Trump Presents A “Dark Vision” In His Inauguration Address

NY Times: Trump “Presented A Dark Vision” In His Inaugural Address. President Donald Trump “presented a dark vision of a nation afflicted by division and dislocation, exploited and forgotten by a group of Washington elites and diminished around the world” in his January 20 inaugural address, according to a New York Times article. The Times added that Trump “promised” that “his arrival … would finally turn it around.” From the January 20 report:

Donald John Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, ushering in a new and more unpredictable era in which he vowed to shatter the established order and restore American greatness.

From the West Front of the Capitol, overlooking a crowd of hundreds of thousands as rain began to fall, Mr. Trump presented a dark vision of a nation afflicted by division and dislocation, exploited and forgotten by a group of Washington elites and diminished around the world. His arrival, he promised, would finally turn it around. [The New York Times, 1/20/17]

Media Across The Ideological Spectrum Characterize Trump’s Dangerous And Divisive Rhetoric As “Populism”

CNN’s Jake Tapper: Trump’s Speech Was “Purely Populist.” CNN anchor Jake Tapper characterized Trump’s speech as “purely populist,” as well as “one of the most radical inauguration speeches we’ve ever heard.” From CNN’s 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

WOLF BLITZER (CO-HOST): And so now the United States has a new president, the 45th president of the United States. There he is, Donald J. Trump. He takes office after delivering a speech, Jake, speech that he could have delivered, and he often delivered, throughout the 18 months of his campaign. He delivered the speech that got him elected president of the United States



JAKE TAPPER (CO-HOST): It was very consistent to the Trump brand, absolutely. I have to say, I think it’s fair to say this is one of the most radical inaugural speeches we’ve ever heard. It was purely populist. It talked about “the forgotten people,” it attacked Washington while standing inside the center of Washington, D.C., surrounded by Washington insiders. There was nothing particularly conservative about this Republican president’s speech. It was pure populism. And in fact, it looked at the United States and the role of the United States in a way that departures greatly from what we’ve heard from all of his predecessors on that stage: Obama, Bush, Carter. It talked about America first as his priority. It was completely consistent with his brand, I have to say. It had nice part at the end talking about how whatever color you are, like a soldier, black, brown, or white, we all bleed the red blood of patriots. But I have to say, I think it will go down in history as one of the most radical speeches ever given by a president. [CNN, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

CNN’s David Axelrod: Trump Offered A “Full-Throated … Populist Manifesto” In His Inaugural Address. CNN senior political commentator David Axelrod described Trump’s address as a “full-throated” “populist manifesto.” From CNN’s 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

ANDERSON COOPER (HOST): And David Axelrod, in terms of unity, he said, “through loyalty to country we will rediscover our loyalty to each other; when you open your heart to patriotism there is no room for prejudice.”

DAVID AXELROD: Yeah, I mean, I think that there were words that were aimed at trying to unify the country, but then there were statements like, “We all enjoy the same glorious freedoms and we all salute the same great American flag.” Well we all salute the same flag, but not everybody in the country feels like they have an equal share of freedom, which is a big concern of many. But look, this was a full-throated, as has been said, populist manifesto. He lit this town on fire, he made very clear that he believes it's America first; we’re going to protect our borders, we’re going to protect our jobs, we’re going to essentially draw a line around this country and fight that fight. He laid down the gauntlet. But he also said one thing that I think will be remembered by others, which is, “We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it,” and said “we’re going to change everything for the better” and took it on his shoulders that he is going to do that. He will be held accountable for that in the years to come. [CNN, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

CNN’s John King: In His Speech, Trump Laid Out His “Brand Of Populism.” CNN chief national correspondent John King asserted that Trump in his speech laid out his “brand of populism.” From CNN’s 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

