It was probably predictable that President Trump’s trip to France at the weekend for the centenary Armistice commemoration would not have gone smoothly.

As heads of state and dignitaries gathered to mark this unique moment in history, Trump was conspicuous by his detachment.

Given that the image of his presidency depends so much on the perception and language of conflict – particularly in his latest definition of ‘America First’ that presents his brand of nationalism as opposing the spectre of globalism – it was always unlikely he would take the opportunity to claim his nation’s place in the vanguard of world leadership.

Moreover, French president Emmanuel Macron’s pointed criticism of the growth of nationalism could hardly have been misinterpreted. “Old demons are resurfacing,” he said. “History sometimes threatens to take its tragic course again and compromise our hope of peace. Let us vow to prioritise peace over everything.” Later, as Macron, German chancellor Angela Merkel and UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres were inaugurating a new Paris Peace Forum, Trump was boarding his flight back to the US.

But, as Christopher Dickey wrote in The Daily Beast, “The truth is, Trump never wanted to be here in the first place, and his performance on Saturday reflected his trademark truculent petulance. He wanted to be in Washington reviewing a massive military parade all his own, like the one he saw in Paris on Bastille Day 2017 – the same one put on every year here in France – which he had taken to be, yes, somehow about him as well.”

This time, however, such posturing was at the expense of America’s men and women in uniform, for whom, Max Boot writes in the Washington Post, the president showed contempt amid the “irony that he prides himself on being pro-military.”

This disconnect was only reinforced by Trump’s non-appearance on Veterans’ Day at either Arlington National Cemetery or Walter Reed Hospital, as has become customary for sitting presidents. Yet is it – again – really that much of a surprise?

Both as a candidate and as president, Trump’s relationship with America’s armed forces has been rocky; from his well-documented attacks on the Gold Star Khan family and Senator John McCain, to his handling of the leadership of the Veterans’ Administration. But at least the president – who himself never served in uniform – managed to tweet a birthday greeting to the US Marine Corps this week, using the correct spelling.

Meanwhile, more than 5,000 troops missed the Veterans’ Day holiday with their families because they have been deployed on the southern border to await the apparently no longer threatening migrant caravan in what the New York Times calls “an elaborate mission that appeared to be set into action by a commander-in-chief determined to get his supporters to the polls, and a Pentagon leadership unable to convince him of its perils.”

Whether the president’s treatment of the armed services and the apparent hypocrisy in how he talks about them will have any effect with his base of supporters, which includes many service families – or on the morale of the troops themselves – isn’t clear. But it is being openly discussed. Karen Tumulty was even prompted to ask in the Washington Post, “Does anyone love our military less than President Trump?” She writes:

“Though he is nearly two years into his presidency, Trump has yet to visit U.S. troops in a combat zone, something his four most recent predecessors all did. Last month, Trump, who has spent more than 100 days of his presidency golfing, told the Associated Press that he believed such a trip is not “overly necessary. I’ve been very busy with everything that’s taking place here.”

Were those optics not bad enough, the president also appeared to declare war on empathy this week, angering firefighters in his reaction to the horrific California wildfires. So now it’s also hardly remarkable that he might talk of adopting a “war-like posture” against the Democrats in their new position in charge of the House of Representatives.

We’ll return to the changed political landscape in a moment, but one thing this past week showed all too clearly is that the president has no shortage of foes and as the 2020 election cycle begins, the next two years will see all sides digging in for an unpleasant war of attrition.

 

Facing your enemy

The editor of the Washington Post Marty Baron famously said last year, when asked about relations between the press and the president: “we’re not at war, we’re at work.”

But opinion about the press is as divided as the country, while the crisis for journalistic credibility faces its sternest test amid regular onslaughts from a president who well understands the tactical value of undermining the legitimacy of the media who cover him.

The relationship between the White House and its press corps moved into a different gear after CNN’s Jim Acosta had his credentials revoked following a “testy exchange” with Trump. Journalists complained that Trump was “chipping away” at freedom of the press by threatening to do the same to other reporters if they weren’t “respectful.” 

In an editorial, the Boston Globe wrote: “While it’s tempting to dismiss Trump’s ongoing and escalating feuds with some in the media as mere distractions from the more consequential ousting of [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions, both actions are driven by a unifying theme: to escape accountability. Firing Sessions, and using an obscure law to install a lackey in his place, was a clear effort to circumvent the Senate confirmation process and threaten the Mueller probe, while barring a reporter was an effort to intimidate journalists.”

Now, CNN is suing over Acosta’s right to access, and the suit could have broader implications for the rest of the media. The Washington Post’s Margaret Sullivan, who in a column had urged the legal step, saying “words and walkouts aren’t enough” wrote that “Fox News, which benefited from the press corps’ united front on its behalf when the Obama White House tried to exclude it from some briefings in 2009, should pay that solidarity forward by getting on board.”

