Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 296

NPR’s Ann Powers: “Music expresses the erotic beautifully”

Little Richard, photographed in 1972 (Credit: Getty/Tim Graham)

NPR music critic Ann Powers has been writing about the intersections of pop, politics and the personal for more than two decades now, but her new book goes back considerably further. From the enterprising 18th century Methodists who gave their hymns a scandalously sexy edge to the cyborg allure of Britney Spears, Powers’ sharp, smart new history “Good Booty: Love and Sex, Black and White, Body and Soul in American Music” covers more than two centuries of our favorite obsessions.

The sexual pull of music is as old as human nature. “There are many reasons why music can express the erotic so beautifully,” Powers observed recently during a conversation with “Salon Talks.” “Most of it is inherent in the form itself, in rhythm, in what rhythm does to our bodies.” But America, with its youthful energy, vibrant mix of cultures and fair share of religious hangups, improved upon the formula — as anyone who’s ever shrieked over a pop star can attest.

Reflecting on rock’s early days, Powers noted the rise of the teenager as a powerful — and sometimes intimidating — consumer force. “I do think the particularly American character of risk and rebellion that’s connected to music and has always been part of the language of rock and roll is intertwined with authority and the state,” she said. “You see the teenager as this live wire that’s going to change society but also might blow it apart.”

Watch our full “Salon Talks” conversation on Facebook.

Tune into Salon’s live shows, “Salon Talks” and “Salon Stage,” daily at noon ET / 9 a.m. PT and 4 p.m. ET / 1 p.m. PT, streaming live on Salon and on Facebook.

John Kelly didn’t seem to enjoy Trump’s U.N. speech

John Kelly (Credit: AP/Evan Vucci)

After President Donald Trump delivered his bombastic speech at the United Nations General Assembly — in which he threatened to “totally destroy North Korea” and touted his “America First” talking points — chief of staff John Kelly looked as if he were in physical pain.

“In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anything, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch,” Trump said. “It is up to us whether we will lift the world to new heights or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.”

Trump also called referred to North Korean dictator Kim Jon-un as “Rocket Man” again.

Trump calls Kim Jung Un “Rocket Man” in a speech to the United Nations.

This is real life. pic.twitter.com/7J0y4RzgfY

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) September 19, 2017

Some quickly praised the president’s bizarre speech, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who tweeted: “In over 30 years in my experience with the UN, I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech.”  

In over 30 years in my experience with the UN, I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech. — Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) September 19, 2017

“President Trump spoke the truth about the great dangers facing our world and issued a powerful call to confront them in order to ensure the future of humanity,” he added, in two separate tweets.

 

President Trump spoke the truth about the great dangers facing our world

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) September 19, 2017

 

and issued a powerful call to confront them in order to ensure the future of humanity. — Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) September 19, 2017

Former White House aide Sebastian Gorka strongly agreed with Netanyahu. “From the PM of a country that knows the dark heart of the UN,” he tweeted.

 

From the PM of a country that knows the dark heart of the UN. https://t.co/brkjGacnTO

— Sebastian Gorka DrG (@SebGorka) September 19, 2017

Kelly, one of the newest additions to the White House staff — and who has been tasked with restoring so-called order to the administration — looked like he was in a world of pain.  

Expressions speak louder than words. John Kelly during Trump’s #UNGA speech. pic.twitter.com/ihDGz0tLNy — Meghana Kurup (@MeghanaKurupDC) September 19, 2017

Some commentators read into Kelly’s pained expressions.

“Sure, this Trump speech is belligerent and irresponsible. But I’m sure we’ll be fine because Kim Jong Un is known for his level-headedness,” Ian Millhiser, of ThinkProgress tweeted.

 

Sure, this Trump speech is belligerent and irresponsible. But I’m sure we’ll be fine because Kim Jong Un is known for his level-headedness.

— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) September 19, 2017

As usual, Trump’s most loyal supporters relished in the president’s strongman tone. Breitbart’s White House correspondent, Charlie Spiering, tweeted: “A lot for Trump supporters to love in his MAGA ‘Rocket Man’ speech to the UN.”  

