The answer is: He Will not. But it was a close thing.
On Friday, George Will announced that he was leaving the Republican Party, saying that Trump & Friends were not his party. This left me with quite a dilemma. First, there’s the long-standing, well-nigh sacred rule that I do not summarize George Will in the Sunday APR. Yes, there’s also a rule stating that I refuse to air another of Maureen Dowd’s weekly applications to join the Plastics, but the George Will rule … that’s serious. I think of it as an act of public charity, if not public safety. Breaching such a rule is not to be done lightly.
But clearly, if George Will was going to spend his column this week describing how he broke away from the party he’s held dear lo these 92 years (yeah, I know, it just seems that long), I had to give serious consideration to lifting the ban, even if that risked exposing readers to a mention of how women are seeking the coveted status of sexual assault victim (yes, he said that) or even worse, that he might start talking about baseball.
Fortunately, this Gordian knot was cleanly slashed when Will decided to write his column this week cheering for the UK’s vote to leave the European Union. Like conservative writers everywhere, George will has a closet full of tweed and a spotted dick or two in the cabinet, waiting for that opportunity to be more English than the English. He celebrated that chance this week, talking up “Britain’s welcome revival of nationhood” before salivating over the chance that the whole EU might smash apart in the aftermath.
In that lust to see the continentals get a swift kick to the bollocks, Will has two friends: His totally unacceptable, can’t stand the guy, Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and … the guy featured in this next piece.
Michael McFaul on why the conservative’s favorite strong man loves the Brexit vote.
When Vladimir Putin worked in Dresden, he watched helplessly as Soviet ally East Germany slipped out of Moscow’s orbit, united with West Germany, and joined the democratic side of Europe. … Putin then witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Union, an event that he later described as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. Former Soviet allies and parts of the Soviet empire peeled away, also joined the democratic side of Europe and eventually became members of NATO and the European Union. For nearly three decades, the West was consolidating as the East was disintegrating. The momentum toward a Europe whole and free was so powerful that earlier Russian leaders even flirted with joining as well.
That trend has now reversed. The decision by a majority of British voters to exit the European Union was not the first event in this reversal but maybe the most dramatic. Europe is now weakening as Russia, its allies and its multilateral organizations are consolidating, even adding new members. Putin, of course, did not cause the Brexit vote, but he and his foreign policy objectives stand to gain enormously from it.
Sure, Putin is cheering for the EU breakup, because it leaves him free to bite off chunks of Europe with no consolidated opposition. But it also makes visits to Trump golf courses cheaper, and Will gets to celebrate by using the term nomenklatura (Communist Party bureaucrats in the Soviet Union) when describing the EU. I’m sure that Putin is getting a good chuckle from Will this morning.
George said he was leaving the GOP. He just neglected to let people know he was joining United Russia.
Okay, that’s enough flirting around the edges of Very Important Rules. Let’s go inside and see what other people are talking about.
Constanze Stelzenmüller agrees that this is a reversal of a period of peace and unity. Oddly enough, she’s not excited by the idea.
For me as a German, the Brexit vote is the second great seismic shift of my lifetime. The first was the miraculous gift of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, which led to a quarter-century of expanded freedom, prosperity, democracy and security in Europe. The question before us now is: Does Brexit mark the beginning of the end for this era of peace? Or can the European project be salvaged?
The key thing to understand now is that this referendum was not just about policy questions such as immigration, regulation or defense cooperation. There are sensible debates to be had about these issues; the United Kingdom and the European Union argued about them over four decades. David Cameron’s government successfully negotiated exceptions for the U.K. on almost all the topics it cared about. Today’s E.U. was shaped by British goals, such as enlargement, and Turkey’s candidacy. Tragically, all this made no difference to the “leavers,” and it did nothing for the “remain” camp.
Those in the UK who argued for exit like to exaggerate the effect of the EU on the UK, but in truth the UK was very often in the driver’s seat of European policy. It wasn’t just a member of the EU, it was one of the most powerful, most respected members, very used to getting its way on major policy matters, and getting concessions when the UK didn’t want to go along with rules the rest of Europe agreed to follow.
The rest of the E.U. supported these concessions, because we were appalled at the prospect of the U.K. leaving Europe. We saw Britain as a force for reason and good — an ancient and resilient democracy, with a history of deep engagement with the continent and the world.
The New York Times is concerned about what a weakening Europe means for the United States on the security front.
Apart from creating economic turmoil, Britain’s calamitous vote to leave the European Union could have no less profound foreign policy consequences, weakening the interlocking web of Western institutions and alliances that have helped guarantee international peace and stability for 70 years.
