Press Rogue — March 8, 2019, 2:19 pm

A Million Turning Points

At the moment the Trump Administration reaches the point of no return, when the president’s erstwhile Republican allies join arm in arm with their Democratic brethren in Congress to remove him from office in a paroxysm of bipartisanship, at that precise moment, it is a sure bet that a New York Times reporter will be sitting in some diner in North Carolina or Nevada, asking a sample of Trump voters whether they still stand with him. We can be sure such man-on-the-street reactions will be integral to the Times’ coverage of the righteous future so frequently slavered after by its opinion writers, if only because the paper has already spent two years taking the temperature of the president’s supporters, asking the same question, again and again: has anything changed?

So far, the answer has been no. “A Deal Breaker for Trump’s Supporters?” a Times headline asked after the president claimed that anti-white supremacist protesters bore responsibility for the violence that left one of them dead in Charlottesville. The answer: Nope. Not this time, either. The paper checked in again following the president’s bizarre, deferential press conference with Vladimir Putin last summer. “Trump Voters Mostly Digging In,” it determined.

In the wake of Michael Cohen’s appearance before the House Oversight Committee last week, the Times gave it another go. The opinions of the latest panel of typical Americans—a retired Baptist pastor, a law student, an antiabortion conservative, a businessman, a gym teacher, and a handful of black barbers—range from bland (“It’s very hard to assess—is there criminal wrongdoing here?”) to incomprehensibly off-topic (“Whether you believe in the wall or not, he’s doing it”). Yet no interlocutor baffles quite like the business owner from Florida who vehemently rejects Cohen’s accusation of Trump’s racism: “I have been to his properties such as Mar-a-Lago and the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., where I have seen plenty of African-Americans on staff. He would not be hiring and appointing African-Americans if he was truly a racist.”

In an “America reacts” story like this, such statements are not to be contextualized, rebutted, or mocked. Readers are simply offered distillations of public opinion, the words of one man (who just so happens to be a Trump donor), which they are meant to weigh against those of the barber in Georgia who believes, “[H]e’s going to get impeached.” By offering these quotes together, the Times hopes to conjure for its readers an understanding of how the nation’s mood has shifted. Or we can just read the headline: “Cohen’s Testimony Does Little to Change Minds.

That may be true. But the fact that five of the nine minds consulted here are either Trump voters or identified as conservative significantly skews how the reader interprets the invariability of their sentiment. By stating that no minds were changed, the Times has confirmed public opinion as both stagnant and sympathetic to the president. Meanwhile, two years of polling has consistently demonstrated that a sizable majority of Americans disapprove of Donald Trump. The article creates the misleading impression that, since no change in public opinion has occurred, Trump’s ability to govern with impunity continues unabated. Given what we know from the polls, such framing is ludicrous. No change in his popular standing serves to further undercut Trump’s leadership, not bolster it.

Then again, the point of these stories isn’t necessarily to replicate an infinitely more rigorous poll. It is to figure out if the dissolution of the Trump Administration has, at long last, begun. “Only time will tell whether Michael Cohen’s testimony to a congressional committee on Wednesday was a blip or a major chapter in the story of Donald Trump’s presidency,” this latest installment begins, but who can wait for time to tell? Indeed, identifying major chapter headings as they arrive has become something of an obsession at the paper.

“Is Trump Doomed?” asked columnist David Leonhardt—by far the most dutiful scanner of the horizon for storm clouds presaging Trump’s downfall—after Cohen was sentenced to three years in prison in December. Days into the new year, while itemizing the case for impeachment proceedings to begin immediately, he wrote, “Trump is vulnerable to any erosion in his already weak approval rating … When support for an unpopular leader starts to crack, it can crumble.” When the government shutdown over funding Trump’s border wall chipped away at his numbers a few weeks later, Leonhardt leapt for the throat, admonishing readers not to “assume that his approval rating has some kind of guaranteed floor. It doesn’t.” Predictably, support for the president rebounded as soon as the shutdown ended.

In his hastiness, Leonhardt shares his reporter colleagues’ misapprehension about the speed at which Trump’s fortunes are destined to turn, even if he refuses to accept their insistence about the lemming-like loyalty of his supporters. Leonhardt, like the rest of the Grey Lady commentariat, is fond of comparing Trump’s situation to Nixon’s, and in his case for impeachment he was careful to mention that “most Republicans—both voters and elites—stuck by [Nixon] until almost the very end.” Leonhardt went on to argue that Democrats will only be able to drag down Trump’s current, sterling numbers with his base by conducting a “series of sober-minded hearings to highlight Trump’s misconduct.”

