In July 1971, President Nixon was anticipating some good press. The unemployment rate had dropped from 6.2% to 5.6%. But the press reports that emerged came with an infuriating caveat.
When Nixon learned that the front page of the Washington’s Evening Star said, “The Labor Department warned that the dip might have been caused by a statistical quirk,” he ordered an investigation to find out who was responsible. “He’s got to be fired,” Nixon said.
In truth, Nixon knew that a statistical quirk explained the massive drop. The year-to-year analysis didn’t account for the fact that students were still in school and not seeking work in 1971, whereas they had been out of school and “unemployed” during the same statistical week in 1970. Nonetheless, he was enraged that someone at the Labor Department had stomped all over his good talking point, and he wanted revenge. He quickly learned that there was only one Republican working at the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), but he had another theory about why his good news had been undermined.
Meanwhile, Haldeman tried to find out how many BLS employees were Jews. “What’s the status of your analysis of the BLS,” he wrote to Personnel Chief Malek on July 26, “specifically of the 21 key people. What is their demographic breakdown?”
Malek replied the next day. “We were able to obtain political affiliation checks on 35 of the 50 names listed on their organization chart.” There were 25 Democrats, 5 unregistered, 4 independents, and 1 Republican. “In addition, 13 out of the 35 fit the other demographic criterion that was discussed.” There was a handwritten note: “Most of these are at the top.”
Later that day, the President asked, “Did you ever get the number of Jews that were in BLS?”
“I got their biographies yesterday. I’m having them analyzed,” Ehrlichman said.
Thereafter, an effort was made to cleanse the BLS of Jews by firing and transferring them.
I thought of this history immediately when I began to read McKay Coppins’s piece today on how horrified many Republican operatives are at the prospect that Donald Trump might actually win.
“It’s terrifying,” said one GOP consultant, who like others spoke to BuzzFeed News on condition of anonymity. “He’s not qualified … and it’s a massive problem. I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but at least I feel like some of those jobs that are required for president, she could do them.”
“It would be terrible for America, and for the world,” said another Republican strategist, referring to a prospective Trump victory. “I can’t think of one good thing that would come of it.”
A third Republican said that after watching the Clinton campaign’s missteps in recent days, “I’m curled up in the fetal position watching The West Wing and drinking a basketful of deplorable liquor.”
Nixon was a paranoid anti-Semite with no respect for the rule of law, but it would have been understandable if he wanted a Bureau of Labor Statistics that was a little more balanced than 25 Democrats to one Republican. He had inherited a federal bureaucracy that was built by Democrats and staffed most recently by his two Democratic predecessors.
Yet, try to imagine how Nixon would have felt if he thought, somewhat correctly, that half the Republicans in the bureaucracy were also totally unsympathetic to his administration. This would have required an even deeper cleansing, as his Plumbers went to work not just to identify the partisan and religious affiliations of federal employees, but their actual political beliefs.
And so we can now consider the position Donald Trump would find himself in if he were to actually win the election and become the president. Trump is at least as insecure as Nixon was, at least as prone to weak conspiracy theories, and definitely more narcissistic and vindictive in his personal dealings. As for the rule of law, Trump proposes facially unconstitutional policies on a regular basis.
Nixon had some justification for feeling that the Washington Establishment, including the media and the bureaucracy, were not his political friends, but he exaggerated the malevolence and coordination of his enemies. A President Trump, however, would truthfully find it very difficult to find anyone he could trust, even within his own party. The temptation to investigate and purge would be overwhelming, and that’s setting aside a more legitimate effort to sideline people who are on the record talking trash about him and his candidacy.
Trump doesn’t seem to share Nixon’s rabid anti-Semitism, but he’s unquestionably anti-Muslim. If he can’t trust a Mexican-American federal judge, I doubt he’d trust a Mexican-American labor statistician who didn’t adopt the party line in her remarks to the press.
Now, if you talk to Trump supporters, you’ll hear them say things like “I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’ll shake things up and something has to change.”
But we need to try to envision how that “shake-up” would look in practice. For the Republicans likely to be impacted, they’ve been thinking about that shake-up with more focus as Clinton has struggled in recent weeks.
The adviser added that most Republican donors will hedge their bets and contribute to Trump if the race is close, but he said they are generally less wary of a Clinton White House. “If she wins, they aren’t going to love it, but they’re not going to be facing the apocalypse either — and by apocalypse, I mean actual nuclear warfare.”
Asked why they wouldn’t go on record criticizing Trump, several Republicans said they were worried about professional repercussions from conservative clients. In the meantime, many of them are preparing to do something they once considered unthinkable: pulling the lever for Hillary.
