Today in 1967, DJM Publishing in London signed two young songwriting talents, Reginald Dwight and Bernie Taupin. You know Dwight better as Elton John.
Today in 1967, DJM Publishing in London signed two young songwriting talents, Reginald Dwight and Bernie Taupin. You know Dwight better as Elton John.
At the beginning of Richard Nixon’s presidency, his attorney general (later reelection campaign manager before he was jailed after Watergate) John Mitchell famously told the news media to “Watch what we do and not what we say.”
And so we have what Fox News reports:
Author and pollster Frank Luntz said Monday that President Trump’s rhetoric is having an effect on voters that he has never observed before.
Speaking on Fox News Radio’s “Brian Kilmeade Show,” Luntz said new focus group research from the past 10 days shows a majority of voters approve of what Trump is doing as president but disapprove of what he says.
“A majority of the public like what Donald Trump is doing and a majority of the public don’t like what he’s saying. This is the first time that I can remember. Usually, it’s the opposite direction,” he explained, noting that past presidents were generally liked by the public, but their policies turned off voters.
“Trump is hurting himself” with his language and his messaging, Luntz said, advising the White House to focus on economic growth, rising wages and low unemployment in order to improve the president’s poll numbers.
“Only 43 percent of Americans approve of the president right now. It’s his language, it’s his messaging, it’s his fighting with everyone. If he wants to be re-elected, he would do a lot better focusing on what he’s done for the country and stop this constant fighting with everybody,” said Luntz, author of “Words That Work.”
Kilmeade said that strategy would go against the president’s style and predicted he will hit back at his opponents just as hard as long as House Democrats proceed with their impeachment inquiry.
Luntz said Trump should remind voters that Democrats were elected in 2018 to work on issues like border security, infrastructure and health care, but are instead focused on impeachment.
“They have gotten nothing done, nothing, except for investigation … There have been more subpoenas by the Democrats than there have been laws signed into being this last year because of this impeachment. That is the best way to challenge impeachment,” he argued.
Nearly half of voters want Trump impeached and removed from office, according to a new Fox News Poll. In addition, 6-in-10 believe the president did ask foreign leaders to investigate political opponents — and two-thirds say that action is inappropriate.
Forty-nine percent want Trump impeached and removed from office, 4 percent say he should be impeached but not removed, and 41 percent oppose impeaching Trump. That’s about where things stood in early October, when 51 percent said impeach/remove, 4 percent impeach/don’t remove, and 40 percent opposed altogether.
The two-point dip in support for impeachment comes from a 5-point decline among Republicans, as 8 percent favor impeachment now, compared to 13 percent in early October.
More voters believe Trump asked Ukraine to probe his rivals (60 percent) and that he held up military aid as pressure to get what he wanted (52 percent), than favor impeaching him for doing so (49 percent).
One would think people would vote for someone who did what they liked regardless of what that someone said, but Trump defies usual rules.
In 2018, Democratic candidates waded into hostile territory and flipped 40 House districts, many of them moderate or conservative in their makeup. In almost every instance, their formula centered on narrowing their target profile by avoiding controversial positions, and focusing obsessively on Republican weaknesses, primarily Donald Trump’s abuses of power and attempts to eliminate health insurance for millions of Americans.
The Democratic presidential field has largely abandoned that model. Working from the premise that the country largely agrees with them on everything, or that agreeing with the majority of voters on issues is not necessary to win, the campaign has proceeded in blissful unawareness of the extremely high chance that Trump will win again.
A new batch of swing state polls from the New York Times ought to deliver a bracing shock to Democrats. The polls find that, in six swing states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona — Trump is highly competitive. He trails Joe Biden there by the narrowest of margins, and leads Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Normally, it is a mistake to overreact to the findings of a single poll. In general, an outlier result should only marginally nudge our preexisting understanding of where public opinion stands. This case is different. To see why, you need to understand two interrelated flaws in the 2016 polling. First, they tended to under-sample white voters without college degrees. And this made them especially vulnerable to polling misses in a handful of states with disproportionately large numbers of white non-college voters. The Times found several months ago that Trump might well win 270 Electoral College votes even in the face of a larger national vote defeat than he suffered in 2016.