This is also a testing moment for President Obama, who has been understandably preoccupied with building alliances in Asia, but must once again make Europe and the trans-Atlantic alliance a priority and find ways to rebuild consensus and chart a united path forward. Otherwise, the major beneficiaries will be Russia and China, both challenging the established Western-led order.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is cheering for chaos, just as he cheered a collapsing housing market, because both of them give him opportunities for quick cash. When Trump calls himself the “King of Debt” what he’s really saying is “I make money off disasters and tragedy.” Which puts his policy of shutting down NATO in something of a different light.
Alex Massie was on hand for Trump’s contribution to the Brexit discussion.
Friday, as it turned out, was an appropriate moment for Donald Trump to arrive in the United Kingdom. “Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee said in a statement issued as he landed to visit his golf course at Turnberry. “I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.” The implication was clear: Where Britain led this past week, the United States might follow in November.
But that gets it backward. This people’s revolt represented, in many respects, the Americanization of British politics. The “leave” campaign’s slogan — its devastatingly effective slogan — of “take back control” was positively Trumpian. Indeed, some of the same forces of alienation, discontent, economic insecurity and racial animosity that produced Trump in the United States have now hauled Britain out of the European Union. This past week’s revolution, arguably the greatest political insurrection since the dawn of the democratic era, offers further evidence that some political trends recognize no borders or boundaries. It was more than just a political battle; it was a culture war, too. And it bore the hallmarks of the one that began in the United States 50 years ago.
There’s a solid streak of “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it” lurking in conservative politics on both sides of the Atlantic. It’s a dark thing that doesn’t just expect an economic / social / military / zombie apocalypse, it actively craves it. Seeing government fall apart, cities fall apart, social systems fall apart feeds the heart of this beast. Part of it is a desire to hurt people who are seen as gaining from an intact social structure ( I once heard a woman complain that she was tired of poor kids getting discount meals at school, arguing that … honestly, I don’t know what she was arguing. I quit listening at that point.) They’re also sure that, being innately better than people of those other sorts, that when the world does turn into a blood-soaked nightmare, they’ll be the one standing on top of the bodies, holding a sword. They believe this, even when they’re 74, and living on pension somewhere in Devon. Note: in the US, these people respond to such feelings by buying more guns. They also respond to Tuesdays by buying more guns.
Kathleen Parker notices that Trump fellow is rather self-centered.
Conveniently in Scotland to visit his Turnberry resort, the brand-brandishing baron of bombast opined that Brexit was “a great thing.” …
What matters is that Trump saw in Brexit an opportunity to profit. Because that’s what Trump does. One impoverished fellow’s home foreclosure is Trump’s business opportunity. One nation’s lost cause is his tourist bonanza.
You probably thought Brexit was about national independence, didn’t you? Trump thought it was about him. The pound’s decline, he explained, could mean more travelers to his resorts — and what could be better than that?
Parker’s bit isn’t saying anything you haven’t seen elsewhere, but she does a good job of capturing the mindset of both Brexit and Trump voters. For that reason, it’s worth reading.
Robert J. Samuelson on what happens now that Brexit is Bron.
On June 1, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development issued its latest economic forecasts. In 2016, it predicted that the world economy would grow 3 percent, the United Kingdom 1.7 percent and the euro area (the 19 E.U. countries using the euro) 1.6 percent. We don’t know how these figures will now be revised, but we do know the direction: down. …
Lower stock markets in Europe and elsewhere will hurt consumer spending, as wealthier shoppers feel poorer and less certain about the future. Multinational companies will delay or cancel new investment projects as they reevaluate whether the United Kingdom remains a viable export platform for the E.U. market. Multinational banks will reconsider their operations in London, now Europe’s financial center. Capital flight from emerging-market nations may accelerate, reducing economic growth in these countries.
Samuelson clearly didn’t calculate the effect of Scottish golf trips and that warm feeling you get from having your nationhood revived. Like Lord Nelson, the British won’t be cold if the heat goes off this winter, because their zeal for country will keep them warm. Let’s test that, shall we?
Linda Greenhouse on how the Supreme Court said the wrong thing by saying nothing.
It’s essential: Having bestowed upon this handful of life-tenured individuals such enormous, even anomalous, power, in a democracy, the American people should expect at the very least that the justices are willing to stand up and be counted.
And then came last week’s deadlock in the immigration case, a 4-to-4 tie announced in a single sentence — “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court” — without identifying the justices on either side or their competing views. Since a tie vote automatically affirms the lower court’s ruling, the result in this case, United States v. Texas, was to bar more than four million people, unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of United States citizens or legal residents, from the benefit of deferred deportation that President Barack Obama intended to confer on them.
Without even putting their names to it, four people wrecked the lives of 4 million. The immigrants deserved better. So did everyone else.
I see it as devastating for the Roberts court as well, a court that has seemed for the past few years to teeter on the brink of becoming a tool of partisan warfare, only to be rescued occasionally by the deft hand of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. This time, he failed himself and his court.