The bottom line is that Washington (broadly defined) does not want Trump to win, has been assuming for months that Trump cannot win, and is not prepared for and doesn’t want to even contemplate what will happen if he does win. And this includes a very healthy percentage of Republicans. For them, it will result in metaphorical (and perhaps literal) nuclear warfare.
So, imagine a freshly minted President Trump trying to staff his administration and find trustworthy allies on the Hill.
Even if he weren’t a spiteful, insecure, conspiracy-minded narcissist, this would be a daunting and probably impossible task. But Trump is actually all of those things. And this guarantees that his “shake-up” won’t be something the American people could or should applaud.
If one wanted to see systematic destruction of the mission of civil service workers, Old George is your model. They came in totally prepared to subvert regulatory agencies and embed like-minded folks long-term wherever they could. Through agency budget cuts and steadily decreasing the number of skilled, experienced civil servants, their work was circumscribed and weakened. Easy to introduce “voluntary” compliance and self-reporting.
Trump seems to me a dog that might catch the car. Who will be his “Rasputin”?(to match the meme, lol) I don’t see Trump breaking a sweat at policy. Who talked to him last? Pomp and Circumstance seems his preferred activity. I just have no earthly idea.
Washington is perfectly content with where they are.
If he wins? Due largely to the absolute mediocrity and duplicity of the Democratic Party’s political apparatus? He won’t give two shits about whether “the American people”…the ones who opposed him…applaud or not.
Y’all can shake your disapproving leftiness fingers at him just like you did when Reagan won. 8 more years of failure. It would be better if you looked in the mirror and shook your fingers at yourselves for acceding to the HRC win…a win that was fueled by the same duplicity I mentioned above. You had a “progressive” candidate and you chickened out.
Deal wid it.
AG
Sanders should just start wearing a Superman suit to fit your image of him.
Didn’t Sanders have the highest favorable ratings, as well as ones for trustworthiness? Not superman, but his lack of personal self enrichment and steadiness in support of the same issues throughout his career certainly stood out against all the other primary candidates in both parties. I don’t think this is a good moment in the election cycle to be taking pot shots at Bernie supporters. Hillary needs all the support she can get, whether reluctant or enthusiastic.
The Republicans wanted to run against Sanders so they held their fire.
I’m not pot-shotting Bernie supporters. I am responding to AG’s original comment suggesting that Sanders would be doing better than Clinton.
Doing better?
On what level?
On the level of honesty?
Yes, indeed.
Does honesty win elections?
Sometimes…but dishonesty never wins. Not really.
Crooks on both sides of a two-sided race?
If John Sterling was a political announcer instead of the Yankees’ radio guy. right about now he be saying:
Watch.
AG
I am going to start applying a simple troll test.
If I write about Donald Trump and the thread becomes about Hillary Clinton, I will seek out who began that diversion and chalk it up to trolling.
If I see patterns of trolling from the same individuals, I will act accordingly.
There’s simply no reason other than trolling that every thread here is now about how shitty Clinton and the Democrats are even when the subject is about other things entirely.
And I am going to take action.
Thank you, sir! Maybe the comment threads will return to their previous usual high quality if the constant hijacks stop.
It needs to be done. Should have been done long ago.
There is a reason. Seeing previously-interesting bloggers like Digby endlessly chase their tails while howling about the Fundamental Shittiness of Trump is unbearably boring. I know how terrible Trump is. I know how shitty the Republican Party is. Every thinking person knows that. It’s like seeing your favorite weather channel frantically announcing that the sun is SETTING AGAIN TODAY OMG every single fucking day.
A blog that is meant to appeal to thinking people doesn’t need to keep repeating that. A blog that keeps repeating that isn’t appealing to thinking people.
The criticism of Clinton is almost equally tedious, but not quite. Why isn’t Trump being suffering for inappropriate donation and possible quid-pro-quo to Bondi? Because he’s blatantly obviously a carnival barker, and supported exclusively by conmen and rubes. It’s like whining that Louie CK gets away with saying ‘motherfucker’ while Chelsea Clinton doesn’t. Spending my time criticizing Clinton on leftie blogs is at least criticizing a politician. Spending my time criticizing Trump on leftie blogs isn’t just preaching to the choir, it’s preaching a sermon about the evils of child abuse to the choir.
This article is interesting to the extend that instead of addressing Trump, it addresses this: “Washington (broadly defined) does not want Trump to win, has been assuming for months that Trump cannot win, and is not prepared for and doesn’t want to even contemplate what will happen if he does win. And this includes a very healthy percentage of Republicans.”