All this is to say that, if you’ve been relying on national polls for your picture of the race, you’re probably living in la-la land. However broadly unpopular Trump may be, at the moment he is right on the cusp of victory.
What about the fact Democrats crushed Trump’s party in the midterms? The new Times polling finds many of those voters are swinging back. Almost two-thirds of the people who supported Trump in 2016, and then a Democrat in the 2018 midterms, plan to vote for Trump again in 2020.
Perhaps some of that movement represents a desire by voters to check Trump’s power and restore divided government. But the poll contains substantial evidence that Trump’s party lost the midterms for the hoary yet true reason that Republicans took unpopular positions, especially on health care, and ceded the center. Rather than learn the lesson, Democrats instead appear intent on ceding it right back to them.
The “center,” of course, is a somewhat hazy concept, subject both to overinterpretation and misinterpretation. Capturing the center isn’t the only reason politicians win elections, and some policies that Washington elites consider “radical” are in fact popular. Nonetheless, it really is true that there are a bunch of persuadable voters who can be pushed away from a party based on their perception that it’s too radical.
And the Democratic presidential primary has been a disaster on this front. The debate has taken shape within a world formed by Twitter, in which the country is poised to leap into a new cultural and economic revolution, and even large chunks of the Democratic Party’s elected officials and voting base have fallen behind the times. As my colleague Ed Kilgore argues, the party’s left-wing intelligentsia have treated any appeals to voters in the center as a sign of being behind the times.
Biden’s paper-thin lead over Trump in the swing states is largely attributable to the perception that he is more moderate than Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders. Three-quarters of those who would vote for Biden over Trump, but Trump over Warren, say they would prefer a more moderate Democratic nominee to a more liberal one, and a candidate who would find common ground with Republicans over one who would fight for a progressive agenda.
There are lots of Democrats who are trying to run moderate campaigns. But the new environment in which they’re running has made it difficult for any of them to break through. There are many reasons the party’s mainstream has failed to exert itself. Biden’s name recognition and association with the popular Obama administration has blotted out alternatives, and the sheer number of center-left candidates has made it hard for any non-Biden to gain traction. Candidates with strong profiles, like Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar, have struggled to gain attention, and proven politicians like Michael Bennet and Steve Bullock have failed even to qualify for debates.
But in addition to those obstacles, they have all labored against the ingrained perception that the Democratic party has moved beyond Obama-like liberalism, and that incremental reform is timid and boring. The same dynamic was already beginning to form in 2016, though Hillary Clinton overcame it with a combination of name recognition and a series of leftward moves of her own to defuse progressive objections. Biden’s name brand has given him a head start with the half of the Democratic electorate that has moderate or conservative views. But it’s much harder for a newer moderate Democrat lacking that established identity to build a national constituency. The only avenue that has seemed to be open for a candidate to break into the top has been to excite activists, who are demanding positions far to the left of the median voter.
The primary has not doomed Democrats. Warren and Sanders are still close enough to Trump that they can compete, and new events, like a recession or another scandal, could erode Trump’s base. But the party should look at its position a year before the election with real fear. The party’s presidential field has lost the plot.
Warren is a particular problem, according to CNBC:
The bitter feud between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Wall Street is spilling into Democrats’ efforts to take back the Senate next year.
Some finance executives have recently told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that they are, for the moment, holding back from donating to Democrats running for Senate in 2020 due to their concerns with Warren becoming a front-runner in the race for the party’s presidential nomination, according to people familiar with the conversations. These people spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the private nature of the talks.
The move is intended to put pressure on party leadership and Schumer, who represents New York and has received millions of dollars in donations from Wall Street, to distance themselves from Warren’s economic populism.
These financiers, which include hedge fund managers and private equity executives, are also worried that Warren’s policies, were she to defeat President Donald Trump, could be detrimental to their businesses. They believe Republicans could keep her potential administration in check if the GOP holds onto or expands its Senate majority. Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate; Democrats need to flip a net of four seats to take control.
