This morning the various talking heads programs are perseverating on the size of the crowds protesting Trump’s inauguration, in attendance at Trump’s inauguration, and President Trump’s reaction. PolitiFact’s observations on crowd sizes at recent inaugurations are here.
Here’s my take:
- It is completely unsurprising that the number of people in attendance at Trump’s inauguration would be smaller than the number in attendance at President Obama’s inaugurations, particularly his inauguration in 2009. That was historic and people wanted to be a part of that history.
- Trump is small. We knew that.
- Lots of people vehemently oppose Trump. We knew that, too.
I will defend to the death the right of Americans to assemble and demonstrate peacefully. I think that rioters should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, be subjected to the full penalties of the law.
It’s a stupid, petty thing for the press to harp on. It’s stupid for the Administration to engage on the topic.
For the record, I see that the estimates for TV and on line viewership are estimated to be very high.
They’re mostly harping on Trump’s reaction: he needs to believe that his crowd was larger and he’ll lie to defend that belief.
Sadly I think we’re going to see a lot of trolling back and forth. Trump either consciously or not says thinks that provoke idiotic media reactions (“they take him literally…”) and I think the media increasingly is going to deliberately poke at him to get him to react in the ways that make his opponents hate and fear him.
On the crowd size, #1 was the most obvious reason and the fact that protesters were threatening violence surely kept away some folks who were otherwise considering attendance.
I think another reason the media has been fixating on the numbers relates to their attempts to paint his support as fringe, while Hillary won the popular vote and the crowds were bigger in protest (the women’s march and the protests last Fri) than in support of him.
I agree, CStanley.
I’m pretty indifferent to the size matter, but did want to compliment Hillary Clinton for attending the ceremony. I don’t think I could have done that, I don’t think anybody would blame her for not attending or be surprised if she was under the weather and couldn’t make it. Maybe it was a cynical act for the history books, but I doubt it would actually matter. I suspect that she is trying to figure out what to do next and decided that attending this ceremony was what normally a First Lady would do and achieving normality is what is important right now.
Yes, it was a gracious act and to her credit.
I think focusing on “crowd size” is petty – an unfortunate continuation of one of Trump’s most pronounced public personality flaws.
Having said this, though, there were definitely obstructive irregularities noted by people who traveled to the inauguration, but failed to gain access. A poster describing these circumstances – someone who was a vocal anti Trump voter – had friends who went to DC, one escorting a group of 60 HS students. Their experience was that a number of access gates were totally blocked by protesters. Some were 6 deep locking arms, while others had protesters chained together.
Apparently the police did nothing to discourage protesters from physically blocking access to the inauguration, as well as making it virtually impossible for many to even attend the parade, as the ones who did get in, did so by passing through gates on the wrong side of the parade. Afterwards they were then not allowed to cross the parade route to get to where bleacher seats had been set up.
In the poster’s own words, “There were TENS and TENS of thousands of people with them, trying to get in but never made it.”
I do believe that yesterday’s anti Trump rally had a much easier time of it, with no opposition group opposing attendees’ access to an event they believed in, and some had traveled great distances to participate in.
Also, while many were denied an entrance to the inauguration, the Neilson numbers indicated that viewership was only 2nd to Obama’s 1st inauguration – approximately 30 mil to 37 million — since Reagan’s inauguration which had over 40 mil turning in. Furthermore, the 2017 figures do not include streaming the event on computers and other social media sites – a measurement which would significantly add to the viewership tally.
PD,
Well said.
On the issue of size, I only think it matters for people who want to keep score. In a month (or probably more like a week), no one will care as there will be a new shiny to latch on to.
I have a lot of friends and relatives to went to one of the marches yesterday – it was a remarkable cross-section. I wish Americans were that participatory more often.
When more people turn out for protests than actually attend the inauguration, I think that’s important. It doesn’t directly block bills, or prevent the new President from signing anything, but it serves as a rallying point for the opposition.
When the administration lies about easily verifiable things, I think that’s important. We are past Trump exaggerating here, and are now at the point where Trump is sending people out to lie on his behalf, or use “alternate facts”. The casual disregard for the truth it unpresidented.
Jan: Their experience was that a number of access gates were totally blocked by protesters. Some were 6 deep locking arms, while others had protesters chained together.
