A Party of Institutions In An Era of Distrust

We’ve been discussing a lot of plans and ingenious new strategies for a Democratic comeback which are variously half-baked, hyperbolic, histrionic or merely silly. Here’s one that I believe is not. It’s not even a strategy. It’s simply identifying a real challenge, or a knot Democrats need to untangle.

A key reason that many people are Democrats today is that they’re attached to a cluster of ideas like the rule of law, respect for and the employment of science and expertise, a free press and the protection of the range of institutions that guard civic life, quality of life and more. On the other side, say we have adherents of a revanchist, authoritarian politics which seeks break all those things and rule from the wreckage that destruction leaves in its path. So Democrats constantly find themselves defending institutions, or “the establishment,” or simply the status quo. Yet we live in an age of pervasive public distrust — distrust of institutions, leaders, expertise. And not all of this distrust is misplaced. Many institutions, professions, and power centers have failed to live up to their sides of the social contract.

In short, Democrats are by and large institutionalists in an age of mistrust. And that is challenging place to be.

Continue reading “A Party of Institutions In An Era of Distrust”  

Hegseth Railed Against ‘Insidious’ Security Measures That Kept Far-Right Extremists Out Of Armed Forces

Pete Hegseth is mad.

The former weekend Fox News host and Army National Guard veteran who President-elect Donald Trump tapped to lead the Department of Defense has made blasting the states of the American educational system and armed forces a cornerstone of his brand. And one of the things that has him most worked up is measures that the military’s leadership have taken in recent years to weed out far-right extremists from their ranks.

In a bestselling book and in a Fox special earlier this year, Hegseth aired his critique of security measures designed to keep “patriot extremism” — a term for militia-linked ideology — out of the military. He has also shared his story of personally being dubbed an “extremist” by the Pentagon due to the ink on his body. 

“I have a Christian tattoo on my chest, which is part of the reason why I was — orders were revoked from my unit and I was pushed out of my unit,” Hegseth said during “The War on Warriors” live show that aired on May 10. “There’s new concepts like ‘patriot extremism,’ which is a part of how they review the profile of people serving. So, there are real insidious aspects of what’s happening inside the Pentagon.” 

Hegseth was referring to steps the Department of Defense has taken to address the threat posed by far-right militia members and white supremacists in the armed forces. He went on to attribute this to supposedly left-wing elements in military leadership.

“A lot of ideological people with too much time … staring down at a meritocracy that they don’t control,” Hegseth said in the Fox live show. “You know the left, they don’t like things they can’t control. And they look at the DoD and they say that ‘this is something we need to bring to heel.’”

The Fox special, “The War on Warriors,” promoted Hegseth’s book of the same name, which was published in June. In his book, Hegseth made even clearer his objection to the Pentagon’s steps to remove “patriot” extremists from the military — and contended that he had been among those caught up in the crackdown. 

Hegseth’s central thesis is that liberal concepts have taken over today’s military. This, he explains, includes the concerns about right-wing extremists in the ranks. 

“The shoehorning of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Critical Race Theory (CRT), feminism, genderism, safetyism, climate worship, manufactured ‘violent extremism,’ straight up weirdo shit, and a grab bag of social justice causes that infect today’s fighting force have nothing to do with making our military more capable,” Hegseth wrote in “The War on Warriors.” 

In the book, Hegseth specifically cited a military stand-down to “address extremism in the ranks” that was ordered by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in February 2021. A DoD news bulletin announcing that decision noted it came after the revelation that “extremists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 were active duty service members and others were military veterans.” A substantial number of the people charged in conjunction with that attack had ties to the armed forces. Hegseth also pointed to Pentagon training materials that were leaked in 2021 which outline the “domestic extremist ideologies posing the greatest risk to the DoD.” 

While the documents cited by Hegseth noted other groups, they focused on three different types of radical movements as the most serious threat to the armed forces: “‘patriot/militia’ extremism,” “anarchist extremism,” and “ethnic racial supremacy.” These training materials, which were obtained and published by Politico, included information about “risk factors” and “symbols” to help commanders, who have wide leeway to address these issues within their ranks, to identify members of these groups.

The 17-page briefing that drew Hegseth’s ire described the “anarchist” movement as including left-wing groups like “antifa” and “Occupy.” Under the umbrella of “ethnic racial” extremism it focused on white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. Right-wing groups like the Proud Boys and Oathkeepers were included in the “patriot extremism” category.

“This ideology holds that the U.S. government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional boundaries, or is no longer capable of protecting the people against foreign threats,” the briefing said of the “patriot” extremist philosophy, adding, “Some elements have openly formed militias and openly advocate for the violent overthrow of the current U.S. government.”

In his book, as he criticized these materials and other elements of the Pentagon’s crackdown, Hegseth specifically complained of the measures to eliminate white supremacists and “patriots.” He accused generals of “hunting for racists in our ranks that they know do not exist.” 

“Not only does this document assert that extremism is rampant in the military, but it suggests a new form of extremism I’ve never heard of in the military called … Patriot Extremism,” Hegseth wrote. “If you want an effective military, your target recruiting constituency is … patriots. They’re not on your enemy list. Unless the purge is coming.”

These writings have made headlines since Trump tapped Hegseth to become secretary of defense on Nov. 12. Trump specifically touted “The War on Warriors” when he announced the pick. Since then, Hegseth has faced considerable controversy and sexual assault allegations.

Hegseth’s critique of the crackdown on right-wing extremists merits particular attention since, if he is confirmed, he would have the ability to change those policies. And, despite Hegseth’s contention that “patriot extremism” is made up and that there are no “racists” in the ranks there has been, in addition to the Jan. 6 attack, ample recent evidence that white supremacists and other far-right extremists have made inroads in the U.S. military. 

The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment about Hegseth’s seeming desire to eliminate efforts to weed out far-right extremists from the ranks. In his book and on-air statements, Hegseth only objected to the crackdown on right-wing groups. He did not describe his views on the Pentagon’s efforts to identify and address anarchists and other far-left extremists. 

Overall, in his books and broadcasts, Hegseth made the case that the extremism crackdown was part of a broader problem of far-left ideology in the military that was turning off its “key constituency,” which he described as “normal dudes” and “straight, white men — who represent both the largest portion of the force and the largest drop in recruitment.” 

“For the past three years, the Pentagon — across all branches — has embraced the social justice messages of gender equity, racial diversity, climate stupidity, vaccine worship, and the LGBTQA + alphabet soup in their recruiting pushes,” Hegseth wrote. “Only one problem: there just aren’t enough trannies from Brooklyn or lesbians from San Francisco who want to join the 82nd Airborne. Not only do the trannies and lesbians not join, but those very same ads turn off the young, patriotic, Christian men who have traditionally filled our ranks.”

The idea that liberal ideology poses a grave threat to the country has been a central part of Hegseth’s work. In the introduction to “The War On Warriors,” Hegseth noted the book was “closely tied” to his prior tome, “Battle For The American Mind,” which focused on the dangers of what he dubbed “progressive education.” These writings are an extension of the worldview Hegseth developed during his own college years, when he became drawn to hardline conservative politics and, specifically, concerns about the LGBT community and efforts to promote diversity. 

Hegseth also wears his political and religious views on his skin. He is tattooed and, as he noted in “The War on Warriors” book and Fox special, that ink caused him to run afoul of his commanders. Ultimately, Hegseth said this incident inspired him to leave the Army. In the book and on air, Hegseth claimed the tattoo that caused the problem was a Jerusalem cross, a Crusader symbol, which, he said, got him flagged as “a white nationalist and an extremist.” However, earlier this month, the Associated Press uncovered an email from his National Guard units, which showed his fellow soldiers actually expressed concerns about another one of his tattoos. Specifically, they pointed to the phrase “Deus Vult,” which is a Latin phrase that is also associated with the medieval Crusaders and the concept of “God’s Will.” The email, which was written by the security manager of Hegseth’s unit, said the motto is linked to “members of the alt right,” has seen “White Supremacist use,” and appeared on “far-right internet pages.” Hegseth used the phrase as the closing sentence to one of his books. 

“Deus Vult” isn’t Hegseth’s only tattoo that has associations with far-right extremism. He also has the roman numerals for the year “1775” on his bicep. As the moment Americans took up arms against the British, the date has had significance for a variety of far-right, modern militia groups. It is a particular fixation for “Three Percenters,” a loose coalition of militia groups who take their name from the historically dubious assertion that only three percent of colonists fought against the British. The late Mike Vanderboegh, a militia leader who was one of the founders of the Three Percenters, repeatedly referred to “1775” in his writings and described the first battle of the Revolution, Lexington and Concord, as the formation of the American militia. In “Absolved,” a book that was serialized on his blog, Vanderboegh referred to the date when he described a potential anti-government revolution. 

“Both real sides in my imaginary civil war must be able to recognize the real threat to avoid the conflict,” Vanderbroegh wrote. “You may ask, which sides and what kind of conflict? On one side, just as in 1775, will be the Three Percent.”

In “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth referred to the same date as he railed against the supposed dangers of the “radical Left.”

“If our military, and our Republic, ever truly usurped my constitutional oath and bowed fully to the tyranny of the Left, then — to use a historical example — I would leave the British Army of 1775. I would stand and fight, and advise my kids to find a bridge in Lexington and Concord to stand their ground with me,” Hegseth wrote. 

There have been multiple explanations for Hegseth’s “1775” tattoo. A New York Post article on his ink that was published earlier this month described it as “the year that Georgia joined the other twelve British colonies at the Second Continental Congress.” 

TPM reached out to Hegseth on Wednesday to ask about the tattoo and his position on the Pentagon’s measures to address “patriot extremism” in the armed forces. He did not respond, however, on Wednesday evening, we received a text message from a person who would not tell us their name and asked to be quoted only as “an adviser to Pete Hegseth.” After we agreed to those conditions, they sent a terse text.

“1775 is the Army Birthday you ignorant jackass,” the “adviser” wrote.

We attempted to follow up to note that was not what the Post reported and to ask about Hegseth’s views on screening for extremist ideologies. 

“All I have to say. Thank you,” the person wrote. “Have a good evening.”

Hegseth and his team apparently insist his tattoo has nothing to do with the far-right militia movement. However, in his book, the man who could go on to lead the Pentagon indicated he believes he is unquestionably someone who fits the armed forces’ current definition of an extremist “patriot.” 

“Pushing for gender equality, today’s generals weaken unit readiness,” Hegseth wrote, adding, “Rooting out ‘extremism,’ today’s generals push rank-and-file patriots out of their formations (I’m one of them).”

The Three Horsemen Of The Trump II Apocalypse

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

Finding Some Method To The Madness

Since the election, Morning Memo has deviated a bit from its core mission of making sense of the day’s news for you simply because it’s too soon and too fluid to offer cogent analysis that ties it all together. Or at least it’s beyond my abilities to do so.

We’ve been at similar points of flux in past presidential transitions and during other big upheavals in the news environment. When things get too fast and furious to make sense of, I revert to basic principles of inquiry: Who? What? When? Where? How? Why? Recent Morning Memos have focused more on those raw facts as a way to begin to make sense of things and less on weaving them together into a coherent whole.

While that helps to narrow the focus some, it’s still quite a bit broader than usual and less focused than I prefer. Some days have brought such a torrent of new facts that it’s been hard to differentiate things for you in a meaningful way. This isn’t an excuse or an apology. It’s an acknowledgement of the current news environment and the challenges it poses to our cognition and comprehension.

As I told my colleagues when we were all together in NYC last week, this intensely unsettled transition period will come to a close in two to three months and things will settle down some. But it’s still a Trump presidency, and it has the hallmarks of being at least as chaotic, confused, and unsettling as his first term.

I suspect Morning Memo will gradually return to a more differentiated slice of the news with each passing week, but I hope you don’t feel the need for me to rush or force it. There’s value in observing before assessing. Things will play out as they play out. Pretending to understand more than we do or forcing explanations on events won’t change that.

With all that said, I think we had a pretty good handle going into the election on what the major themes of the Trump II presidency would be and nothing so far has suggested those expectations were amiss.

The Three Horseman Of The Trump II Apocalypse

The three central themes of Trump II for Morning Memo, and for TPM more broadly, are shaping up to be: retribution, corruption, and destruction.

Those play off of and reinforce each other in fascinating and alarming ways, but they each represent a different slice of what Trump has promised, has begun to deliver, and seems likely to continue to be animated by throughout his term.

If you look back over the last two weeks of post-election Morning Memos, you’ll see that they are largely organized around these three themes. We’ll continue to use them as a prism through which to understand what is happening, how to think about it, and why the old constructs of political journalism in particular are not entirely up to the challenge of covering Trump II.

Gaetz Combined Retribution, Corruption, And Destruction

What stood out most about the now-withdrawn nomination of Matt Gaetz for attorney general was that it combined all three of the elements that most drive Trump’s animus.

Taking over the Justice Department and installing as attorney general an ostentatiously unqualified loyalist who himself had been the subject until last year of federal criminal investigation was itself destructive of the rule of law, the traditions and customs of the Justice Department as an institution, and the ethical precepts of the legal profession more broadly.

Using Gaetz to weaponize the Justice Department against Trump’s political foes, perceived enemies, and anyone else who got in his way was the promised retribution against the “Deep State,” including the investigators, prosecutors, Biden administration officials, and others.

The entire endeavor was undertaken with corrupt intent, and that was mirrored in its execution and in the anticipated rewards that succeeding in it might offer. Instead of the usual background checks for nominees like Gaetz, Trump bypassed the FBI, in whose own files lay the details of its investigation of Gaetz for allegedly paying for sex, using illicit drugs, and sexually abusing a minor. Installing Gaetz at DOJ would have served to protect Trump (though the Roberts Supreme Court has already effectively immunized him) and his entire power base from legal consequence. It would have deeply corrupted the rule of law and its fair and even application across the entire range of legal issues DOJ has a hand in, which is vast.

But this isn’t about Matt Gaetz. This is about Donald Trump. Every single thing I just outlined remains true whether it’s Gaetz or Pam Bondi, his replacement as attorney general nominee, or whoever else runs DOJ for Trump.

The Old Coverage Tropes Don’t Apply Here

Analyzing the Gaetz withdrawal in terms of what it means for Trump politically, what it says about the power of Senate Republicans (welcome to the resistance, Mitch McConnell), or what it portends for Bondi’s confirmation prospects misses the point on so many levels it all collapses into a heap of outdated presumptions and myopia.

Even the very anti-Trump analysis that I have seen most often the past few days – he’s nominating a clown like Gaetz in order to sacrifice him and sneak through a still-deeply-unqualified candidate for AG, like a Bondi – falls short of the mark.

Trump wants to use the Justice Department as a centerpiece of his retribution, corruption, and destruction jihad. It doesn’t much matter who is the figurehead for that effort. The fact that it will no longer be Gaetz doesn’t dramatically change the analysis. Trump is the problem. The president-elect is the source, instigator, and prime mover of the malfeasance.

For all of these reasons, the old confirmation dance for cabinet nominees – and the news coverage it drives – has no real salience with Trump in office. Is it better that Gaetz was blocked? Sure, okay. Can we celebrate that as a win? Have at it. Does it change the nature or the seriousness of the threat that Trump poses to the Justice Department, the rule of law, and the constitutional order? Not even a little bit.