“They feel, rightly or wrongly, attacked. Not just that there will be higher taxes, but that she is running her entire campaign as them being boogeymen,” said a political advisor familiar with the deliberations. “They don’t feel safe going to Trump, they feel disillusioned by Biden and they see this as a tactic to slow her down. They see it as a way to put pressure on the party as a whole to move away from Warren.”
This person did admit, however, that the financiers are playing right into Warren’s messaging against wealthy donors influencing politics by stonewalling Schumer on donations.
The donors’ signals to Schumer come as they are increasingly frustrated with former Joe Biden’s campaign, which has lagged behind Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. They had hoped he would be the clear front-runner, particularly because of his experience as President Barack Obama’s vice president. His once-double-digit lead in Real Clear Politics’ national polling average has him up an average of nearly 9 points over Warren, who had briefly overtaken Biden last month. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday has Biden up 4 points over the Massachusetts senator.
These executives also privately say that they still hope Biden will become the Democratic nominee as they contend he is the only candidate who can beat Trump in key battleground states. A New York Times Upshot poll released Monday shows Biden tied or ahead of the president with registered voters in swing states including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Florida. Warren, on the other hand, is behind or even with Trump in most of those states.
Bernard Schwartz, a longtime Democratic donor and the CEO of BLS Investments, acknowledged that he knows of people on Wall Street who have declared to Schumer and party leadership that they won’t spend in favor of Democratic Senate candidates if Warren is the nominee.
“I think at the end of the day it’s going to be very hard for Elizabeth Warren to be the leader of the party,” he said, while adding he likes her personally yet is not in favor of some of her policies. “I think the party is much more centrist than the people who have the microphone.”
Schwartz, who said he doesn’t think Warren could beat Trump, is currently backing Biden for president and said he wants to contribute to the new pro-Biden super PAC Unite the Country. He also said he doesn’t believe that there are many Democrats in the financial industry who would refuse to help Senate Democrats if Warren is the nominee.
A spokesman for Schumer declined to comment. Representatives for Warren did not return a request for comment.
Schumer has represented New York on Capitol Hill since 1981, after he was elected to the House. In 1998, he was elected senator. During his tenure in the federal government Schumer has received more than $13 million in donations from the securities and investment industry, including from employees and the political action committees of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. …
Warren has publicized a wide range of plans targeting the wealthy and corporations that she wants to implement if she makes it to the White House. Her latest idea is to double her billionaires wealth tax from 3% to 6% to help pay for her $52 trillion “Medicare for All” plan. Warren’s wealth tax proposal would also impose a 2% tax on net worth between $50 million and $1 billion.
Wall Street has responded to her ideas with vitriol and threats. Some Democratic finance leaders have privately warned the party that they could end up sitting out the presidential election entirely or back Trump instead.
Leon Cooperman, a billionaire investor, has virtually gone to war with Warren and wrote in an open letter that he’s being treated by her “as if a parent chiding an ungrateful child.” Cooperman was responding to a tweet in which Warren called on him to “pitch in a bit more.”
Today in 1814, Adolph Sax was born in Belgium. Sax would fashion from brass and a clarinet reed the saxophone, a major part of early rock and jazz.
Joe Biden is at it again — living in his own parallel universe. The same former vice president who says that his son Hunter was hired by a Ukrainian oil and gas company because of his expertise in energy policy is now claiming that President Donald Trump has “squandered” the strong Obama economy he inherited.
Here is how Biden put it in a speech last week in Scranton, Pennsylvania: “Donald Trump inherited a strong economy from Barack and me.” Then he added: “Things were beginning to really move. And just like everything else he’s inherited, he’s in the midst of squandering it.” What’s next? Jimmy Carter taking credit for the Reagan boom?
Sure enough, two weeks after Biden’s jibe, the Labor Department released its October jobs report and what a blockbuster. With revisions from prior months, the economy added some 200,000 new jobs, wages rose at a healthy clip, and hundreds of thousands more workers got in on the action by entering the workforce. In other words, you can look long and hard for that “looming recession,” the media and liberal economists have been warning us of for the last several months. It’s nowhere to be seen.