He’s getting his wish: on Monday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler issued a headline-grabbing eighty-one document requests to government agencies and associates of the president, a move that led Leonhardt’s fellow editorial jockey Michelle Cottle to draw her own parallels to Watergate. “With his investigation,” Cottle wrote the next day, “Mr. Nadler is looking to build a case for impeachment so compelling that it will have enough bipartisan support to survive the Republican-controlled Senate.”

Yeah … good luck with that. Considering that comparisons between Trump and Nixon have become so entrenched that another of the barbers asked by the Times to react to Cohen’s testimony proclaimed, “I think he’s going to resign—like Nixon,” it’s worth pointing out that Nixon was not, in fact, the only unpopular American president, nor the only one incapable of escaping an aura of scandal. Lyndon Johnson declined to stand for reelection, so direly had public opinion turned against him, and Jimmy Carter was no more popular two years into his presidency than Trump is today.

The Times’ inability to acknowledge any other antecedents for the Trump presidency stems largely from the paper’s obsession with identifying a turning point that will be branded into history as boldly as John Dean’s testimony that Nixon directed the Watergate cover-up. Indeed, the role of Dean in Nixon’s downfall figures so centrally in the parallel narrative the Times is attempting to construct that, last week, the paper trotted the man himself out to advise Cohen on how to best challenge “authoritarian presidents of the United States by revealing their lies and abuses of power.” Cottle certainly sees Cohen’s role as akin to Dean’s, and his testimony as the beginning of the end for Trump. “If you thought the past two years of inquiries into possible misbehavior by Trumpworld were brutal,” she writes, “brace yourself. Phase 2 is about to heat up.” This “phase,” in her imagining, will unspool over the next few months and will constitute “a nonstop pageant of subpoenas, hearings and court challenges.”

Setting aside Cottle’s styling of a congressional investigation into a thrill ride akin to a Fast and the Furious movie, her insistence that Cohen’s testimony has triggered a new phase of the Trump presidency betrays an urge to do Leonhardt one better: rather than anticipating the turning point, she has declared it to have already arrived. With bated breath, the Times’ readership now awaits the next “America reacts” story—only by interviewing a handful of barbers, business owners, and stay-at-home moms will they be able to learn if Cottle is right and the tide has finally and conclusively turned.

Unheeded by Cottle or Leonhardt is the possibility that the history of the Trump Administration, when it is over and can be examined as a whole, will not mirror that of Nixon, but rather George W. Bush. After all, the slow, overdue slide of Dubya’s numbers amid the failure of the Iraq War, the debacle of Katrina, and a destabilized economy provides as plausible a vision for the future of Trump’s presidency as any other. Even as Trump has veered wildly from misstep to scandal to relative calm, his average approval ratings have bounced only between the high thirties and low forties. The idea that some combination of Leonhardt and Cottle’s beloved hearings and the release of the fabled Mueller report will pry loose even the most purportedly “reluctant” Trump voters is laughable—but then, so is the notion advanced by the paper’s man-on-the-street reporting that nothing matters. It all matters. It matters so much that Democrats now control the House and untold senators, governors, and Starbucks CEOs are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to knock off the most vulnerable incumbent the Oval Office has seen in decades.

Rather than constantly searching to identify the turning point of the Trump presidency, the Times’ opinionators and reporters would be wise to prepare their readers for two more years of the status quo: a deeply polarized electorate characterized by an abiding majority distrust of the president. Cathartic though some final reckoning might be, there’s hardly a guarantee that such a moment will arrive. This isn’t 1974, and Trump isn’t Nixon. More than a thrill ride, the next two years will likely be a long, frustrating slog. The sooner the Times wakes up to that reality, the sooner its readers will, too.

Share
Single Page

More from Kyle Paoletta:

Press Rogue May 23, 2019, 2:59 pm

One Horse Town

Press Rogue May 16, 2019, 4:00 pm

Playing With Fire

Press Rogue May 9, 2019, 4:00 pm

Boys on the Bus

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

March 2020

The Old Normal

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Out of Africa

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Waiting for the End of the World

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In Harm’s Way

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Fifth Step

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A View to a Krill

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
The Old Normal·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Addressing the graduating cadets at West Point in May 1942, General George C. Marshall, then the Army chief of staff, reduced the nation’s purpose in the global war it had recently joined to a single emphatic sentence. “We are determined,” he remarked, “that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.”

At the time Marshall spoke, mere months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, U.S. forces had sustained a string of painful setbacks and had yet to win a major battle. Eventual victory over Japan and Germany seemed anything but assured. Yet Marshall was already looking beyond the immediate challenges to define what that victory, when ultimately— and, in his view, inevitably—achieved, was going to signify.

