I think these go beyond saying, explicitly or implicitly, that someone on the internet really, really don’t like Donald Trump. The common theme may be “retribution,” the campaign promise Trump and his goons are most zestfully fulfilling, and so they seem worth sharing.

It’s happening

When you see important societal actors — be it university presidents, media outlets, C.E.O.s, mayors, governors — changing their behavior in order to avoid the wrath of the government, that’s a sign that we’ve crossed the line into some form of authoritarianism.

Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard and the co-author of the influential 2018 book “How Democracies Die,” via the New York Times.

More:

• One prominent first-term critic of Mr. Trump said in a recent interview that not only would he not comment on the record, he did not want to be mentioned in this article at all. Every time his name appears in public, he said, the threats against him from the far right increase.
• University presidents are largely silent because they are protecting their institutions, said Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education. “Don’t wrestle with a pig,” he said. “You’ll just get muddy and annoy the pig.”
• [T]hat business leader thinks that chief executives see the way that Mr. Musk is going about slashing the federal work force as “totally crazy” — but would say so only on the condition of anonymity, fearing retribution.
• Representative Eric Swalwell, a California Democrat and a frequent critic of Mr. Trump, said the real fear among Republicans in the House who might otherwise voice criticism of the administration on some issues was violence against their families.
• Senator Todd Young, Republican of Indiana, was called a “deep state puppet” by Elon Musk after he asked tough questions about Mr. Trump’s nominee for director of national intelligence.

(I must note the Folksy Failure by Ted Mitchell. The canonical folk form is “Never wrestle with a pig. You get all muddy and the pig loves it.”)

The SOTU that wasn’t

I’m told that Tuesday’s speech by the Chaos Monkey In Chief was not a State of the Union address, but it came across as one from what I’ve seen of the reporting.

David Brooks has thoughts:

Healy: David, it’s so important to underscore that with speeches like this, a lot of Americans aren’t sitting there with a scorecard, rating and fact-checking and assessing policies. It is about how these speeches make people feel.

That moment that you touched on about the young boy who wanted to be a cop. That is the moment when my phone blew up from both Republicans and Democrats. People who I hear from in politics. Trump made people feel something with moments like that. And again, it’s not that people in America are sitting around doing a fact-check on these speeches. They’re looking to feel the impact of them.

Brooks: Well, take a couple other examples. He talked about all the people allegedly getting Social Security benefits, even though they’re 160 years old. Now, people like us, we’re media obsessed, so we know that was all disproved, that there really are no 320-year-old people getting Social Security benefits. There are no 160-year-olds getting those benefits. That has been shot down by Trump’s own Social Security administrator. But when you’re sitting there reading and you’re just a normal person who pays normal attention to politics, you think: “Wow, that’s ridiculous. I’m glad he’s getting rid of this stuff.”

Healy: Yep.

…

Brooks: I would advise Democrats to take some time off. They’re not in control. They don’t have power. But mostly a lot of the categories Democrats have used to understand reality don’t describe actual reality.

I don’t think Democrats have coped with the fact that they’re more the party of the elites now than the party of the working class. I don’t think they expected so many Black and brown voters to go for Donald Trump, and it just takes an intellectual revolution to adjust.

And they have to make some fundamental decisions. Do they want to work really hard to once again become the party of the working class? Is that even possible? Joe Biden tried with good economic policies — a large percentage of his policies helped working-class voters. It did him no political good because you can’t solve with economics a problem that’s fundamentally about culture and respect.

Or, maybe they should accept the fact that they’re the party of the college educated and urban classes, and that’s who they are, and they’re going to represent those people and hopefully build some majorities around those people.

Going back to the 19th century, Andrew Jackson — who’s the closest politician we’ve ever had to Donald Trump. He was a narcissist, he was power hungry, and didn’t fundamentally know what he was doing to screw up. And lo and behold, Andrew Jackson made a terrible decision to close the Second Bank of the United States and the end result was, basically, a decadelong depression.

So Democrats right now have to wait for Donald Trump to screw up. I think the tariffs may be that screw-up. The policy toward Ukraine may be that screw-up. I’m assuming that a guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing will make some major errors and then the Democrats will see some opportunities.