Today we are at or below record levels of unemployment, inflation and interest rates in half a century. Wages and salaries are rising at their fastest clip in at least two decades. There is an all-time high of 7 million unfilled jobs in the United States.
The Washington Post is freaking out about the continued good news on the economy — especially the latest data — that I reported on two weeks ago (on these pages): that median household income has increased by $5,003 since Trump became president. (The latest September numbers now show median family income up to $66,000 and $5,240 higher than when Trump entered office.) This is based on census data, but the Post ranted last week that Trump continues to “inflate his own numbers.” Nearly every assertion in the article was wrong or twisted, and Trump was right.
What is especially rich in the Post, Joe Biden and others’ claims that Trump’s success is just a continuation of the Obama economy is that this time three years ago, these same Trump-haters promised that a Trump presidency would cause a “global financial calamity” and even a “second Great Depression.” The stock market would “never” recover from Trump’s election, Paul Krugman of The New York Times assured us.
Now — whoops — with the economy surging, all of a sudden, it’s just Obama’s doing. The double standard here is so transparent that only someone suffering from TDS — Trump derangement syndrome — would miss it. If the economy were crashing today, the left would say that it was all Trump’s fault. But with the economy doing quite well, Obama gets the credit.
The continuation of the Obama trend argument is leaky at best. First, Obama gave us the weakest recovery from a recession since the end of World War II. The economy grew by about 14% in the Obama recovery over seven years. In the normal recovery, the economy grew by almost twice that amount, or 27%. In the last Obama year, the economy slowed down to a piddly 1.6% growth, and economists warned that a “recession is right around the corner.”
Yes, Biden is right that at the end of the Obama-Biden presidency, “things were really starting to move” — in the wrong direction. That’s why Trump won the election. Nearly every poll in 2016 showed that jobs and the economy were the biggest worries of the American voters — especially in the Midwestern states that Trump flipped from blue to red.
Income growth had increased in Obama’s second term, but it flattened out in 2016. The surge in middle-class incomes started to accelerate in early 2017, after Trump took office.
Middle-class incomes have grown almost three times faster under Trump than under Obama. This is like trading in a Pinto for a Porsche and as you’re flying down the highway saying it’s just a trend.
Small business and consumer confidence as well as the stock market surged in the days after the Trump election and have stayed high ever since. Coincidence? Hardly.
More to the point, most of Trump’s policies have been to reverse Obama policies, not to continue them. Obama raised tax rates; Trump cut them. Obama grew regulations at a record pace; Trump has been rescinding them at a record pace. Obama negotiated the Paris climate accord — a $100 billion tax on the American economy — and Trump smartly pulled us out.
Obama passed Obamacare; every day, Trump has been finding ways around the law they called the Affordable Care Act, in order to reverse stampeding health costs and try to make health care “affordable.”
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
The economy is far from perfect, and the latest weaknesses in industrial production, for example, are worrisome. The China trade standoff has clearly slowed growth in Trump’s third year in office. I would never say never to a recession in the next year or two, but I’m with Larry Kudlow: It doesn’t seem likely right now.
But the biggest threat to the economy right now is that we may repeal the Trump growth policies and return to Obamanomics. This is what Biden is promising, and if it comes to pass, we will learn the bitter lesson that the good old days under Obama really weren’t so good at all.
Today in 1956, Nat King Cole became the first black man to host a TV show, on NBC:
The number one single today in 1966:
Today in 1971, Elvis Presley performed at the Met Center in Bloomington, Minn. To get the fans to leave after repeated encore requests, announcer Al Dvorin announced, “Elvis has left the building.”
Only in the world of Donald Trump can impeachment be a good thing.
How? Consider Trump’s Democratic opponents, including Elizabeth Warren.