I’d like to hear more about the reaction of ‘Washington’ to the Trump candidacy, and less about Trump and his vapid supporters.
It would be only modestly uncharitable of me to give your response the Cartesian formulation: “I troll because I’m bored.”
Not uncharitable at all, if you replace ‘troll’ with ‘converse.’
Re-read your comment, then mine. Which one is trolling, exactly?
So, you basically explained to me the overriding compulsion to divert all criticism of Trump into criticism of Democrats or Hillary as being driven by boredom rather than malice.
Yet, diverting all criticism of Trump into criticism of Democrats (on a progressive blog) is the definition of trolling.
So, as a formula, it goes like this, “I troll because I’m bored.’
It’s not complicated.
As a defense, it’s plausible, I guess.
It’s still trolling.
In a dishonest system it is always a good time to potshot at honest people, Heart. That’s the way it works. The crooks can’t let them and their morality mess up a good scam, now can they.
AG
No, Booman, he’s no Superman.. He’s just a lifelong progressive who managed to to survive in the DC snake pits for a long, long time. And he came this close to winning the nomination. His numbers…for whatever they are really worth…were consistently better against Trump than were HRC’s; he took a both principled and politically savvy stance against corporate donations and he apparently doesn’t have one behavioral black mark against him in terms of ethics or mainstream morality/common decency.
All of his plusses were of course counted as minuses by the PermaGov hacks, and they did everything in their power…media attacks, electoral and financial sleight of hand…to beat him. They succeeded, only…in their success lies potential failure. Catastrophic failure if Trump wins. For all of us.
Good work, leftinesses. You earned Trump.
AG
I doubt very much that Trump is personally anti-Semitic on the scale of Nixon (more on the scale of ‘my Jew lawyer will call your Jew lawyer’), but he’s certainly mobilized an army of antisemites, to the same extent that he has misogynists and anti-Hispanic and -Muslim racists. (I think his anti-Black racism wins the day, though, in terms of personal rabidness.)
I’ve been trying to figure out who Corey Lewandowski reminds me of. Of course, it is Haldeman.
Someone was talking the other day about how the Republican Party finally managed to excrete Richard Nixon. The right analogy for that case, and for all similar cases, is a fire extinguisher: you can use it to put out one fire, but then it is empty and cannot be used any more. Subsequent fires have to be allowed to burn.
Republicans I know who aren’t voting for Trump seem not to give it a lot of thought. As a colleague put it yesterday, there’s no way in hell he’d vote for that “train wreck.” To them, he’s just obviously unfit for office and shouldn’t govern the country.
This compares to the left, where we twist in the wind over Hillary and Democrats in an ever repeating cycle. Some of us just like to do it to feel good about saying “I told you so (she’s a bad candidate),” others because she’s not the platonic ideal of progressivism, some because she’s “scandalized,” others because she’s rich, others because they are bitter about the primary, others because of various combinations of the aforementioned and more. It’s just a strange irony to me that anti-Trump Republicans seem to have a better handle on the dangerous nature of a Trump presidency than the hem-and-haw left.
It makes perfect sense, lefties care about improving things Republicans dont.
Very interesting essay. Gives a concrete example of what tearing things apart could mean.
Yeah. My guess is that if you are minority of any sort and managed to get a promotion in your agency in the last 8 years, even if you are a lifetime civil service employee, you’re in for a hard time. The assumption will be that you are a political appointee regardless. Not certain where Trump will start. He needs to shift through the generals to find his “Patton” and make sure that he gains control over the justice department. Pretty sure that if you were tasked with investigating police departments, you’re looking for a new job.
The scary thing is that Nixon didn’t have the surveillance tools of the modern NSA.
He did have nuclear weapons–although I believe the record shows that it was Kissinger not Nixon who was most cavalier with them, bringing us to DefCon 3 in 1973.
The idea of these two absolute powers in Pumpkin Spice Hitler’s hands is just too horrible to contemplate.
Gee, I’m anxiously awaiting comments from the folks who tell us that Trump is “a huckster” or “a carnival barker” who doesn’t actually mean any of the crazy stuff that he says.
More “1s” from marduk.
Coward.
AG
Stop trolling if you don’t like it.
Please define “trolling” in this context.
Thank you…
AG
More “1s” from marduk and a new entity.
Cowards both.
Giving a “1” doesn’t mean that you disagree, it means that you think that the poster is trolling. I’m not trolling; I have been an integral part of this blog for years. But of course in the cases of entities like this, it really just means lockstep centrism all dressed up in leftiness clothes.