Colbert King on the toxicity of Trump plus evangelicals.
“We don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion,” said Donald Trump, while speaking to a group of Christian leaders in New York. “Now, she’s been in the public eye for years and years, and yet there’s no — there’s nothing out there.” Trump, of course, is dead wrong about that, just as he is about so many other things on which he opines. There’s plenty “out there” about Hillary Clinton’s faith. …
This week, Trump expressed concern to a conservative gathering in New York that the United States is being damaged because he sees Christianity on a slide to becoming “weaker, weaker, weaker.”
He proclaimed “my greatest contribution to Christianity — and other religions” will be “religious liberty” along with his promise to appoint antiabortion Supreme Court justices, make department store employees say “Merry Christmas” and let public school coaches lead sectarian prayer on the field. Reportedly he won a standing ovation.
Donald Trump is promising to erect a wall to keep out immigrants, and he’s promised to build a bridge to firmly connect the government with a particular view of Christianity. Of course, it’s a violation of the 1st amendment—now. But once Trump gets a chance to replace, as he said this week “five, or as many as four, or three” justices on the Supreme Court, you’ll be just amazed at what’s legal.
Henry Paulson shows that George wasn’t the only conservative taking a break from the GOP this week.
Republicans stand at a crossroads. With Donald Trump as the presumptive presidential nominee, we are witnessing a populist hijacking of one of the United States’ great political parties. The GOP, in putting Trump at the top of the ticket, is endorsing a brand of populism rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism. This troubles me deeply as a Republican, but it troubles me even more as an American. Enough is enough. It’s time to put country before party and say it together: Never Trump.
Paulson then crosses the line that make so many of the Neverlanders quiver.
When it comes to the presidency, I will not vote for Donald Trump. I will not cast a write-in vote. I’ll be voting for Hillary Clinton, with the hope that she can bring Americans together to do the things necessary to strengthen our economy, our environment and our place in the world. To my Republican friends: I know I’m not alone.
Dana Milbank warns against letting stories like Paulson’s make Democrats too confident.
As someone who delights in the absurd in politics, I should celebrate Trump: an orange buffoon who flies to Scotland in the middle of the Brexit crisis and boasts about his golf resort, who brags about his penis size in a televised debate, lies about his charitable giving, fights with the pope, talks at a third-grade level, bastardizes Yiddish and bungles New Testament verses alike, calls 9/11 7-Eleven and believes global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese. …
Far-right nationalism is supposed to be a product of other countries. Austria last month came within a whisker of electing the first ultranationalist head of state in Europe since World War II. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Front has an unsettling appeal. In Britain, a xenophobic strain empowered the Brexit disaster.
Like way, way too many people this year, Milbank is getting a heavy dose of antisemitism from Trump supporters.
“If Trump stays on Message he will beat that whore and you will have to take your ass to Israel,” one emailer informed me in a badly spelled message this week. That follows many others via email and social media (“more of that, Jew . . . had you pegged as a Jewish shill . . . you’re garbage”), and my experience is hardly the worst.
I can certainly imagine that makes the whole season a lot less fun.
Leonard Pitts with a story you may not have heard.
Saturday, someone tried to kill Donald Trump.
You may not have heard about it. The story didn’t get much play, the attempt wasn’t well planned and the candidate was never in jeopardy. ...
Let us be thankful he was not successful. The assassination of Donald Trump would have been a new low for a political season that is already the most dispiriting in memory. It would have deprived a family of its father and husband. It would have traumatized a nation where political murder has been a too-frequent tragedy.
And it would have imparted the moral authority of martyrdom to Trump’s ideas. That would be a disaster in its own right.
This event was last Saturday, before Trump went off to shill golf course memberships in the middle of a political disaster.
Martin Luther King’s dream of racial equality did not die on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. Nor did Adolf Hitler’s dream of racial extermination perish with him in that bunker beneath Berlin. Ideas, both transcendent and repugnant, are far hardier than the fragile lives of the men and women who given them voice.
Please, no one do anything that’s going to make Trump notable in the history books, would ya? While we have to live with the guy this poilitical season, I’m still holding onto the fantasy that, in the not so distant future, his name will draw a resounding “who?”
Frank Bruni has a list of some up and coming Democrats. I’m not going to list them all here, but some of them are already familiar from this site—the rest probably will be. So give this a quick read and when one of these folks pops up in conversation, you’ll seem super smart.
To close out today, I wanted to append this video. It’s not from a pundit, it’s from mathematician, artist, and all around clever person, Vi Hart. If you haven’t watched her draw elephants in math class you really should. No elephants this week, and none of Vi’s usual subject, or math-inspired singing.
I put this here because, dammit people, this is not the way the world is supposed to work.