Over the weekend I got an email from a very smart, plugged in friend about where Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is, and where it’s heading. I asked him if I could publish it and he agreed, on the condition that he be identified only as “Deep State Bob.” What follows is his:
Let’s say you’re the little voice of reason inside Elizabeth Warren’s head. You ask her a couple of questions: What do you want your campaign to be about? And what you do you want the campaign to be about?
Paired together, the first question gives the candidate an opportunity to describe her perfect-world scenario. The second should—should—lead her to describe the real-world in which her campaign is taking place.
In a perfect world, the United States’ domestic politics would be relatively stable and voters would wish—above all—for creative alternatives to the current mixed-market economic arrangement, which they believe hurts them and their communities. In that world, Warren would want her campaign to be a referendum on crony capitalism and certain private markets—of which Trump, partly by his background and partly by his marriage of convenience to the GOP, has been an exponent. She’d push her Accountable Capitalism Act. She’d rail against the injustices of for-profit health insurance and medical care. She’d decry competition in public education.
In the real world of America in the Year of Our Lord 2019, the United States’ domestic political situation is relatively precarious. Is it as bad as it was in 1860? No. Not even close, thankfully. But are things as bad as they were during the 6-year stretch from 1968 to 1974? Well, that’s an open question.
The absolute best you can say is that American political life is as unsettled as it has been in two generations.This is a positive, not a normative, statement. The president of the United States is pulling out all the stops to maintain his power: openly inviting foreign governments to be oppo research groups, beating the drums of populist sentiment ever louder, asking his deputies to break the law for him so he can fulfill his campaign promises. Trump is the most aspirationally authoritarian figure ever to hold the presidency and the only reason things aren’t worse is that (a) he’s incompetent and (b) our government was designed with more antibodies to authoritarianism than your replacement-level democracy.
Meanwhile, the public is disgusted with the nation’s economic policies, but it can’t articulate why beyond saying that China and Wall Street have too much financial influence on the life of average Joe. It doesn’t know what it wants. All that it knows is that the system in which elected representatives make new laws to address the public disgust is moving too slowly for their liking.
In this world, Warren—and any of Trump’s opponents, for that matter—would make her campaign a referendum on Trump himself. He’s historically and consistently unpopular. It is no stretch to say that a soft majority of America, perhaps 55 percent or so, is fed up with his defective personality.
And the choice between which of those two worlds she wants to campaign in, Warren seems to have made up her mind. She’s going with the “perfect world” scenario:
What do you think will happen when Republicans get to frame the election as a choice between center-right/populist economics and progressive/socialist economics not because that’s the best ground for them to fight on but because it’s exactly the battle the Democrats asked for?“Elizabeth Warren wants to take away your health insurance.”
“Elizabeth Warren wants to force your children into failing schools.”
“Elizabeth Warren wants to raise your taxes for government-run health care and government-run education.”
“Who do you trust to make the best medical and education decisions for your household: your doctors and your family, or Elizabeth Warren’s government?”
Can Warren defend this ground successfully? I don’t know. Maybe? But why would she want to?
The path to 53 percent of the popular vote runs through Trump, not the Center for American Progress Action Fund. In the real world we live in, the Democratic candidate for president would say that he or she should be president because Trump absolutely cannot be—that we can’t stand four more years of Trump because his vision for the nation is basically Judge Dredd’s. So let us now step back from the precipice, acknowledge that our national identity is confused and our national purpose is lacking, and reinvigorate the middle-class with infrastructure, or cracking down on China, or protections from predatory financial schemes. Whichever combo platter suits the nominee’s fancy.
Trump cannot win if the 2020 election is a referendum on who he is and the damage he’s done to the presidency and the country. He absolutely might win if the election is a referendum on remaking America’s economic order.
As it stands right now, Trump has a decent shot of winning.
Democrats took a tremendous gamble by formally voting for an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on Thursday. While polls suggest Americans support the inquiry, the general public is divided on whether or not Trump should be impeached and removed from office. Those in key swing states are more likely to oppose impeachment and removal, suggesting that the impeachment battle may help Trump’s reelection in 2020.