This second world war of the twentieth century, Marshall understood, was going to be immense and immensely destructive. But if vast in scope, it would be limited in duration. The sun would set; the war would end. Today no such expectation exists. Marshall’s successors have come to view armed conflict as an open-ended proposition. The alarming turn in U.S.–Iranian relations is another reminder that war has become normal for the United States.

Article
Waiting for the End of the World·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

1.

A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.

I rose long before dawn, too thrilled to sleep, and set off to find my tribe. North from Greenville in the dark, past towns with names like Sans Souci and Travelers Rest, over the border into North Carolina, through land so choked by kudzu that the overgrown trees in the dark looked like great creatures petrified in mid-flight. The weirdness of this scene would, by the end of the weekend, show itself to be appropriate: my trip would be all about romanticism, and romanticism is a human collision with place that results, as Baudelaire put it, “neither in choice of subject nor exact truth, but in a way of feeling.” My rental car’s engine whined as it climbed the mountains. Day was just breaking when I nosed down a hill to Orchard Lake Campground, where tents were still being erected in the dimness.

Article
The Fifth Step·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Harold Jamieson, once chief engineer of New York City’s sanitation department, enjoyed retirement. He knew from his small circle of friends that some didn’t, so he considered himself lucky. He had an acre of garden in Queens that he shared with several like-minded horticulturists, he had discovered Netflix, and he was making inroads in the books he’d always meant to read. He still missed his wife—a victim of breast cancer five years previous—but aside from that persistent ache, his life was quite full. Before rising every morning, he reminded himself to enjoy the day. At sixty-eight, he liked to think he had a fair amount of road left, but there was no denying it had begun to narrow.

The best part of those days—assuming it wasn’t raining, snowing, or too cold—was the nine-block walk to Central Park after breakfast. Although he carried a cell phone and used an electronic tablet (had grown dependent on it, in fact), he still preferred the print version of the Times. In the park, he would settle on his favorite bench and spend an hour with it, reading the sections back to front, telling himself he was progressing from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Article
Out of Africa·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

1. In 2014, Deepti Gurdasani, a genetic epidemiologist at the Wellcome Sanger Institute in England, coauthored a paper in Nature on human genetic variation in Africa, from which this image is taken. A recent study had found that DNA from people of European descent made up 96 percent of genetic samples worldwide, reflecting the historical tendency among scientists and doctors to view the male, European body as a global archetype. “There wasn’t very much data available from Africa at all,” Gurdasani told me. To help rectify the imbalance, her research team collected samples from eighteen African ethnolinguistic groups across the continent—such as the Kalenjin of Uganda and the Oromo of Ethiopia—most of whom had not previously been included in genomic research. They analyzed the data using an admixture algorithm, which visualizes the statistical genetic differences among groups by representing them as color clusters. The top chart shows genetic differences among the sampled African populations, in increasing degrees of granularity from top to bottom, and the bottom chart shows how they compare with ethnic groups in the rest of the world. The areas where the colors mix and overlap imply that groups commingled. The Yoruba, for instance, show remarkable homogeneity—their column is almost entirely green and purple—while the Kalenjin seem to have associated with many populations across the continent.

Article
In Harm’s Way·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ten yards was the nearest we could get to the river. Any closer and the smell was too much to bear. The water was a milky gray color, as if mixed with ashes, and the passage of floating trash was ceaseless. Plastic bags and bottles, coffee lids, yogurt cups, flip-flops, and sodden stuffed animals drifted past, coated in yellow scum. Amid the old tires and mattresses dumped on the riverbank, mounds of rank green weeds gave refuge to birds and grasshoppers, which didn’t seem bothered by the fecal stench.

El Río de los Remedios, or the River of Remedies, runs through the city of Ecatepec, a densely populated satellite of Mexico City. Confined mostly to concrete channels, the river serves as the main drainage line for the vast monochrome barrios that surround the capital. That day, I was standing on a stretch of the canal just north of Ecatepec, with a twenty-three-year-old photographer named Reyna Leynez. Reyna was the one who’d told me about the place and what it represents. This ruined river, this open sewer, is said to be one of the largest mass graves in Mexico.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

An Iraqi man complaining on live television about the country’s health services died on air.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Jesus Plus Nothing

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

At Ivanwald, men learn to be leaders by loving their leaders. “They’re so busy loving us,” a brother once explained to me, “but who’s loving them?” We were. The brothers each paid $400 per month for room and board, but we were also the caretakers of The Cedars, cleaning its gutters, mowing its lawns, whacking weeds and blowing leaves and sanding. And we were called to serve on Tuesday mornings, when The Cedars hosted a regular prayer breakfast typically presided over by Ed Meese, the former attorney general. Each week the breakfast brought together a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians. Three of Ivanwald’s brothers also attended, wearing crisp shirts starched just for the occasion; one would sit at the table while the other two poured coffee. 

Subscribe Today