This will, hopefully, be a metaphor for the entire opposition to Trump. Blocking everything. Blocking efforts to cut access to women’s healthcare. Blocking efforts to repeal Obamacare without a replacement. Blocking efforts to give tax cuts to the wealthy. Blocking efforts to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Gustopher, I fully support peaceful protest rallies, like the anti Trump ones yesterday appeared to be. However, the flip side of the coin is to respect the peaceful gatherings of those who may hold totally different political views.
I also agree there will most probably be lots of partisan bickering and blocking throughout at least the early days of this new administration. What remains to be seen, though, is how such insistent resistance will be viewed or even tolerated by mainstream citizens across the country.
Of course the squeaky wheel usually gets more attention than the ones making no noise. But, that doesn’t always predict the results it ultimately produces in the quietude of the voting booth. Basically, while many appear to be united in their opposition to a governance turning away from social progressive policies., others may find an even greater resolve to holding the line on the reinstatement of an ideology they have grown weary of over the last 8 years.
“We are past Trump exaggerating here, and are now at the point where Trump is sending people out to lie on his behalf, or use “alternate factsâ€. The casual disregard for the truth it unpresidented.”
That’s the Press Secretary’s job. For Trump it’s a difference in degree, not a difference in kind.
What is held as a “truth” to one person can be seen as a “lie” by another. And, what is denounced as a bold face “lie” by someone, may be embraced as the welcomed”truth” by another.
1) Obviously the Women’s March was bigger than the inauguration. Absolutely no credible source denies it.
2) Trump as usual behaved like the needy Man-Baby he is and sent poor, dumb Spicer out to utterly obliterate his credibility.
3) Which stiffened the spines of the media.
4) And demonstrated Trump’s pure incompetence. If you don’t want the story to be, “Women’s March Way Bigger,” you don’t send your spokeshostage out to blatantly lie.
5) Scoring it as a simple who won, who lost, the answer is obvious. Trump lost. Day 2 and he’s already suffered a self-administered beating.
6) All this has materially increased the possibility of impeachment down the road. It’s beginning to slowly, slowly dawn even on some of his supporters, that this Trump is all the Trump we’re ever going to get. He is not capable of more. His weakness empowers his enemies, including especially those within his own party.
So, yes, it matters, it matters a lot, because it sends a message to the media, to the Senate, to future presidential wanna-bes, to state houses and legislatures, to foreign powers, that the American body politic is rejecting Trump like a bad tissue match.
Every single thing he has done so far has fit perfectly with my belief that he is a psychopath.
He’s a psychopath. He will not stop being a psychopath. There is no other Trump, no adult Trump. The 46%, given a choice between hiring the dull but competent candidate instead picked the worst person ever to reach the White House in modern times. That’s why the march matters and his idiot overreaction matters, because it all reveals character and eventually people are going to figure out what any fiction writer knows: in the end it’s always about character.
You know, Jan, the reason we teach Orwell’s 1984 in schools is not in hopes of people growing up to embrace Big Brother. Are we fighting Eastasia and loving Eurasia? Or is it the other way around? Golly, who can say, right Jan?
Do you plan to stay checked out of reality for the next four years? Is there a point when you might run out of excuses for a man who embodies everything you once despised in a human being? Everything you would still despise if you weren’t in the tank?
Michael, I don’t feel checked out of a reality that has yet to really engage in changing the country – one way or another. What is this, Trump’s 3rd day in office, with 2 members of a cabinet confirmed, a hand-full of signed EOs that are more administrative, along with his signature comments that are either relished or mocked, depending on partisan alignments???
There really is not much to judge the newbie president on yet, except with respect to the perspectives people cultivated of him during the way too long primary and GE. Yes, I voted for him without enthusiasm. And, I will give him a beginning run at proving his competency or incompetency in taking on the challenges of a very tough job.
What I do find unseemly were the inauguration day protests denying people their rights of personally attending it, as well as the vandalism that took place, mostly by fringe leftist organizations. I’m glad the same kind of disrespect wasn’t repeated at the Woman’s March the following day. I also think Trump’s obsession with having bigger of anything, in relationship to his competitors, is dumb, as was Spicer’s knee-jerk scolding of the press. I hope these kind of responses will change for the better in the future.
.
I feel there’s a lot of cause for concern regarding Trump but the reactions from the left are disproportionate to the point of being unhinged IMO. I find myself more alarmed at the reactions, and angry at the irrational fear mongering that has triggered them, than I am about Trump himself. Unfortunately it’s a feedback loop too, and the situation seems more volatile each day.