“We’ve known for a long time that everybody in California and New York want Trump to be impeached, they’ve wanted that since the day he came into office,” an anonymous Trump campaign official told The Hill. “But in these states where the election is really going to be fought, we’re seeing that voters oppose impeachment, and there’s an intensity to that opposition.”
Indeed, a New York Times/Siena College poll released Wednesday showed that voters in six key swing states oppose impeaching and removing President Trump, 52 percent to 44 percent.
Most voters in Arizona (52 percent to 45 percent), Florida (53 percent to 42 percent), Michigan (51 percent to 42 percent), North Carolina (53 percent to 43 percent), Pennsylvania (52 percent to 45 percent), and Wisconsin (51 percent to 45 percent) say they oppose Congress’s potential removal of Trump from office.
Most voters in those states also support the impeachment inquiry, however — though by smaller margins.
Other polling found that even the inquiry is unpopular in some swing states. Last week, a Marquette University Law School survey of Wisconsin found 49 percent of voters oppose the inquiry while 46 percent support it. Most voters (51 percent) also opposed removing Trump from office, while 44 percent supported it. Independents proved colder to impeachment and to the inquiry, with only 33 percent supporting Trump’s removal and 35 percent supporting the Congressional investigation.
Trump won Wisconsin by a mere 23,000 votes — out of roughly 3 million. Late-breaking undecided voters went his way on Election Day.
In New Hampshire, a state Hillary Clinton won by fewer than 3,000 votes — out of roughly 700,000 — impeachment is similarly unpopular. Most voters oppose removing Trump (51 percent to 42 percent), according to a CNN-University of New Hampshire poll.
Respondents also oppose impeachment and removal in Arizona, a state Trump won by 3.6 percent but which Democrats have targeted for pick-up. Fifty percent of Arizona residents oppose “impeaching Donald Trump,” while 44 percent support it, according to a recent Emerson College poll.
Impeachment is a two-step process, and no president in U.S. history has been impeached and removed by Congress. The House of Representatives opens the process, with a bare majority of representatives required to impeach a president, opening the case up for a trial in the U.S. Senate. Only the Senate can remove the president, and that requires a two-thirds majority — extremely unlikely with the current Republican majority.
Polling on the issue can center on three separate issues: whether the House should open the impeachment inquiry; whether the House should vote to impeach Trump; and whether the Senate should vote to remove him.
Sadly, due to America’s stark partisan divide on the president, many Democrats and liberals have long wanted to remove Trump and were merely seeking an excuse to do so.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said, “Impeachment is a very serious matter. If it happens it has to be a bipartisan initiative.” On Thursday, not a single Republican voted for the impeachment inquiry, while two Democrats voted against it.
As The New York Times‘s Nate Cohn reported, different polls have come to different conclusions about the nationwide sentiment on removing Trump from office. Trump criticized a Fox News poll showing 51 percent supporting removal and only 43 percent opposing it, while a Wall Street Journal survey found 49 percent opposed to removal and 43 percent supporting it.
Cohn drew attention to the group of swing-state voters who support the inquiry but oppose removing Trump. This 7 percent of voters skew younger (33 percent are 18 to 34) and independent (nearly half). A majority of them (51 percent) said Trump’s conduct is typical of most politicians — and indeed, Senate Democrats also pressured Ukraine to investigate their political opponent, Trump himself. Cohn noted that these voters “hold a jaded view of politics that would tend to minimize the seriousness of the allegations against him.”
Because Democrats have called for Trump’s impeachment since shortly after his inauguration, a jaded view of this latest push is warranted.
While Trump may be tainted with scandal if the House votes to impeach him, he will also be able to decry the blatantly partisan nature of the push to remove him from office. The Senate is extremely unlikely to remove him, and the impeachment charade may actually help the president in the swing states he needs to win for reelection.
This impeachment battle could backfire on the Democrats, badly.
UW–Madison graduate Jeff Greenfield has a provocative thought:
Have we ever had a president before this one who so disdains the advice and policies of those who have spent their lives working for the government he leads? Have we ever had a chief executive who is so skeptical of the judgments of career diplomats and military leaders, who rejects the advice of top intelligence leaders, who trusts his family more than those with a lifetime of experience?