…

As for the faux populism, I’ve been around these people all my life. I graduated from college in 1983, I worked in National Review in 1984, and my first encounter with Trumpians was way back then, though we didn’t know it at the time. There was a group at Dartmouth, called the Dartmouth Review. Famous people have emerged from there — Laura Ingraham, Dinesh D’Souza — but they were very different from us. We were earnest. We read Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. They were like, “Let’s take on the left.”

And the classic Dartmouth Review action took place in 1986. A group of progressive students had erected a shanty on the quad at Dartmouth to protest apartheid, a thing very much worth opposing. And the Dartmouth Review guys, in the middle of the night, used sledgehammers and broke it all down. And I remember thinking that’s appalling. First, apartheid really is terrible. We should not be defending it. But also, coming in with sledgehammers, that’s more Gestapo than Edmund Burke.

And yet, that kind of person who’s in the elite universities, but who is a dissenter in the elite universities, who’s fed up with the progressive orthodoxy that dominates those universities — you get Elon Musk who went to Penn, Vivek Ramaswamy who went to Harvard and Yale, Stephen Miller went to Duke — these are elite dissenters from the university culture. They are not populists.

As a result, when they come to power, they don’t really do all that much to help the working class. I would love it if the Trump administration would take on the health disparities, the education disparities, the family disparities that make it hard to be working class right now. But they don’t do that. They go after N.I.H. They go after the Department of Education. They go after U.S.A.I.D. They go after the places where they think elite liberals live.

David Brooks with Patrick Healy (shared link)

The only thing I have to add is that some recent personal reading in history stunned me with the parallels between Trump and Andrew Jackson.

A third rate, schoolboy version of magnanimity

It seems this is a David Brooks day, as Brooks dissects Trump’s “third rate, schoolboy version of magnanimity.” (shared link)

Why there will be no recession despite Trump’s antics

If critics point out that Canada and Mexico have done nothing to warrant the imposition of these punishing penalties, this will be irrelevant. Trump will simply lie about his reasons, accusing these rival nations of some imaginary transgression, which many Republican voters will believe is true. Along the way, as Trump lowers and raises these penalties at will, domestic companies will seek exemptions in return for favors (financial and otherwise), which Trump will gladly grant and accept. Meanwhile, senior members of his administration will be free to enrich themselves by shorting the stock market just before the announcement of an increase in tariffs (which often produces a drop in prices). If these trading partners retaliate in a way that harms the United States, Trump will use this retroactively to justify his protectionist moves. See? It’s us against them, as I always said.

But what about economic reality? Won’t the data show that Trump’s policies are hurting the economy? The answer is: Only if the government continues to put out trustworthy and accurate economic data. Earlier this week, The Bulwark’s Jonathan Last suggested that the Trump administration could well be planning to stop doing that.

[Trump] doesn’t care about the numbers because he’s planning to have his government monkey with the economic data. There won’t be a recession because Trump’s government is never going to release data showing a recession. He’s planning on doing to economic data what he tried to do with COVID case numbers and testing. And he thinks that he’ll be able to sell the “data” his government produces to voters.

Later the same day Last published these words, a member of the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC) announced that the committee was “terminated abruptly,” with “all upcoming meetings … also canceled.” The committee has existed for 25 years and met twice a year to advise the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Census Bureau, and the Department of Commerce “on matters related to federal economic statistics.” The very next day, the Secretary of Commerce likewise disbanded the 2030 Census Advisory Committee, claiming its purpose had been fulfilled.

Damon Linker (emphasis added)

I’m starting to think that Trumps crazy careening around is his way of soliciting bribes to leave the briber alone.

---

I suffer more from the humiliations inflicted by my country than from those inflicted on her.

Simone Weil, from a letter to Georges Bernanos.

[N]one of the things that I care about most have ever proven susceptible to systematic exposition.

Alan Jacobs, Breaking Bread With the Dead

I don’t do any of the major social media, but I have two sub-domains of the domain you’re currently reading: (a) You can read most of my reflexive stuff, especially political here. (b) I also post some things on the only social medium I frequent, because people there are quirky, pleasant and real.