Whether the reactions are disproportionate remains to be seen. That’s about as much as I can say at this point.
Organizing in opposition may be effective or counter-productive depending on the nature of the organization and where it takes place. If it takes the form of grassroots political organization in states that Trump carried, esp. North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, it could be effective. If it takes the form of increased mobilization in states carried by Clinton, e.g. New York, Illinois, California, it might be satisfying but will be meaningless. Hillary Clinton could have received another 10 million votes in those states and the outcome of the election would have remained the same.
If organization takes the form of protests and demonstrations, it’s risky. It doesn’t take many “anarchists” to turn a protest nasty and enough violent protests could do substantial harm to the credibility of the opposition to Trump.
Reactions by definition are triggered by actions. There have been no actions yet. Mass protests thus disproportionate.
Even more so, the rhetoric of the movement, which is in response to the bogeyman of Trump created by media (mainstream, new media, and social media) rather than the man himself.
CStanley:
de·lu·sion·al
dəˈlo͞oZH(ə)nəl/
adjective
characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
Politics at its worst is about inflaming passions, Michael. I tend to see mental health as a spectrum- we all have irrational fears that are exploitable.
Dude. We’ve seen the man. The man won’t stop showing us his vulgar, cretinous self. He’s everywhere. He’s been on-stage for decades. He’s just a Russian stooge, not actually a nesting doll, there is no other Trump ready to pop out. People do not undergo character transformations at age 70.
Which makes your statement what? Delusional.
I’m not a dude and I do agree that Trump is vulgar. I’m focusing on the policy- don’t see why LGBT are worried, for instance, and for liberal women really it’s a mixed bag with some of his proposals much more friendly to their agenda than most GOP would have been. The feminist movement, which has not been the voice of women like myself for many years-seems now to be all about abortion though (with the added internal inconsistency of getting govt financing of birth control- like teenagers who want the parents to leave them alone right after they give them money to go to the mall.)
On character and Russian influence, your side’s arguments suffer from lack of consistency. To me, character does matter a great deal, as it did when Bill Clinton was POTUS. You’ll get no arguments from me that he was more intelligent and qualified than is Trump, but you’re the one making this about character. Bill may have been slightly more discreet (and had cover from a friendly press corps) but no more honorable with regard to women and sexuality.
So it seems to me, boorish oversexed prick who supports abortion rights = no problem for feminists, while boorish oversexed prick who probably doesn’t care about abortion but is likely to appoint a pro life justice= Cataclysm.
You’ve mentioned several times that there will be no other Trump emerging- I’m not under that delusion and don’t know anyone who is. I hope he doesn’t do too much damage and can see a few ways in which he could have some successes, and see a few people in his inner circle that I hope will hold sway and I hope they are as they seem to me, reasonable and smart individuals (Jared Kushner in particular, comes to mind.)
Some of the biggest anti Trump rallies took place in major CA cities, NYC, Chicago and the like. These are all Dem strong holds and I would expect nothing less, especially with Soros’s bitterly infusion of monies and partnerships in these movements, resisting anything that interferes or counters his global sense of world politics.
What, and have to care for someone other than himself? Impossible.
Psychopath. <— I'm singing it now, because I'm right and three months from now you'll all agree.
CStanley, agree with your comments regarding the people Trump has nominated to be around him, who may buffer some of his earlier stated stances. jared Kushner is an especially interesting, innovative player – 35 years old, smart, and above the fray of contentiousness. I think people like Michael are stuck in their prejudice towards an opposition party who is now in the position to drive policy, even though policy has only been suggested rather than set into actual motion.
“with the added internal inconsistency of getting govt financing of birth control-”
How is that internally inconsistent? Not seeing that. They want to have access to abortion. Ideally, they would like to have their insurance cover that if they want, but that was negotiated away in the ACA. So, they would like to have BC included on their insurance as an option. Just don’t see the inconsistency. Also, as you may or may not know, the long acting forms of birth control are significantly more expensive up front, but much, much more effective and probably costs less in th long run. The ideal kind of thing for insurance to cover.
As to the lies, Trump now says he won’t release his tax returns. Who among us is surprised that he lied about releasing them after he was elected. We will just have to trust him when he says he has no conflicts of interests. Of course the Drews and jans of this world have complete and total faith in the guy and believe everything he says, so they will be fine with this. I think the rest of us are more along the trust (maybe) but verify school of thought. On second thought, I am not sure why we should really take the word of any politician when we can have proof.
