 |
1. Jonathan Chait’s column on Donald Trump’s dismantling of the two guardrails against presidential kleptocracy — tax disclosure and personal divestment — left many readers disturbed (“The Kleptocracy Preps for Pennsylvania Avenue,” November 28–December 11). Commenter NativeAngeleno felt that Trump was, once again, feigning ignorance for personal gain: “The notion that Trump doesn’t know what a blind trust is parallels his statement over the summer that he didn’t know who David Duke was, despite extensive remarks made by him about Duke over the last 25 years. It’s the same guy, people.” “From the Trump Hotel in DC to selling his brand in India, Trump is taking money from foreign interests, and that is expressly forbidden by the Constitution for a president,” wrote commenter mollysgaga. “It will be interesting to see how the conservative worshippers of the Constitution deal with this. My guess is we’ll see blatant hypocrisy.” One reader, yyz2112, felt that Chait made a strong argument about the new administration’s willingness to obliterate governing norms. “The main thing about this piece is not so much Chait’s take on the coming kleptocracy. It’s his point about norms. For instance, the norm of peaceful transferral of power. Trump threatened to trample this norm even before November 8th.” @jorgepinon flagged Chait’s point that Trump’s potential kleptocracy wouldn’t be unique: “The developing world,” Chait wrote, “is filled with ruling families that use the state to amass huge and usually secretive fortunes.” But for many readers, his piece sounded a call to be vigilant. “Everyone should read this,” wrote @blue24fox. “This is what we most need to guard against. And we’re already losing.”
 |
2. “I’ve decided that the best thing for Democrats to do for the next four years is to stop caring about ‘identity politics’ and focus on the needs of white men all around the country,” wrote Liz Meriwether in her satirical column on women and minorities’ entering a medically induced coma for the duration of Trump’s presidency (“This Woman’s Place,” November 28–December 11). While most readers seemed to appreciate Meriwether’s humorous approach — “Give Liz Meriwether a goddamn Pulitzer for this one,” tweeted @tinahornsass. “We need to laugh about this election, too” — wrote commenter rgqueen, who pointed out that we might not like what we see four years from now. “The country is going to be a complete sh*tshow in four years … I wouldn’t want to wake up to it.” “Yes,” agreed YouLiveInABubble. “We will all be speaking Russian wearing Klan hoods under 2 feet of water.” We’d be sad to lose Meriwether’s voice, but if she has to hibernate through the impending administration, commenter eastcoastgypsy urged her to “make [a] donation to Planned Parenthood in Pence’s name before you close up shop.”
3. Rembert Browne and Rebecca Traister’s conversation on political protest in the age of Trump asked what sort of warriors the left should be as it approaches the next four years and teased at the question of what the point of protest is (“Should We Be Angry or Optimistic?,” November 28–December 11). “Angry or optimistic, the protests need to happen,” responded commenter bareshark1975. “None of it will mean s*** if we also don’t build actual opposition for when the cameras aren’t rolling.” @AnnOlivarius agreed, quoting Traister’s assertion that “this fight is multi-tentacled,” adding, “so protest should be both and everywhere.” In response to Browne’s point that “people need to march in D.C. — but also move out of D.C. and New York to the Midwest,” the writer Fredrik deBoer responded with skepticism: “It’s not that individual liberals can’t come up with answers for this awful political moment. It’s that liberalism has no answers for it.”
4. “Silicon Valley is, slowly, coming to terms with the way its products have enabled the revival of illiberal populism around the world,” wrote Max Read in his story on the internet’s influence on democracy (“Maybe the Internet Is Just Terrible After All,” November 28–December 11). “Instead of blaming internet culture for [the] election of Trump,” tweeted progressive activist Tim Canova, “Dem Establishment should look in a mirror: DNC got its way.” Some readers contemplated what steps could be taken to solve the problems posed in the piece. @mariabustillos tweeted, “In my opinion, mass deletion of Facebook would be a good start.” SkipG felt readers were responsible for assessing what is real and what is fake. “If people are too lazy or too ignorant to consider where they get their information, then there’s really not much to be done.” Still, others felt the article should be a wake-up for Silicon Valley. “A lot of San Francisco folks should read Max Read on how maybe the internet isn’t a fantastic tool for democracy after all,” wrote BuzzFeed News’s Sheera Frenkel. “A call to action for tech pros,” wrote @steveramosmedia. “Identify, address, and eliminate fake news.”