A lot for Trump supporters to love in his MAGA “Rocket Man” speech to the UN

— Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) September 19, 2017

7.1 magnitude earthquake shakes Mexico City

A building that collapsed after an earthquake in Mexico City. (Credit: AP/Rebecca Blackwell)

A 7.1 magnitude earthquake has hit Mexico City and the surrounding area. Resident fled into the streets as buildings crumbled. The epicenter of the quake was in central Mexico, a mere 76 miles southeast of the capital, in the town Raboso and state of Puebla, according to reports from the United States Geological Survey.

I CAN’T BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING!! Pray for Mexico City !! My heart is broken :/ pic.twitter.com/Hf0J4PqJ6w

— Lele Pons (@lelepons) September 19, 2017

I fear we’re dealing with a major tragedy here. This collapsed store in Mexico City, via @NBCNews pic.twitter.com/AcDBjCzPoh — Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) September 19, 2017

The quake comes just ten days after another 8.2 magnitude earthquake — the strongest in a century — ravaged southern Mexico, killing around 61 people, according to The New York Times.

Pictures on social media depict the immense devastation and disarray the quake has so far caused.

Desalojan Yucatán en Condesa #CDMX pic.twitter.com/P48QzXEfXI — Paco Villagrana (@PacoVillagrana) September 19, 2017

7.1 Magnitude Earthquake In Mexico City. Footage from Tourist Attraction Xochimilco.pic.twitter.com/XAzBz9g126 https://t.co/c99qVATMXa — JulesBlue (@FoxyBlue52) September 19, 2017

En el piso 38 en pleno Reforma. pic.twitter.com/zuCIke0kc9 — Gustavo Serrano 〽️ (@gooz25) September 19, 2017

Mexican Officials took to social media to release advisories and reaffirm to those affected that they were taking immediate action.

“I have called a meeting for the National Emergency Committee to evaluate the situation and to coordinate any actions. Plan MX has been activated. In flight to Oaxaca. Immediately return to the city of Mexico to address the situation by earthquake,” President Enrique Peña Nieto said in a series of tweets. “Before returning to your home or building, review damage, disconnect the light and close the gas. It is important to avoid travel on streets and avenues to allow emergency vehicles to pass.”

Currently, the airport in Mexico City is closed, all public and private schools are cancelled until further notice, and hospital patients are being transported to safer areas.  

Este video muestra el colapso de parte de un edificio de la Secretaría del Trabajo. No tengo ubicación exacta. pic.twitter.com/CSsvHc6DC6 — Enrique Acevedo (@Enrique_Acevedo) September 19, 2017

Coincidentally, the disaster comes on the 32nd anniversary of the powerful 1985 Mexico City earthquake, which killed around 10,000 people and registered as an 8.1 on the moment magnitude scale. To commemorate the 1985 quake, residents took part in traditional preparedness drills this morning, according to Buzzfeed.

Mexico City earthquake 7.1 building collapsed #prayformexico #earthquake pic.twitter.com/UlOGEUktos

— RAIDERZILLA (@Raiderzilla) September 19, 2017

An American visitor in Mexico City who was present for the quake told CNN, “[the earthquake] is almost a roller coaster ride, where you think, wow, this is kind of cool. But then all of a sudden, you’re like this isn’t cool at all.”

At the time of publication, CNN estimates at least 42 people have died. The number of injuries is currently unknown, and the totality of the damage has yet to be estimated.

Rex Tillerson a no-show at the United Nations

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (Credit: AP/Jacquelyn Martin)

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is, once again, facing criticism for the perception that he isn’t doing enough to fulfill his duties as America’s top diplomat.

The latest Tillersonian controversy pertains to his inadequate presence at the United Nations this week, according to NBC News. Three senior State Department officials told NBC that Tillerson either skipped or ignored a number of meetings with foreign delegations during the General Assembly, resulting in either United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley or Vice President Mike Pence appearing in his stead. Meanwhile Trump’s national security adviser, H. R. McMaster, appeared by President Donald Trump’s side during UN meetings on Monday.