JOHN KING: It's a beautiful hall, I just want to make note of the moment. After this happens of course everybody talks about what they just saw and they just heard. The new president, Donald Trump, is about to have lunch with the people he just said have spent the last years, he didn't put a number on it, enriching themselves at the expense of the American people. And so this is the creative tension, if you will, in Washington, D.C., right now. Donald Trump is a Republican president. As Jake noted right after the speech, there was nothing ideological about that speech -- he didn't talk about conservatives and tax cuts or he didn't lay down any markers -- it was much more of a Trump brand of populism agenda, and Washington is in this fascinating feeling-out period right now. Yes, you have a Republican Senate and a Republican House. They say relations with the president-elect have improved dramatically from  the campaign, when he was running against them as much as he was running against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. But there are many of his priorities, even some that he listed there -- infrastructure, for example -- where a lot of Republicans say we’re all for improving roads and bridges but we’re not for blowing up the budget deficit. How are we going to pay for that? [CNN, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

Fox’s Charles Krauthammer: Trump’s Speech “Was The Most Classically Populist Speech We’ve Ever Heard From A President.” Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer claimed that Trump’s inaugural address “was the most classically populist speech we’ve ever heard from a president.” From Fox News’ 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I agree with the conclusion that this was probably the most classically populist speech we’ve ever heard from a president. It was completely not partisan. And it was an appeal to a constituency that is utterly mixed. This is to the middle of the country. I think it will be remembered as the forgotten-man speech. [Fox News, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

Fox’s Tucker Carlson: “Populism” Has “Never Been As Purely Distilled” As It Was In Trump’s Speech. Fox News host Tucker Carlson asserted that Trump’s speech was “populism,” adding, “It’s never been as purely distilled” as it was in Trump’s speech. From Fox News’ 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

TUCKER CARLSON: This was not a conservative speech. There was nothing in there about paring back government, at all. This is populism, and it’s never been as purely distilled, I thought, as it was tonight. [Fox News, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

Presidential Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: Trump “Made Enemies” In His Speech, “As Populism Always Does.” Presidential historian and NBC guest Doris Kearns Goodwin explained that Trump “made enemies” in his speech, “as populism always does.” From NBC’s 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

LESTER HOLT: As I had noted, a lot of the themes we heard in that inaugural address were straight from the campaign, clearly true to what got him here and speaking to the base. What did you note about his speech?

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN: Well, I think, on the one hand, it probably was the best campaign speech he ever gave in the sense that it wasn’t “I, I, I,” as he usually talked about; he just mentioned “we” are part of a movement and “I” will fight for you with every breath of me, was one of the few times he brought the “I” in. But I agree with you. I think a campaign speech to your supporters, they will love what he spoke. It was simple. It was declarative. But yet, he made enemies, as populism always does. He had to make an enemy to get his supporters roused up. One enemy was the whole Capitol Hill and the politician establishment. And the other was the world at-large. [NBC, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

NBC’s Chuck Todd: Trump “Went With Populism.” NBC host and political director Chuck Todd claimed that Trump “went with populism” in his speech. From NBC’s 2017 Inauguration Day coverage:

CHUCK TODD: I have to say, it was surprisingly divisive for an inaugural address. And I say it this way. We said it’s a challenge when you’re elected as an outsider, you’re elected as a populist, and you’re channeling what was real anger out there with his supporters, it’s tough to be both a unifier and that populist carrier. He went with populism. [NBC, Inauguration Day coverage, 1/20/17]

McClatchyDC’s Anita Kumar: Trump Echoed “Populist Themes.” McClatchyDC’s Anita Kumar described Trump’s inaugural address as echoing “the same populist themes that led to his unexpected victory.” From the January 20 McClatchyDC article:

There was no mistaking the clear message President Donald Trump made in his inaugural address: America comes first.

In a stark 16-minute speech, Trump shunned the United States’ recent attempts at globalization and embraced nationalism while echoing the same populist themes that led to his unexpected victory. [McClatchy, 1/20/17]

Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro: Trump’s Speech “Foretold” A “Movement” To “Populism.” The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro wrote that Trump’s address “foretold” a “major political realignment” and “a movement of the Republican Party … to Pat Buchananite populism.” From the January 20 Daily Wire article:

But if Trump’s inaugural address foretold any serious policy, he just presaged a major political realignment: a movement of the Republican Party away from the Reagan conservatism of the past – fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, foreign policy hawkishness – to Pat Buchananite populism. Trump’s philosophy – what we’ve seen of it, at least -- is absolutely antithetical to the idea of maintaining liberty at home through small government and abroad through alliances and muscular defense. [Daily Wire, 1/20/17]

Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes: Trump Gave A “Strongly Populist Speech.”