Yes we have. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Kennedy and Donald Trump are hardly similar men, nor are they similar presidents. JFK’s 14 years of experience in the House and Senate, his knowledge of history and his prudence in public (as opposed to private) matters make that notion absurd. But in one way they are alike: Throughout Kennedy’s presidency, he came more and more to distrust the received wisdom of the “permanent government” or “deep state” or “military-industrial complex” or whatever term seems apt today. In his case, that skepticism may have saved the planet from nuclear annihilation.
During the tumult of the Trump years, generals like H.R. McMaster and Jim Mattis have been glorified as steadying influences in the room—military wise men whose opinions on everything from Syria to NATO Trump has recklessly disregarded. And that is true. Trump deserves censure for his refusal to listen to the advice of experienced hands, and his White House can be faulted for jettisoning decades worth of scientific, economic and military expertise.
But in the reflexive rush to criticize Trump, we risk forgetting the lesson of the Kennedy years: There is danger in relying too heavily on the “wisdom” of the elders. A president with a well-honed resistance to the certainties of experts and a strong sense of history can be a crucial protection against disaster. Unlike Kennedy, Trump possesses only one of these traits. But we shouldn’t let the current president’s lapses reset our expectations for civilian control over the military and foreign affairs.
JFK campaigned in 1960 as a conventional Cold Warrior, warning that the United States was falling behind the Soviet Union, arguing that a (nonexistent) “missile gap” was threatening our security, embracing the idea that the fall of any nation to communism would threaten surrounding nations—the domino theory. But he had also come to office with a strong belief that the power of nationalism was changing the dynamic of world politics. He’d been skeptical about France’s ability to hold Indochina in the early 1950s. And in his first days in office, Kennedy rejected the advice of his military advisers to place troops in Laos—advice that included the use of tactical nuclear weapons.
His skepticism about the military grew steadily. After the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, he said, “Those sons of bitches with all the fruit salad just sat there, nodding, saying it would work.” He was furious when it took hours for the army to deploy troops to deal with rioting at the University of Mississippi when the first black student was admitted. And in the closest brush with nuclear war ever—the 1962 Cuban missile crisis—Kennedy repeatedly refused to strike at Soviet missile installations on the island.
Side note: Those of us who went to John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Madison in the 1970s could tell you that Kennedy was in the Navy Reserve during World War II as a PT boat captain. Perhaps that’s where he got his disdain for higher military authority.
His judgment may well have made the difference between war and peace. But the military and intelligence heavyweights saw it otherwise. “The greatest defeat in our history,” Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay called it. Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson—the ultimate “wise man” who had confidently assured JFK that the Soviets would not respond to a military strike in Cuba—called the peaceful resolution of the crisis a matter of “luck” and later said, “We have to face the fact that the United States has no leader.” And Allen Dulles, the longtime CIA chief cashiered by JFK after the Bay of Pigs, said in retirement: “Kennedy is weak, not a leader.”
Kennedy, in turn, was sufficiently worried about his military advisers that he encouraged director John Frankenheimer to make a movie out of Seven Days in May, a novel about an attempted military coup, and even vacated the White House for a weekend to accommodate the movie’s shooting schedule.
By June 1963, Kennedy was signaling his intention to break with the Cold War consensus. In a speech at American University, he called for a new approach toward the Soviet Union. While condemning its totalitarian system, he said: “Let us not be blind to our differences, but let us also direct attention to our common interests and the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”
Lyndon Johnson inherited Kennedy’s “new approach” to the Soviet Union. So did Richard Nixon, who inherited one of LBJ’s advisors, Henry Kissinger. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter had the same approach to the U.S.S.R. It took Ronald Reagan to come up with better strategy: “We win, they lose.” In other words, the hawks ultimately were right and the doves were wrong about the Soviets.