Steve
Tax returns, deleted/destroyed emails …who determines what is most important? Neither candidate had a wonderfully perfect tract record. And, if HRC had won do you think she would have turned over her Wall Street speeches or emails?
CS:
1) I’m a native-born Angeleno. Everyone is ‘dude’ regardless of gender, just as they were previously, ‘man.’ I skipped the bro phase.
2) Trump controls the SCOTUS and has an administration riddled with fanatical anti-abortion and rabidly anti-gay folks like the VPOTUS, so I’m surprised that you’re surprised that women or LGBT would be concerned. Perhaps adjust your radar to sweep further out?
3) I should clarify. I tend most often to use ‘character’ in the fiction writing sense. It’s not a morally-freighted word used that way, it’s a set of attributes and characteristics. I could for example describe Nixon as a great character while simultaneously deploring his character.
4) One boorish oversexed prick is in our past and has no office; the other is in our present and future and holds the White House. Which do you think one should worry about? The relevant one or the irrelevant one? Has time travel been perfected and no one told me?
5) Ah, the mythical Trump-Tamer. Tell me, can you think of a single case in history in which a man of great wealth, fathomless narcissism, and the self-control of an ADHD 5 year-old has grown into the job? At age 70? Ever read Lear? Power does not make people sane, it tends to have the opposite effect.
6) Now, I have a question: Can you show me any of Trump’s statements or public positions (a moving target, granted) that run counter in any serious way to the desires of Vladmir Putin? And a second part: Can you point to a single significant person not related to Trump who he has ever favored with such enthusiastic such tongue-bathing? Last part: Why?
The inconsistency is baked into having more government involvement in health insurance. My point is that the chants about keeping hands off of various reproductive organs, or keeping government out of the bedroom, are not consistent with the expectation of payment for contraceptives.
jan:
Is that you, Kellyanne?
Have to get some sleep so I may tackle a few more of your points in the morning Michael but on #4 obviously I’m not suggesting feminists should be protesting Bill Clinton in 2017, just pointing out that they lost their credibility in the 90s.
CS:
“They?” My kids are both feminists and they’re in their teens. The sins of the mothers are not to be visited upon their daughters.
Damn. The Sins of the Mothers. Tell me that’s not the title of a bestseller. Coming to an airport near you.
Great, fwcking Danielle Steel used it not that long ago.
Michael, you seem fascinated by what you constantly describe as a close Putin/Trump “romance.” What brings you to this deduction, other than Trump referring to Putin as making “nice” references to him? These men haven’t met, haven’t personally discussed issues, nor have they negotiated any deals, policies etc.
OTOH, it was Obama who wanted a reset button at the get go of his first term, and showed a nonchalance with Russia taking over Crimea, and threatening Ukraine. And, just before his 2012 preelection, was caught on an hot mic, reassuring Russia that he would have “more flexibility” upon entering his 2nd term. What about the Russian genocide in Syria? Where were your concerns about possible WH/Russian collision, troubling interactions with Russia, and dismissal of Russian aggression then?
Steve — As to the lies, Trump now says he won’t release his tax returns. Who among us is surprised that he lied about releasing them after he was elected. We will just have to trust him when he says he has no conflicts of interests.
There are so many potential conflicts of interest that we can reasonably expect some will end up in court, and that tax returns will come out in disclosure.
Jan — OTOH, it was Obama who wanted a reset button at the get go of his first term, and showed a nonchalance with Russia taking over Crimea, and threatening Ukraine.
Would you have preferred a shooting war? We put sanctions in place that are hurting Putin, and short of military force, that’s the best we can do. Unless you have a better idea?
Obama has deployed some troops to the Baltics, so they would be a trigger for direct American involvement if Russia wanted to expand northwards — that’s pretty aggressive.
As far as Syria goes, it’s going to be an unmitigated disaster, and the less involved we are, the happier I will be. If we could do something, and not do more harm to ourselves than help to the locals, I would support it. But, we already have two long wars in the Mideast.
For the record, I think it was a mistake to expand NATO to Russia’s borders. NATO existed for one purpose only — to oppose the Soviet Union. It was needlessly provocative, undermined Yeltsin, and set us in opposition to Russia from the 1990s on.
There may well be security issues that require coordination across Western and Eastern Europe, and we should have had a new organization for that. And, possibly included Russia.
