How Federal Workers Will Be The First Casualties Of Trump II

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

Consequences Big And Small

This off-the-cuff thread by David Roberts is spot on about one of the foundational shifts that would occur almost undetected in a Trump II presidency:

People lament the “post-truth” era we’re living in. Misinformation. Epistemic bubbles. Algorithmic distortions. Etc. But I need people to understand that we really haven’t seen anything yet. Though we take them for granted & they’ve seen better days we still have largely functioning information-producing institutions. We still have something approximating a handle on what’s happening around us. All of that goes away under Trump – any vestigial connection to objective reality. Then *everything* is propaganda. 

All of this is undergirded by a relentless projection by Trump and his acolytes: They assume all government information is propaganda because that’s exactly what they would do if in charge. So in their own minds, they’re just wresting back the propaganda apparatus from their foes. It’s a deeply flawed logic, but there is a logic to it.

It reminds me of a similar projection that right-wing media orgs were making a decade or so ago about news outlets like TPM. There must be an all-hands-on-deck daily morning call among all the lefty pubs to get their messaging straight for the day ahead because that’s exactly what the top-down right-wing would do: Take marching orders and proceed to execute them.

Nothing even remotely like that was actually happening on the left (or … I never got the memo). But it was partly why there was such a freakout over JournoList, because that seemed to confirm the assumption: a cabal of left-leaning journalists conspiring to manage and direct news coverage via a hidden hand.

So much about that was laughable, including the capability of left-leaning journos to manage or direct much of anything. But what made it kind of sweet was that quite a few emerging right-wing outlets at the time used their erroneous projections about places like TPM to formulate their own business plans and then were surprised to see them flop. They’d totally misdiagnosed the underlying reasons for (modest) success and tried to emulate the wrong thing. No surprise that that didn’t work.

The analogy runs out of usefulness at that point because the government isn’t a going business concern that can be run into the ground fairly quickly. The metrics are different. The consequences are much more vast. Liberty, freedom, equality, and democracy are at stake, not a financial bottom line.

Right now, all across the federal government, people are acutely aware of what a Trump II would mean for them and their work. Whether it’s the good folks at NOAA (the Sharpie photo above is a bitter reminder of what we may face again) doing the hard work of marrying science with public communications, the line prosecutors bringing Jan. 6 rioters to justice, or the phalanx of inspectors, auditors, and examiners who do the daily work of the government, they’re not oblivious to the three years of Trump threats of retribution and revenge.

You can only hope that they’re not already consciously clipping their wings to take the edge off their work or minimize their exposure. It would be a mistake to self-censor, but you can certainly sympathize with their plight. Some may be self-protective, with careers, pensions and personal financial viability on the line. Others may be legitimately trying to shield their work in the short term so they can resume it in earnest later. Regardless, it’s hard to imagine it’s not having an effect subconsciously already. You think they don’t remember Trump I episodes like vindictively moving BLM’s headquarters from DC to Colorado?

If Trump were to win, we’re only a few months away from reaping the whirlwind, and the government workers once again will be among the first and hardest hit.

Join Us Tonight!

The TPM crew will be covering the first presidential debate tonight live. Stop by for the liveblog or Josh Marshall’s musings in the Editor’s Blog. Or … if you just can’t bear to watch the debate, check in after the fact for our analysis and highlights. Either way, we have you covered.

Our Occasional Peek At The Polling Numbers

• NYT/Siena: Donald Trump leads Joe Biden 48%-44% among likely voters nationwide, his largest lead to date in this poll.
• Marquette Law School Poll: In Wisconsin, Biden has a narrow 51%-49% lead over Trump among likely voters in a head-to-head matchup, a four-point swing in Biden’s favor since April. In a hypothetical six-candidate race, Trump takes a similarly narrow 44%-42% lead over Biden.
• Nate Silver has unveiled his new post-FiveThirtyEight election model: It gives Trump a 66% chance of winning in November.

2024 Ephemera

• Politico: Here’s where the House GOP is spending this fall
• Under the Radar: Biden quietly had his biggest online fundraising day after Trump was convicted.
• TPM’s Emine Yücel: Republicans’ Pasts Haunt Them As They Rush To Support Reproductive Rights They Put In Harm’s Way

Supreme Court Snafu

The Supreme Court inadvertently published to its website what may have been the final draft of its decision in the Idaho emergency abortions case. Bloomberg was the first and maybe only outlet to spot it.

There’s a lot to chew over there, even as it remains unclear whether this was a draft or the actual decision:

• Politico: Supreme Court ‘inadvertently’ exposes opinion that would restore emergency abortion access in Idaho
• Mark Joseph Stern: The Supreme Court’s New Leaked Abortion Draft Reeks of Cynicism
• Steve Vladeck (sub. req.): The EMTALA Glitch

SCOTUS Does Normal Thing In Jawboning Case

First off, now that the case has been resolved in a positive and normal way, I want to celebrate the fact that it ushered in a new era for the marvelous term “jawboning.” I’m not sure if the term was at risk of being lost to the dustbin of history, but it’s sure been brushed off and buffed to a new shine with this case. Nice to see!

TPM’s Kate Riga writes on the substance of the decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which focused on standing and did not need to reach the underlying merits. I will say, though, that this is one of those cases where the standing issue was so glaring that it ends up feeling like a merits decision anyway.

Well Played, Sir

In yesterday’s other Supreme Court decision, it ruled that federal law distinguished between bribery (illegal) and after-the-fact gratuities to reward prior actions (not illegal). The court, consistent with its decade-long pattern of antipathy towards anti-public corruption statutes, opened a hole in the law big enough to drive an armored car full of goodies through. But let me yield to Elie Mystal on this:

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!