We begin today’s roundup with Paul Krugman’s analysis at The New York Times:
Mr. Trump is a clear case of someone born on third base who imagines that he hit a triple: He inherited a fortune, and it’s far from clear that he has expanded that fortune any more than he would have if he had simply parked the money in an index fund. [...] Does business success carry with it the knowledge and instincts needed to make good economic policy? No, it doesn’t. [...]
I’m not saying that business success is inherently disqualifying when it comes to policy making. A tycoon who has enough humility to realize that he doesn’t already know all the answers, and is willing to listen to other people even when they contradict him, could do fine as an economic manager. But does this describe anyone currently running for president?
The truth is that the idea that Donald Trump, of all people, knows how to run the U.S. economy is ludicrous. But will voters ever recognize that truth?
Over at The Washington Post, Dan Balz analyzes Donald Trump’s takeover of the GOP:
It’s been called a hostile takeover of the Republican Party, but there’s little that has happened since Donald Trump became the GOP’s presumptive nominee to suggest he wants anything to do with the party. He’s borrowing the brand for his own purposes.
In all ways, Trump continues to show that he is the anti-conventions candidate. That’s especially the case with any notions of him becoming the leader of a political party. Trump is a singular politician unlike any who has risen as fast and as far as he has in modern times. In the same way that he has demonstrated no consistency in his views on issues over time, there is nothing to suggest that he has much regard for the responsibilities and opportunities that come with being the leader of a party.
Meanwhile, Vince Foster’s sister, Sheila Foster Anthony, pens a scathing op-ed against Donald Trump and his conspiracy theories:
It is beyond contempt that a politician would use a family tragedy to further his candidacy, but such is the character of Donald Trump displayed in his recent comments to The Washington Post. In this interview, Trump cynically, crassly and recklessly insinuated that my brother, Vincent W. Foster Jr., may have been murdered because “he had intimate knowledge of what was going on” and that Hillary Clinton may have somehow played a role in Vince’s death.
How wrong. How irresponsible. How cruel.
Here’s The New York Times on the State Department’s email use report:
What follows next is certain to be a grueling campaign slog through details and allegations that voters will be hard pressed to track and, indeed, may soon tire of. Even now, it seems a stretch to say that Mrs. Clinton’s email mishaps should disqualify her for the White House, particularly considering the alternative of Mr. Trump with his manifold evasions — not least his refusal to release tax returns that could shed light on his claims to great wealth, his charitable contributions and other deductions and possible conflicts of interest.
But the nation should not be judging leadership as a measure of who is less untrustworthy. Mrs. Clinton has to answer questions about the report thoroughly and candidly. That is her best path back to the larger task of campaigning for the presidency.
Ed Kilgore examines the disconnect between coverage of Hillary Clinton’s email and Donald Trump’s antics:
By now it should not be surprising that the latest development in the Clinton email "scandal," a critical report from the State Department inspector general that adds little to what we know, was greeted with shouts from some people and yawns from others. [...]
[W]e are drifting into a general election where important media sources seem to have decided that Clinton violating State Department email protocols and Trump openly threatening press freedoms, proudly championing war crimes, and cheerfully channeling misogyny and ethnic and racial grievances are of about the same order of magnitude. And that's not to mention the vast differences between the two candidates on all those public-policy issues that Amy Chozick thinks voters have subordinated to questions of "trust."
This is the kind of environment in which it becomes easy for a candidate like Trump to achieve "normalization" even as he continues to do and say abnormal things — you know, like attacking elected officials of his own party even as he is allegedly trying to "unify" it — with every other breath.
The Week’s Paul Waldman explains why party platforms still matter:
Party unity will not be determined by what happens in the meetings of the platform committee. In fact, amid all the theatrics and (possibly) drama of the convention, almost no one will know what's in the platform, let alone what kind of arguments it took to finalize the document.
But party platforms still really matter.
It's a healthy exercise for important people within the party to sit down every four years and lay out exactly what they're for, even if few people actually pore through the ultimate result. Even in our personality-driven age, parties still play a vital role in organizing political life and enabling people to understand the choices they have in a representative democracy.
Over at The Nation, Clinton supporter Joan Walsh says that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party will benefit from a debate on the issues the DNC:
Although her platform promises a long list of reforms that would even the playing field and widen opportunity—from a minimum-wage hike to childcare and preschool assistance to massive college subsidies, stronger labor laws and infrastructure investment—Clinton is not yet telling a story that makes her prescription sufficiently compelling. Just as President Obama’s 2012 campaign took off when he began to incorporate more populist fire, hers likely will as well. [...]
I think Clinton will benefit from a new focus on issues that will come as the campaign moves into the platform-negotiation stage...This is a party strong enough to endure some debate—on the issues, not personalities.
On a final note, don’t miss Senator Kirsten Gillibrand’s op-ed on sexual assault in the military:
I understand that the military would prefer not to have the interference of Congress or civilian oversight. But that’s not how our form of government works. The Defense Department tells us that if 3 percent of the most senior commanders don’t have sole authority to decide whether a person accused of rape should be prosecuted, we will lose good order and discipline in our military. That same argument was used against integrating the services; against allowing women to serve; against repealing don’t ask, don’t tell; and against allowing women in combat. It wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now.
For more than 20 years, since Dick Cheney was defense secretary and pledged “zero tolerance” for sexual assault, the Defense Department has been telling Congress: Trust us, we’ve got this. Last year alone, the department estimated that there were more than 20,000 sexual assaults against service members — more than 50 a day, and roughly the same number since 2010.
Congress has a chance to do right by the men and women who serve this country and give them a justice system equal in quality to their service. This time, let’s hope Congress takes that chance.