On a broader level, Tillerson has continued to leave many important State Department positions unfilled, while seven American diplomats and four foreign diplomats told NBC that the perception that Tillerson plays little role in crafting Trump’s foreign policy has reduced the State Department’s clout overseas.

Tillerson’s lackluster tenure at the State Department has raised eyebrows almost from the moment he took office. In June, he announced that it wasn’t likely the State Department would be fully staffed until 2018, although that didn’t stop him from complaining in July that the State Department was “not a highly disciplined organization.”

In addition to concerns over his performance, Tillerson has also been controversial because of his connections to the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. This included bragging about having a “very close relationship with Putin” in 2016 and striking a $500 billion deal with a Russian state-owned oil company, Rosneft, when he was CEO of ExxonMobil in 2011.

The dangerous case of Donald Trump: Robert Jay Lifton and Bill Moyers on “A Duty to Warn”

(Credit: Getty/Saul Loeb)

There will not be a book published this fall more urgent, important, or controversial than The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, the work of 27 psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health experts to assess President Trump’s mental health. They had come together last March at a conference at Yale University to wrestle with two questions. One was on countless minds across the country: “What’s wrong with him?” The second was directed to their own code of ethics: “Does Professional Responsibility Include a Duty to Warn” if they conclude the president to be dangerously unfit?

As mental health professionals, these men and women respect the long-standing “Goldwater rule” which inhibits them from diagnosing public figures whom they have not personally examined. At the same time, as explained by Dr. Bandy X Lee, who teaches law and psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine, the rule does not have a countervailing rule that directs what to do when the risk of harm from remaining silent outweighs the damage that could result from speaking about a public figure — “which in this case, could even be the greatest possible harm.” It is an old and difficult moral issue that requires a great exertion of conscience. Their decision: “We respect the rule, we deem it subordinate to the single most important principle that guides our professional conduct: that we hold our responsibility to human life and well-being as paramount.”

Hence, this profound, illuminating and discomforting book undertaken as “a duty to warn.”

The foreword is by one of America’s leading psychohistorians, Robert Jay Lifton. He is renowned for his studies of people under stress — for books such as Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima (1967), Home from the War: Vietnam Veterans — Neither Victims nor Executioners (1973), and The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide(1986). The Nazi Doctors was the first in-depth study of how medical professionals rationalized their participation in the Holocaust, from the early stages of the Hitler’s euthanasia project to extermination camps.

The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump will be published Oct. 3 by St. Martin’s Press.

Here is my interview with Robert Jay Lifton — Bill Moyers

Bill Moyers: This book is a withering exploration of Donald Trump’s mental state. Aren’t you and the 26 other mental health experts who contribute to it in effect violating the Goldwater Rule? Section 7.3 of the American Psychiatrist Association’s code of ethics flatly says: “It is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion [on a public figure] unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization.” Are you putting your profession’s reputation at risk?

Robert Jay Lifton: I don’t think so. I think the Goldwater Rule is a little ambiguous. We adhere to that portion of the Goldwater Rule that says we don’t see ourselves as making a definitive diagnosis in a formal way and we don’t believe that should be done, except by hands-on interviewing and studying of a person. But we take issue with the idea that therefore we can say nothing about Trump or any other public figure. We have a perfect right to offer our opinion, and that’s where “duty to warn” comes in.

Moyers: Duty to warn?

Lifton: We have a duty to warn on an individual basis if we are treating someone who may be dangerous to herself or to others — a duty to warn people who are in danger from that person. We feel it’s our duty to warn the country about the danger of this president. If we think we have learned something about Donald Trump and his psychology that is dangerous to the country, yes, we have an obligation to say so. That’s why Judith Herman and I wrote our letter to The New York Times. We argue that Trump’s difficult relationship to reality and his inability to respond in an evenhanded way to a crisis renders him unfit to be president, and we asked our elected representative to take steps to remove him from the presidency.

Moyers: Yet some people argue that our political system sets no intellectual or cognitive standards for being president, and therefore, the ordinary norms of your practice as a psychiatrist should stop at the door to the Oval Office.