Kennedy sought to lessen criticism of his proposed new approach to Moscow with huge increases in the defense budget. And he bears substantial responsibility for sending 15,000 “combat advisers” into Vietnam. But history suggests that he was looking for ways out of that quagmire, while dealing with the harsh domestic political realities. He told a friend: “We don’t have a prayer of staying in Vietnam. Those people hate us. They are going to throw our asses out. … But I can’t give up a piece of territory to the communists and then get the people to reelect me.”
Keep that last quote in mind for everyone who continues to lionize Kennedy more than 50 years after his death.
Kennedy pushed back against the “permanent government” by relying on different eyes and ears for advice and information. Most obvious was his turn to his brother, Robert Kennedy, as a key adviser on any and all matters, beyond RFK’s job as attorney general. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK used ABC correspondent John Scali as a go-between with Alexandr S. Fomin, a KGB official in Washington and a personal friend of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. When Kennedy learned that French journalist Jean Daniel was going to interview Fidel Castro, he met with Daniel and asked that they meet again on his return. He encouraged Deputy U.N. Ambassador (and former journalist) William Atwood to maintain contacts with members of the Cuban delegation.
This was dramatized in …
No one can know, of course, whether JFK would have moved further from the Cold War consensus in a second term. What we do know is that throughout his presidency, he was one of the few voices pushing back against the assumptions of those around him. Virtually every “wise man”—McGeorge Bundy, Walt Rostow, Dean Rusk, the joint chiefs—argued for escalation in Vietnam, but Kennedy pushed back. He would say, for example, if you can convince Douglas MacArthur that a land war in Asia is a good idea, let me know. And after his death, his successor—far less grounded in history or foreign policy, and without Kennedy’s deep doubts about the wisdom of the military, presided over the full-scale tragedy that was Vietnam.
The wrong lesson, then, is that it is acceptable for a president like Trump to carry out an ignorant, narcissistic foreign policy. But it is equally wrong to think that presidents should mindlessly defer to their military and diplomatic advisers. It was “the best and the brightest” who led us into Vietnam; it was the counsel of seasoned, experienced leaders who led us into Iraq in 2003; it was a team of well-versed experts who presided over the descent into the Great Recession of 2008.
Under Trump, we have seen that a president without the gifts of knowledge and judgment is ill-served by ignoring advice from the grownups in the room. By relying on his own instincts in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president greatly strengthened the hands of Iran, Russia and ISIS while shaking our allies’ faith in America’s judgment.
The heavy costs of ignoring sound advice may lead the next president to reaffirm respect for the “deep state.” But if respect becomes veneration, if the next president does not know how and where to look for alternatives to the consensus, that could well lead to a new series of destructive policies. A president without the ability to thoughtfully contest the conventional wisdom, without the ability to argue for new alternatives to old problems, does the office and the nation no favor.
Today in 1963, John Lennon showed his ability to generate publicity at the Beatles’ performance at the Royal Variety Show at the Prince of Wales Theatre in London. The Queen Mother and Princess Margaret were in attendance, so perhaps they were the target of Lennon’s comment, “In the cheaper seats you clap your hands. The rest of you, just rattle your jewelry.”
Lennon would demonstrate his PR skills a couple of years later when he proclaimed the Beatles were “bigger than Jesus.”
The number one single today in 1965:
The number one single today in 1972:
Today in 1990, Melissa Ethridge and her “life partner” Julie Cypher appeared on the cover of Newsweek magazine for its cover story on gay parenting.

I bring this up only to point out that Etheridge and Cypher no longer are life partners, Cypher (the ex-wife of actor Lou Diamond Phillips) is now married to another man, and Etheridge became engaged to another woman, but they split before their planned California wedding. And, by the way, Cypher had two children from the “contribution” of David Crosby, and Etheridge’s second woman had children from another man. And, by the way, Newsweek is no longer a weekly magazine.
The number one single today in 1956:
Britain’s number one single today in 1960:
The number one single today in 1962:
Today in 1964, a fan at a Rolling Stones concert in Cleveland fell out of the balcony. That prompted Cleveland Mayor Ralph Locker to ban pop music concerts in the city, saying, “Such groups do not add to the community’s culture or entertainment.” Kind of ironic that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ended up in Cleveland.