A strongly populist speech, heavy on economic nationalism and blame for the establishment. In other words, Vintage Trump. #Inauguration

— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) January 20, 2017 [Twitter, 1/20/17]

NY Times’ Jonathan Martin: Trump’s Speech “Suggests We Now Have Our First Populist President.”

I wrote after E Day that Trump was effectively a third-party candidate.



That inaug speech suggests we now have our first populist president

— Jonathan Martin (@jmartNYT) January 20, 2017 [Twitter, 1/20/17]

Trump Is No Populist -- His Presidency Is Shaping Up To Be “The Most Brazen Embrace Of Big Money Since The 1980s”

Wash. Post: Trump Does Not Have “Much Evidence Of Service To Others Or Putting Anything Above Self-Interest.” Sociology professor Brooke Harrington wrote on The Washington Post’s PostEverything blog that Trump’s “success in evading calls to service is by now well-documented,” and that even the majority of his cabinet picks “are more renowned for enriching themselves than for giving to needy causes or serving others”:

But history demonstrates that “billionaire populist” isn’t necessarily a contradiction in terms. Wealthy Americans — some populist and some patrician in their style — have done this country a lot of good, including serving in our highest public offices with distinction. What matters is not how much a president and his advisers are worth but whether they’re willing to put the country’s interests before personal gain and partisanship. That’s what Trump’s team will have to prove and what we all should be watching.

[...]

In Trump’s case, there isn’t much evidence of service to others or putting anything above self-interest. He told Fortune magazine back in 2000 that he “could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.” His claims of private philanthropy have been repeatedly debunked, with investigative reporting showing that he didn’t follow through on pledged donations and used his charitable foundation to pay his personal bills — or to give away other people’s money in lieu of his own. And he is the first president-elect never to have held any kind of public office and never to have done military service for his country. His success in evading calls to service is by now well-documented.



As for his wealthy Cabinet nominees, there are charitable people among them. The DeVos family, for instance, is ranked No. 24 on Forbes’s most recent list of top philanthropists, with large donations to education, health care and the arts. But Betsy DeVos has no public-service record to speak of — unless you count tireless devotion to gutting public education in Michigan as a service. She would be the first education secretary who never attended a public school, who never sent her children to a public school and for whom taxes paid toward public education represent a cost without a benefit.



On the whole, Trump’s picks are more renowned for enriching themselves than for giving to needy causes or serving others. For secretary of labor, we find the chief executive of a fast-food company who opposes a higher minimum wage and other labor regulations that cost him money. For leader of the Department of Health and Human Services, the nominee is an orthopedic surgeon who as a member of Congress built a track record of opposing policies that cut into physicians’ profits — including programs such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which limit reimbursements for medical services.



Given what Trump and his Cabinet picks have done in the past, it seems unlikely that they will embrace the independence their wealth allows and govern on behalf of people less fortunate. [The Washington Post, 1/19/17]

CNN’s Julian Zelizer: “Trump Will Put On The Greatest Show On Earth To Preserve” The “Fallacy” Of His “Image As A Populist.” CNN contributor and Princeton public policy professor Julian Zelizer described Trump as a “master showman” who will “govern like a conservative Republican” with the compliance of a Republican Congress “which has been ramping up for eight years.” “Trump will put on the greatest show on Earth to preserve his … image as a populist,” Zelizer wrote, even if it contradicts “his policy record and his own personal history”:

Donald Trump has unleashed a fierce war against organized labor. Anyone who bought into his populist rhetoric on the campaign trail may be questioning this fallacy now.



After appointing the vulture investor Wilbur Ross to be Secretary of Commerce and Goldman Sachs executive Steve Mnuchin -- who made profits on foreclosures during the 2008 housing crisis -- to be Secretary of Treasury, he unloaded a Twitter storm against union leader Chuck Jones for criticizing claims he made about the number of jobs he has saved.

 

Trump went so far as to blame workers for the loss of jobs. They now seem to be part of the global economic elite he liked to talk about on the campaign trail.



Most dramatic of all, he is appointing Andrew Puzder, a fast-food executive who has spent much of his life railing against labor and the policies that benefit workers, to be Secretary of Labor.