I’m not sure I’d hold my breath on that front.

*Update – I was wrong, even if Fox’s own media correspondent thought the suit was a “PR stunt”.

As might be expected in the current climate, the media was not necessarily united in its condemnation; journalism organization the Poynter Institute said that Acosta’s actions “don’t represent the best” of the profession, while the Washington Times took a look at what they said was Acosta’s “real job.”

Radio pundit Larry O’Connor wrote: “The more histrionic Mr. Acosta’s actions became, the more screen time he would achieve. CNN was not only permitting and enabling his antics, but they were also rewarding them. As any parent, teacher or employer knows, actions that are rewarded are often repeated. And Mr. Acosta has repeated his actions tenfold.”

Even BBC Newsnight’s Emily Maitlis weighed in on the “theatre” of the press conference itself. “You could argue the president came looking for it – he does well, electorally, when he’s berating the press. But make no mistake. The media also does well when they are baiting the bear. The urge to poke can sometimes seem irresistible. So let’s take a step back. What happened in that room was not the ultimate fight for press freedom. This wasn’t someone risking life and limb against a regime where freedom of speech is forbidden. This was a bloke sitting in a room full of colleagues who were all trying to ask questions too. This was a man who’d had his turn and had been told he couldn’t hog the whole time.”

Whether CNN’s suit changes anything remains to be seen, but as long as the president continues to brand any criticism of him as “fake news” and the press as “enemies of the people” both sides will remain entrenched and occasionally go over the top to continue the fight. The problem with that is that it can often leave the public caught in the information “no-man’s land” in between.

 

A week is a long time…

A lot of Democrats were feeling deflated immediately after last Tuesday’s midterms when the ‘Blue Wave’ appeared to have come up short in key races.

As the outstandingly-named blog Gin and Tacos explained, there was a fundamental reason for such disappointment that went beyond the actual results on the night.

“…You’re sad for the same reason you were so sad Wednesday morning after the 2016 Election. You’re sad because the results confirm that half of the electorate – a group that includes family, neighbors, friends, random fellow citizens – looked at the last two years and declared this is pretty much what they want.

“You’re sad because any Republican getting more than 1 vote in this election, let alone a majority of votes, forces us to recognize that a lot of this country is A-OK with undisguised white supremacy. You’re sad because once again you have been slapped across the face with the reality that a lot of Americans are, at their core, a lost cause. Willfully ignorant. Unpersuadable. Terrible people. A**holes, even.”

But over the past few days, as more votes have been counted and more seats have toppled, the scope of the Democrats’ victory is becoming clearer.

Perhaps the most significant result has been the victory of Kyrsten Sinema in the senate race in Arizona – a breakthrough which could put the traditionally red state in play for the 2020 election. And her Republican opponent, Martha McSally, could still end up in the Senate, as the permanent replacement for John McCain’s seat.

(One Republican congressman, Jason Lewis, who lost his seat in Minnesota, was widely criticized for a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he chose to blame McCain for his defeat.)

Other highlights that came in too late for our previous story from last Wednesday morning included defeat for “Putin’s best friend in congress” Dana Rohrbacher in California, and an unexpectedly narrow victory for Iowa congressman Steve King.

In the controversial Georgia governor’s race, Republican Brian Kemp still has a lead over Stacey Abrams as more outstanding ballots are being counted, while the mess in Florida continues, with a machine recount underway in the senate contest between Rick Scott and Bill Nelson. At times Broward County looks like a re-run of the dispute in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election; although you could be forgiven for thinking this outbreak of popular protest is less ‘Brooks Brothers’ and more ‘People of Walmart’.

As President Trump and GOP officials have been arguing their case surrounding voter fraud the president may not have been aware that in calling for the count to be stopped, Trump was, in effect, disenfranchising military personnel, whose postal votes have a later deadline.

Philip Bump at the Washington Post writes: “Scott will likely win anyway, just as Trump did. To bolster that result, Trump is undercutting confidence in the electoral system. Just as he did in 2016.”

That’s why it was so significant that the Democrats, as they prepare to take charge of the House of Representatives, said this week that their first proposed legislation will focus on strengthening democracy and the voting process.

Meanwhile, with speculation rife about potential personnel changes in the administration, if the president thought the battle over Brett Kavanaugh was vicious, just wait until the furore fully develops over his appointment of Matt Whitaker as acting Attorney-General and the fate of the Justice Department.

And amid intensifying talk that significant developments in the Mueller investigation are on the way, perhaps the only solace for the right at the moment is that it’s almost time for the War on Christmas.

Also published on Medium.