable as their leader and will never join the movement.

But we do not need everyone.  Sometimes one is enough.  Remember, it was Barry Goldwater who told Richard Nixon he needed to resign.  Surely, there is at least one more Barry Goldwater among the Republican faithful.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

I first became aware of Warner Wolf in September 1971 when I started graduate school in Baltimore, Maryland.  Wolf was the play-by-play announcer for the then Washington Senators baseball team, soon to be relocated in Arlington, Texas.  He was also the sports anchor for WTOP television in Washington, DC.  He became famous for his trademark catchphrase, “Let’s go to the videotape.”  He would invoke these five words to complement his description of a specific play or his opinion.  Wolf was modest enough not to expect viewers would take everything he said at face value.  Instead, he would encourage followers to “see for yourself.”

I have been thinking a lot about Warner Wolf in the last 48 hours.  Although he is now 79 years old and largely retired from broadcasting, Wolf is exactly what we need to remind us there is still irony in the question, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”  As the incoming president regularly tries to disassociate himself from his own words and behavior, we need someone who will remind us there is evidence to the contrary.  “Let’s go to the videotape” should be a clarion call to every individual who calls himself/herself a journalist for the next four years.

Yes, the technology has changed.  “Let’s go to the 1080i HD digital video” might be more appropriate.  But you get the point.  There are multiple sources of physical evidence available to affirm or refute Trump’s declarations.  These include video of appearances, audio recordings of radio interviews and posts on social media.  “Let’s go to the videotape” just has a certain cadence which rolls off the tongue.

Following are just two examples in the last 48 hours which triggered this post.  First is Trump’s January 9 tweet in response to Meryl Streep’s remarks at the Golden Globes awards ceremony.

For the 100th time, I never “mocked” a disabled reporter (would never do that) but simply showed him “groveling” when he totally changed a 16 year old story that he had written in order to make me look bad.

LET’S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE.  In this case the “videotape” consists of  the infamous clip of Trump at the South Carolina rally on November 25, 2015.  It also includes NY Times reporter’s Serge Kovaleski’s articles which also refute the charge he had changed his story.

At 4:31 AM this morning, Trump responded on Twitter to breaking news of potentially compromising information concerning his finances and behavior. (Yes, 4:31 AM.  Seems PEOTUS is having a hard time getting to sleep.)

Russia has never tried to use leverage over me.   I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA — NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING.

LET’S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE.  CLIP #1. Trump hosting the Miss Universe Pageant in Moscow on November 9, 2013.  June 18, 2013 tweet, “A big deal that will bring our countries together..  A second tweet, later the same day, “Do you think Putin will be going to the The Miss Universe Pageant.  If so, will he become my new best friend?”

LET’S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE. CLIP #2. Eric Trump, Jr, at the September 2008 Bridging US and Emerging Real Estate Markets Conference sponsored by Cityscape USA, said, ” The emerging world in general attributes such brand premium to real estate that we are looking all over the place, primarily Russia.”  In the same same presentation, in what appears to contradict Trump’s ABSOLUTE denial of any Russian business ties, Don Jr. states, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets.”

Trump supporters argue, even if there are business transactions with private individuals, that does not imply dealings with the Russian government.

LET’S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE. CLIP #3. At the same conference Don, Jr. is asked if the Russian government complicates business opportunities.  He replies, “It’s so transparent–everything is so interconnected that it really does not matter what is supposed to happen as what it is they want to happen is ultimately what happens.”

Dust off your VCR or BETAMAX.  No doubt there will be many more “videotape” moments in the coming year (or should I say in Trump’s case, the coming hours).

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP