A "Unified Reich," a Signal to Keep a Reporter Jailed, and Election Denial Becomes a Basic MAGA Article of Faith
...make no mistake, we're in a war for the soul of this country
The news cycles keep one’s head spinning and make it hard for this amateur journalist to decide what stories to focus on. In this edition we’ll briefly discuss Trump’s aspirational “Reich;” the ongoing GOP attack on accepting election results when they lose (Democrats have won the popular vote in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections after all…gotta be prepared); Trump’s signal to Putin about an unjustly jailed WSJ reporter; and the perfidy of Fox “news.”
This leaves for later blogs the blatant, shameless exhibition of bias by the flags flying at “Justice” Alito’s residences, Trump’s shakedown of and promises to oil company execs to roll back any progress on climate change and fossil fuels in return for campaign cash, and the Supreme Court’s continuing assault on voting rights, and democracy itself.
As always, check out the links. They bring more detail and depth than I can.
All Hail “A Unified Reich”?
Last week Trump’s social media feed featured an ad supposedly depicting headlines about the things that would happen in a second Trump administration, with the establishment of a “Unified Reich.” Coming from the feed of a candidate who has called people he doesn’t like “vermin” who are “poisoning the blood of the country”; who has said there were “very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville in 2017; and had dinner at Mar a Lago with a Nazi and Holocaust denier, allusions to a “Reich” can have only one meaning. Of course, when called on this Trump took it down and called it a mistake by a “staffer.” This way he gets to send a clear signal to his far-right supporters, still reassure his “normal” supporters by calling it a mistake and blaming a staffer. You can watch the ad here.
For a more sober and realistic preview of a second Trump term, read TIME reporter Eric Cortellessa’s feature here.
WE MUST ENSURE THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN.
Heads We Win, Tails You Lose
Donald Trump has a well-documented history of sowing doubt about the integrity of any election he loses, be it the Emmys or a presidential election and a refusal to accept such a result. He did it in 2016, in both the Republican primaries and the general election, claiming that voting was “rigged” against him.
As the 2020 race ensued, and he realized he was likely to lose, he spent the summer claiming that the election would be rigged again, in particular citing vote-by-mail as likely to be fraud-ridden.
He continues to do it today. This is a very insecure person, who is laying the groundwork not only for his excuse for losing, but also for another January 6. Don’t doubt that for a moment.
But is not just him. It’s his whole damned party. Historian Heather Cox Richardson points out in her blog of May 20:
“MAGA lawmakers refuse to say they will accept the results of the 2024 election. On Saturday, Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson refused to commit to that fundamental tenet of our democracy. On Meet the Press on Sunday, Florida senator Marco Rubio also declined to say he would accept the election results. Those vying for the Republican vice presidential nomination, including North Dakota governor Doug Burgum and South Carolina senator Tim Scott, have refused to say they would accept the results.
“Their tactics are working among the Republican base. A CBS News/YouGov poll released this weekend showed that only 47% of Arizona Republicans say they will accept the results of the 2024 election no matter who wins. An equal number—47%—say they will challenge the results if the other side wins. That result is not symmetrical with the Democrats: 82% of them say they will accept the results, while only 14% say they will challenge the results if their opponents win.”
Trump Again Signals Putin About the Help He Wants From Russia
“On Thursday, Donald Trump tweeted that Vladimir Putin will only release Evan Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal reporter detained in Russia, after the election—“for me,” meaning for Trump. In other words, elect Trump president, and Putin will release him!”
Trump on social media:
“Evan Gershkovich, the Reporter from The Wall Street Journal, who is being held by Russia, will be released almost immediately after the Election, but definitely before I assume Office. He will be HOME, SAFE, AND WITH HIS FAMILY. Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else, and WE WILL BE PAYING NOTHING!”
Translation:
Hey, Vlad, it was great when you stole Hilary’s emails for me in 2016, and now it’s time for a favor again: please don’t release this reporter under Biden’s watch…wait till I steal the election…and I’ll make it easy for you to gobble up Ukraine.
Is it More Unhealthy to be on a Full Immersion Diet of Big Macs and Fries…or of Fox “News”?
Morgan Spurlock, a documentary filmmaker whose film “Super Size Me” purported to show what would happen if someone subsisted for a month eating only McDonald’s meals, passed away last week from cancer. His film cast light on the unhealthy affects of a diet heavy on fast food. His “…Oscar-nominated 2004 documentary smash-hit…made an unlikely star of Spurlock…and sparked an international debate about the malign affects of a fast-food fixation.”
I wish someone would make a documentary highlighting the malign affects – to the person and the country – of a news diet limited only to FOX. It is destroying our country and liberal democracy around the world.
While I am unaware of any such study, there was an “experiment” in which two political scientists paid Fox viewers to watch CNN for a month. An account of the findings by Dan Froomkin1 work showed that
“…when these Fox viewers watched CNN, they heard about all sorts of things Fox wasn’t telling them. They processed that information. They took it in. They became more knowledgeable about what was really going on in the United States.
The experiment didn’t change their political preferences — certainly not in just one month. But it slightly altered their perceptions of certain key issues and political candidates.
The study authors differentiated between ‘traditionally emphasized forms of media influence,’ like agenda setting and framing, and what they call ‘partisan coverage filtering: the choice to selectively report information about selective topics, based on what’s favorable to the network’s partisan side, and ignore everything else…But the biggest takeaway for me is the realization that Fox viewers aren’t just manipulated and misinformed — they are literally being made ignorant by their consumption habits. Watching Fox, they hear a lot of ‘news-like’ things, but they don’t learn about what’s really happening.”
I encourage you to read his entire article on this study.
Dan Froomkin is editor of Press Watch, an independent non-profit website devoted to improving political coverage. He previously worked at the Intercept, the Huffington Post, and the Washington Post.
I am very concerned that people are longing for Trumps false economy, low interest rates and lower inflation, and not critically evaluating what’s changed globally, and what he plans to do in his second term, should he be elected.
Additionally,I feel the Biden campaign is not aggressively presenting a strong message regarding his accomplishments, and educating the electorate how the implantation of the 2025 plan will personally impact them and the country.