This is shaping up to be an administration that is as hostile to organized labor as any we have seen in recent history.

[...]

While Wall Street seems to be in a euphoria about the new administration, conjuring up images from “The Wolf of Wall Street,” America's labor force might be feeling serious trepidation about what they are seeing. Make no mistake: The President-elect is going to govern like a conservative Republican, and the House GOP -- which has been ramping up for eight years -- is ready to stand by his side.

Despite this new reality Trump will put on the greatest show on earth to preserve his campaign image as a populist, even if it defies his policy record and his own personal history. If we have learned anything from the campaign, it is that this master showman has the power to pull this off. He has an uncanny ability to get Americans to look at what he says -- not what he does. [CNN, 12/12/16]

The Guardian’s David Smith: “The So-Called ‘Blue Collar Billionaire’” Is Conducting “The Most Brazen Embrace Of Big Money Since The 1980s.” The Guardian’s David Smith reported on December 2 that Trump “looks set to preside over the wealthiest administration in modern history.” He paraphrased the Center for American Progress’ Igor Volsky saying that “the very people who heard Trump’s blunt, populist message would be the ones to suffer its betrayal”:

At Jean-Georges, a three-star Michelin restaurant in the Trump International Hotel in New York, it’s a rich man’s world, and one where the US president-elect feels at home. This has also been evident in his appointments so far, as the so-called “blue-collar billionaire” looks set to preside over the wealthiest administration in modern history.



Trump, a former host of reality TV show The Apprentice, is surrounding himself with the 1%: billionaires and millionaires, investment bankers and venture capitalists, Wall Street insiders and family fortune heirs, many educated at elite schools. It is the most brazen embrace of big money since the 1980s era of Ronald Reagan, Tom Wolfe’s Masters of the Universe and Oliver Stone’s Gordon Gekko.



“It is a throwback to the ‘greed is good’ mentality,” said Marge Baker, executive vice-president of the liberal pressure group People For the American Way. “It’s also alarming that the president-elect said he believes what’s good for his business is good for America. That’s not how you want the leader of your country to be making decisions.”



Baker added: “When you’ve got Wall Street billionaires setting the agenda it’s not likely to benefit average Americans. Research shows that the wealthy have different priorities and policy priorities, for example on healthcare and the minimum wage.”

[...]

The very people who heard Trump’s blunt, populist message about unrigging the system would be the ones to suffer its betrayal, [Center for American Progress deputy director Igor] Volsky added. “He’s going to perpetuate a system that helps the very richest Americans at the cost of programmes that help middle and lower-income Americans.” [The Guardian, 12/2/16]

Wash. Post’s Jim Tankersley And Ana Swanson: Trump Has “The Wealthiest Administration In Modern American History,” Which “In Many Ways Defies Trump’s Populist Campaign Promises.” The Washington Post reported that the “collective wealth” of Trump’s nominees, including “an heir to a family mega-fortune and two Forbes-certified billionaires,” “in many ways defies Trump’s populist campaign promises”:

Trump is putting together what will be the wealthiest administration in modern American history. His announced nominees for top positions include several multimillionaires, an heir to a family mega-fortune and two Forbes-certified billionaires, one of whose family is worth as much as industrial tycoon Andrew Mellon was when he served as treasury secretary nearly a century ago. Rumored candidates for other positions suggest Trump could add more ultra-rich appointees soon.



Many of the Trump appointees were born wealthy, attended elite schools and went on to amass even larger fortunes as adults. As a group, they have much more experience funding political candidates than they do running government agencies.



Their collective wealth in many ways defies Trump’s populist campaign promises. Their business ties, particularly to Wall Street, have drawn rebukes from Democrats. But the group also amplifies Trump’s own campaign pitch: that Washington outsiders who know how to navigate and exploit a “rigged” system are best able to fix that system for the working class.

[...]

On Wednesday, Democrats seized on [commerce secretary pick Wilbur] Ross’s and [treasury secretary pick Steven] Mnuchin’s Wall Street ties to accuse Trump of undermining his populist pitch.