Grading On A Steep Curve

Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi has her own issues:

PHILADELPHIA, PA – NOVEMBER 5: Corey Lewandowski, left, and Pam Bondi speak to protestors, announcing that vote counting had halted and a judges order to allow observers within six feet of counting, outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center where election votes are being counted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 5, 2020. People from both sides were gathered. Trump supporters questioning validity of some ballots and Biden supporters pushing for the count to continue. (Photo by Bonnie Jo Mount/The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Now It’s Hegseth’s Turn In The Barrel

  • WSJ: Trump Team Blindsided by Details of Sexual-Assault Allegation Against Hegseth
  • Politico: ‘Profound fear and anxiety among women in uniform’: Pentagon reacts to allegations against Hegseth
  • WaPo: Senate Republicans are more receptive to Hegseth despite Gaetz’s exit
  • Idaho Capital Sun: Trump’s Defense secretary nominee has close ties to Idaho Christian nationalists

A First In U.S. History?

TPM’s Khaya Himmelman, digging in on the GOP power grab in North Carolina:

David Becker, the executive director and founder of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, emphasized to TPM that he is not aware of “any state in American History that has given this important authority to a state auditor’s office.”

How Bad Was Salt Typhoon?

“The Chinese government espionage campaign that has deeply penetrated more than a dozen U.S. telecommunications companies is the ‘worst telecom hack in our nation’s history — by far,’ said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Virginia), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.” –WaPo

Iceland Erupts, Part X

The latest in an ongoing series of eruptions is underway on Iceland’s Reykjanes Peninsula:

Enjoy Your Weekend!

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

My Kingdom for Some Scorecards

I’ve been thinking about this since the day after the election and been going back and forth on whether to say someone else should do it or just do it myself. Still not sure which, but here goes. It would be very beneficial for Democrats to create scorecards right now charting where inflation, unemployment and GDP were at the end of Biden’s term and regularly updating it with Trump’s latest numbers. One of the smaller benefits of this is these three numbers are currently pretty hard to beat. You can only get them slightly lower or higher, depending on which statistic you’re referring to, and you can get them much further into bad territory. I’d also add percentage of people with health insurance, even though that’s not normally considered an economic marker.

Continue reading “My Kingdom for Some Scorecards”  

Sailing Due North Through the Seas of Post-Election Hyperbole

For years I’ve had a love/hate relationship with Tom Edsall, the one-time Washington Post reporter and author who now writes a weekly column about politics for the Times. The love/hate has a temporal dimension. When I was first getting interested in politics as a teen and young adult I was very taken with Edsall’s books. They were very smart and opened my thinking to new ways to approach political questions, particularly how to think about political economy. In recent years he almost always drives me to distraction. I can’t tell you whether he’s changed or I have or, more likely, we’re just no longer in sync. In the 21st century, Edsall seems always to approach big questions with the idea that regardless of the situation it must be a disaster for the Democratic Party.

In any case, I was reading his latest column, which ends up raising some interesting questions about the politics of liberalism and freedom, building off a column by Noah Smith. Edsall starts with a premise that I think is clearly true. Over the last fifteen years or so, many of the more active Democrats (“strong Democrats,” they’re called in this piece) have moved significantly to the left not only of the median voter but even of the median Democrat on issues tied to sexuality, immigration, race, etc. It’s worth noting that being to the left of the median voter doesn’t mean you’re wrong. And it goes without saying — though it remains curiously unsaid in these discussions — that the same is true of party activists on the right. Still, that can create electoral challenges that need to be managed. That’s what the whole Jentleson/Favreau conversation about “saying no” is about.

So far, so good.

Continue reading “Sailing Due North Through the Seas of Post-Election Hyperbole”  

North Carolina GOP Uses Waning Supermajority To Strip Power From Newly Elected State Dems

The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature is attempting to pass a sweeping bill — a power grab tucked inside a hurricane relief bill — in a blatant attempt to shift power away from newly elected statewide Democrats just weeks before Republicans lose their supermajority in the state General Assembly. 

Continue reading “North Carolina GOP Uses Waning Supermajority To Strip Power From Newly Elected State Dems”