Ugh. Just read my last. Expanding NATO to Russia’s borders was needlessly provocative. NATO itself was not.
That’s right. Expanding NATO after 1999 (arguably after 1955) did nothing to make the members of the alliance more secure.
@michael-
Regarding your kids and the current generation of feminists-what is the statute of limitations on having to own the reputation of a political movement or party? I’m just confused because I’m pretty sure I’ve been lumped in with racists because Nixon decided to woo the Southern Democrats. It’s kind of funny how some people get to pick and choose what their own individual political participation means while insisting that they can read negative associations into other people’s actions.
Back to Trump- my hope that cooler heads will prevail is just that, a hope, not an expectation. I think there is an argument that ADHD (frankly I’m not sure it’s not bipolar hypomania, though one would assume that he’d require mood stabilizers and that would have leaked by now) might contribute to his advisors and Cabinet having more control than they would if he was inclined to keep his focus. I was disheartened over the stupid crowd size dispute right out of the gate, but I’m starting to wonder if the best case isn’t for Trump to spend his time embroiled in these spats over minutiae while other people run the government.
On Russia- I’m a Pole, so Russophobia is in my DNA (ancestors lived in the Russian partition and fled during Russification period.) So I’m not pushing back against concerns there, and more broadly I have concerns about his obsession with strongmen. I was simply mentioning the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, having suddenly decided that Russia really is a geopolitical foe.
Well, it will be interesting to see how the Trump administration will actually govern given all the inconsistencies.
CS:
I don’t quite buy this because I’ve been in about a thousand of these debates and I know the beats. The song goes like this: a) The GOP is racist. b) No it’s not, the Democrats are, what about Robert Byrd? c) Robert Byrd is dead, and yes the D’s used to be Team White People, but that position was taken in the mid-60’s by Nixon with the Southern Strategy.
So, I doubt anyone has ever called you a racist simply on the grounds that the GOP made a racist choice in 1968. If they did they were wrong. Just as you were wrong to conflate a 19 year-old woman today with Gloria Steinem, or to dismiss a movement just because you’ve discovered the existence of (!) hypocrisy.
Pity the ‘other people’ are mediocrities, toadies, idiots, paranoids and escaped mental patients whose statements and actions can be undercut at any moment by the Man-Baby tweeting.
The Poles came out of WW2 with the least effective propaganda ever. The Poles were heroes of that war; victimized by both the Nazis and the Communists. The most effective resistance aside perhaps from Tito. The most active expat military force, eventually equalled by the Free French. It was crazy-ass Poles who took Monte Cassino. Polish RAF pilots were unrivaled in shooting down the Luftwaffe. The Free French had to be coddled and soothed and stroked constantly, the Poles by contrast were pit bulls tugging at the leash.
I just finished writing a fairly massive alternate history of WW2 (alternate mostly in the sense that SCOTUS made women subject to military service, but otherwise 95% accurate) and I really wanted to find a way to highlight Polish patriotism and courage, especially in contrast to dishonest Russian propaganda, but couldn’t make it work.
I wish you had been able to make that work- lots of untold stories there. We’ve found two relatives who fought with the AK in the Warsaw Uprising.
CS:
My approach was to do minimal damage to actual history beyond a) adding women soldiers and b) advancing the combat involvement of African-American units. It was a strain to get all the way from training to the liberation of the camps, and God knows my girls did more than their share, showing up for practically every major battle besides Anzio. (Time conflict with Normandy.) But I just could not find a way to get to the east without making a hash of it. It’s a pity. There were no saints in that war (and we could talk about Polish anti-semitism) but there were a couple of lions and the Poles were terribly brave in the worst possible circumstances – and they were brave without needing NKVD execution squads standing behind them.
This is the list of the Righteous Among the Nations, the gentiles who rescued Jews from Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_Among_the_Nations_by_country Pride of place goes to Poland, despite rampant anti-semitism, with 6,620 heroes named.
So, maybe volume 2 of the series?😊
Would love to see some of those heroes get their due- like Witold Pilecki.
We found our two distant cousins on the Warsaw uprising website, learned that they fought and were captured by the Nazis. There’s a YouTube video of the surrender (after the shameful episode where the Red Army stopped across the Vistula and watched the Poles get slaughtered) and we’re convinced one of the soldiers shown is our cousin because the family resemblance is so strong (no way to know of course.) Would love to find out more, might try to trace the lineage to surviving family members and hopefully make a trip to Poland.