“I’m not shocked by this. It’s a billionaire president being surrounded by a billionaire and millionaire cabinet, with a billionaire agenda . . . to hurt the middle class,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). “The appointments suggest that he’s going to break his campaign promises.” [The Washington Post, 11/30/16]

Vox’s Dylan Matthews: Trump’s Agenda “Will Increase The Ranks Of The Uninsured By Tens Of Millions [And] Eliminate Crucial Safety Net Programs.” Vox’s Dylan Matthews countered claims of populism by noting that Trump’s presidency will be an “absolute disaster” for every “economically struggling person in America. “With Republicans retaining control” over Congress, Trump’s agenda “stands a very good chance of passing,” he wrote:

But let’s not lose sight of something very important: Donald Trump’s presidency is going to be an absolute disaster for the white working class, the white poor, and every other economically struggling person in America. The people the media is crediting with Trump’s win have a tremendous amount to lose.



Lower-income whites are not going to suffer from Trump’s restrictions on Muslims traveling, or from his mass deportations, or from his cavalier attitude toward police brutality. But Trump has promised an economic agenda that will increase the ranks of the uninsured by tens of millions, that will eliminate crucial safety net programs for low- and moderate-income Americans, that could start a trade war that drives up prices and devastates the economy, and that will put in place a tax code that exacerbates inequality and leaves many families with children worse off.



That affects all Americans — and with Republicans retaining control over the House and Senate, it stands a very good chance of passing. [Vox, 11/9/16]

NY Times’ Alexander Burns: “Trump Fashioned Himself … As A Proudly Garish Champion Of The Common Man … First In The New York Tabloids And Then On National Television.” The New York Times’ Alexander Burns wrote that Trump “spent decades pursuing social acceptance in upscale Manhattan,” but was instead “met with scoffing disdain” by those he wished to impress. So Trump “fashioned himself instead as the proudly garish champion of the common man  --a person of unsophisticated tastes but distinctive popular appeal,” stoking his fan base by “fulminating against crime” and attacking President Obama’s “legitimacy … often in racially incendiary terms.”:

And in the ultimate act of defiance, Mr. Trump emerged victorious, summoning a tidal wave of support from less educated whites displaced by changes in the economy and deeply resistant to the country’s shifting cultural and racial tones. In his triumph, Mr. Trump has delivered perhaps the greatest shock to the American political system in modern times and opened the door to an era of extraordinary political uncertainty at home and around the globe.



The slashing, freewheeling campaign that took him to the doorstep of the White House replicated a familiar pattern from Mr. Trump’s life, but on an Olympian scale.



The son of a wealthy real estate developer in Queens, Mr. Trump, 70, spent decades pursuing social acceptance in upscale Manhattan and seeking, at times desperately, to persuade the wider world to see him as a great man of affairs. But Mr. Trump was often met with scoffing disdain by wealthy elites and mainstream civic leaders, culminating in a mortifying roast by President Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011.



So Mr. Trump fashioned himself instead as a proudly garish champion of the common man — a person of unsophisticated tastes but distinctive popular appeal — and acted the part in extravagant fashion, first in the New York tabloids and then on national television. He became a pundit of sorts, fulminating against crime in New York City and international trade and Mr. Obama’s legitimacy as president, often in racially incendiary terms. [The New York Times, 11/9/16]

Chicago Tribune’s Ron Grossman: “Trump Isn’t A Populist But A Demagogue.” Chicago Tribune columnist Ron Grossman explained that “Trump isn’t a populist but a demagogue,” writing, “The difference being that a populist seeks political power to work for the good of the average citizen. A demagogue claims the same motivation, but is truly only interested in aggrandizing himself.” From the June 27 Chicago Tribune column

Trump isn't a populist but a demagogue. The difference being that a populist seeks political power to work for the good of the average citizen. A demagogue claims the same motivation, but is truly only interested in aggrandizing himself. [Chicago Tribune, 6/27/16]

New Republic’s Jeet Heer: “Trump’s Entire Style … Is The Opposite Of The Traditional Populist Celebration Of Ordinary Humble People.” The New Republic’s Jeet Heer described Trump’s “entire style” as “the opposite of the traditional populist celebration of ordinary humble people,” writing, “Throughout Trump’s rhetoric runs the theme that wisdom is not to be found in ordinary people but in the leadership skills of Trump himself, who alone has the brains to squash the losers and make America great.” From the August 24, 2015, New Republic article:

Trump’s entire style, his gaudy bragging about his own wealth and achievements, is the opposite of the traditional populist celebration of ordinary humble people. Throughout Trump’s rhetoric runs the theme that wisdom is not to be found in ordinary people but in the leadership skills of Trump himself, who alone has the brains to squash the losers and make America great. [New Republic, 8/24/15]

Trump Campaigned On Racism And Misogyny, And There Is No Indication That Will Change Now That He Is President

Wash. Post's Paul Waldman: “When You Elect A White Nationalist President, You Get A White Nationalist Presidency.” In a November 18 piece, Washington Post contributor Paul Waldman explained that Trump’s cabinet picks solidify his embrace of “white identity politics” and that even though “Trump is already betraying the voters who elected him, ... when it comes to race they don’t have much to fear.” Waldman also explained, “Trump’s victory demonstrated the staggering power of a white nationalist appeal”:

Donald Trump announced three new appointments Friday: Michael Flynn for national security adviser, Rep. Mike Pompeo for CIA director and Sen. Jeff Sessions for attorney general. While Sessions is rightfully getting most of the attention, we have to look at Trump’s emerging appointments in context. And that context is this: When you elect a white nationalist president, you get a white nationalist presidency.

[...]

While there are ways Trump is already betraying the voters who elected him, particularly with his eager embrace of lobbyists and Wall Street tycoons, when it comes to race they don’t have much to fear. Trump’s victory demonstrated the staggering power of a white nationalist appeal, and not because it drew in so many voters (let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump, by 1.4 million and rising as of the latest count). The power of that appeal can be seen in what Trump voters were willing to overlook in order to vote for the white nationalist candidate. It’s why, every time Trump said something awful or some new scandal was revealed, everyone who said “Surely his candidacy is finished now” was wrong. It’s what kept him going strong when he questioned John McCain’s service (the first thing people said would destroy him), when we learned about the scam that was Trump University, when we found out that he didn’t pay federal taxes, and when we heard him on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women and then a dozen women came forward to say that he done what he said he did.

In every case, his supporters laughed it off. Trump’s unapologetic embrace of white identity politics, coming after decades of Republicans who would only promote it through dog-whistles and implication, was so thrilling and empowering to them that there was almost nothing they couldn’t accommodate themselves to, twisting the latest controversy around in their minds until it became evidence of Trump’s virtue.

Trump’s white nationalism is what gave him the support of 81 percent of white evangelical Christians, despite his libertine lifestyle and disinterest in religion. It’s what drove up turnout in all-white areas around the country. It’s what made him the Republican nominee and what made him the president. It’s who he is, and who he’s always going to be. And the administration will be a reflection of the man. [The Washington Post, 11/18/16]

Rewire’s Jodi Jacobson: “Trump Is Surrounding Himself With Racists Many Layers Deep.” A November 21 Rewire post notes that Trump’s cabinet and adviser appointments point to “Trump’s true intentions” and that his “campaign was relentlessly and unapologetically rooted in racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant statements, themes, and proposals”:

This should be no surprise: Bannon may be the most blatant example of Trump’s true intentions, but he is by far the rule. Trump’s campaign was relentlessly and unapologetically rooted in racist, misogynistic, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant statements, themes, and proposals, and his cabinet reflects the same. As the saying goes, when someone tells you who they are, believe them.

[...]

As the saying goes, you know a person by the company they keep. And Trump is surrounding himself with racists many layers deep.

So it’s time for all of us—the media, pundits, Democratic legislators, and the public—to stop waiting for the “pivot.” It ain’t coming and if we don’t realize that now, we are all at fault for the unraveling of democracy in the United States. [Rewire, 11/21/16]

NARAL: Trump’s Cabinet Picks “Are United By A Common Theme: A Long Disturbing History Of Misogyny.” A post by NARAL highlighted several of Trump’s cabinet nominees who have a history of misogyny, including Steve Bannon, Andrew Puzder, Jeff Sessions, Mike Pompeo, and Tom Price, explaining that they are all “united by a common theme: A long disturbing history of misogyny.” [NARAL, 12/14/16]