Step on up to the plate, people. Lat’s see if your mind is as quick as your rating finger.
AG
See my other recent comment.
I do not blame anyone for perceiving you as trolling.
If you weren’t such a longstanding member of the community and so consistent in how you behave, I would be treating you as a troll, too.
If this pattern continues of diverting every post into a different topic, I will have to change my mind and join the others.
It’s all the same topic, Booman, and you know it.
Do whatever you must.
AG
No, possible or appropriate comments here would touch on:
What’s not the same topic is:
1) it’s Hillary’s supporters fault that we even need to discuss this.
Oh.
I will not be censored, Booman.
But…I will now become very quiet here.
We’ll talk again later, after this whole mess shakes itself out into its final incarnation.
Good luck.
You’re gonna need it.
Later…
AG
Career Fed here, have been since Reagan.
Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Obama all more or less played by the same rule book. Yes, you put political appointees into their positions to enact your governing agenda and yes, some of those higher level appointees were more odious than others (think James Watt). Concurrent with this was to get as many of “your” people into the Senior Exec Service as you could. That’s not as hard as you think since most SESs who thrived/moved up under a previous administration obviously saw eye-to-eye with such an administration and seriously disliked having to enact and manage policies they disagreed with. Given the opportunities for SESs in the private sector, they’d bail and the new administration could hire/promote sympathetic people into those positions.
Nonetheless, you didn’t see any real difference in administrations, no really, in terms of day-to-day operations and management because they all knew the unwritten rules and played by them.
That stopped cold when Bush II came onboard. Yes, he did everything above but did it on steroids. Dogma and conservatism mattered more than actual governance. Furthermore, the Bushies had an important second component that the rest didn’t do:
Loot the Treasury by outsourcing everything they could in the fastest amount of time. Said political appointees and SESs were really put in place to do little more than that.
Obama has done what he could to turn that back around but post 2010 midterms, those efforts have been stymied by a hostile Congress who has no interest in governing and wants to make sure conservatism rules in every layer of the government.
Trump would see the dollar signs that looting the Treasury means for his financial interests. And don’t think it can’t be done. Cheney provided the template with Haliburton.
The Bushies were awful. It literally took 3 years for Obama to even make a dent in the havoc they wreaked on the federal workforce. I can’t imagine how it could be worse but Cheeto Donnie will most likely find a way.
valid examples of what you describe.
The one that most stuck with me, no doubt because I was directly involved professionally in matters she corrupted, was Julie MacDonald’s reign of political interference and science suppression at the Fish and Wildlife Service.
MacDonald had no scientific professional credentials that could even plausibly validate her political interference and science suppression:
“…political interference and science suppression.”
Hasn’t stopped either. I follow their antics on wildlife pages.
I have been thinking about these issues at length recently. The more I really contemplate what a Trump administration will look like, the more horrified I become.
It is all of what you said — Trump will make Nixon’s enemies list look quaint. But it is also what he will do about the issues that progressives have been most passionate about — stuff like inequality, global warming, Black Lives Matter, and even civil liberties. These align almost directly with the areas where Trump is most horrifying.
I wrote an essay, “Imagine President Trump,” to share my concerns with other progressives who are not enthusiastic about voting for Clinton. Please consider taking a look: https:/fatherandsonconverse.wordpress.com/2016/09/06/imagine-president-trump
Boo:
Did you know there are Trump/McGinty voters? There are:
http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/09/13/katie-mcginty-donald-trump-erin-elmore/
Another Pennsylvania oddity:
Two major liberal outside groups have endorsed Republicans in Senate races, frustrating Democrats who see the majority as within their grasp.
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which advocates for LGBT rights, and Americans for Responsible Solutions (ARS), which supports stronger gun control laws, are typically aligned with the Democratic Party.
But they crossed party lines this year to reward vulnerable Republican senators who have fought for their issues. Both groups endorsed Sen. Mark Kirk (Ill.), and ARS additionally backed Sen. Pat Toomey (Pa.).
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/295222-liberal-groups-frustrate-democrats-with-gop-endorsements
It actually makes perfect sense to me. Both of these groups see value in having crossover support.
They do not want to be pigeon-holed as liberal or owned by the Democratic party.
So, from time to time, they will endorse Republicans that have expressed support for those causes.
Except everyone knows HRC is beholden to the Democratic Party. Their leadership is the definition of Washington hob-knobbery.
Yeah, that’s just my theory on why they endorsed those “moderate” Republicans. Perhaps for the media cred.