Lifton: Well, there are people who believe that there should be a standard psychiatric examination for every presidential candidate and for every president. But these are difficult issues because they can’t ever be entirely psychiatric. They’re inevitably political as well. I personally believe that ultimately ridding the country of a dangerous president or one who’s unfit is ultimately a political matter, but that psychological professionals can contribute in valuable ways to that decision.

Moyers: Do you recall that there was a comprehensive study of all 37 presidents up to 1974? Half of them reportedly had a diagnosable mental illness, including depression, anxiety and bipolar disorder. It’s not normal people who always make it to the White House.

Lifton: Yes, that’s amazing, and I’m sure it’s more or less true. So people with what we call mental illness can indeed serve well, and people who have no discernible mental illness — and that may be true of Trump — may not be able to serve, may be quite unfit. So it isn’t always the question of a psychiatric diagnosis. It’s really a question of what psychological and other traits render one unfit or dangerous.

Moyers: You write in the foreword of the book: “Because Trump is president and operates within the broad contours and interactions of the presidency, there is a tendency to view what he does as simply part of our democratic process, that is, as politically and even ethically normal.”

Lifton: Yes. And that’s what I call malignant normality. What we put forward as self-evident and normal may be deeply dangerous and destructive. I came to that idea in my work on the psychology of Nazi doctors — and I’m not equating anybody with Nazi doctors, but it’s the principle that prevails — and also with American psychologists who became architects of CIA torture during the Iraq War era. These are forms of malignant normality. For example, Donald Trump lies repeatedly. We may come to see a president as liar as normal. He also makes bombastic statements about nuclear weapons, for instance, which can then be seen as somehow normal. In other words, his behavior as president, with all those who defend his behavior in the administration, becomes a norm. We have to contest it, because it is malignant normality. For the contributors to this book, this means striving to be witnessing professionals, confronting the malignancy and making it known.

Moyers: Witnessing professionals? Where did this notion come from?

Lifton: I first came to it in terms of psychiatrists assigned to Vietnam, way back then. If a soldier became anxious and enraged about the immorality of the Vietnam War, he might be sent to a psychiatrist who would be expected to help him be strong enough to return to committing atrocities. So there was something wrong in what professionals were doing, and some of us had to try to expose this as the wrong and manipulative use of our profession. We had to see ourselves as witnessing professionals. And then of course, with the Nazi doctors I studied for another book — doctors assigned, say, to Auschwitz — they were expected to do selections of Jews for the gas chamber. That was what was expected of them and what for the most part they did — sometimes with some apprehension, but they did it. So that’s another malignant normality. Professionals were reduced to being automatic servants of the existing regime as opposed to people with special knowledge balanced by a moral baseline as well as the scientific information to make judgments.

Moyers: And that should apply to journalists, lawyers, doctors —

Lifton: Absolutely. One bears witness by taking in the situation — in this case, its malignant nature — and then telling one’s story about it, in this case with the help of professional knowledge, so that we add perspective on what’s wrong, rather than being servants of the powers responsible for the malignant normality. We must be people with a conscience in a very fundamental way.

Moyers: And this is what troubled you and many of your colleagues about the psychologists who helped implement the US policy of torture after 9/11.

Lifton: Absolutely. And I call that a scandal within a scandal, because yes, it was indeed professionals who became architects of torture, and their professional society, the American Psychological Association, which encouraged and protected them until finally protest from within that society by other members forced a change. So that was a dreadful moment in the history of psychology and in the history of professionals in this country.

Moyers: Some of the descriptions used to describe Trump — narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, paranoid personality disorder, delusional disorder, malignant narcissist — even some have suggested early forms of dementia — are difficult for lay people to grasp. Some experts say that it’s not one thing that’s wrong with him — there are a lot of things wrong with him and together they add up to what one of your colleagues calls “a scary witches brew, a toxic stew.”

Lifton: I think that’s very accurate. I agree that there’s an all-enveloping destructiveness in his character and in his psychological tendencies. But I’ve focused on what professionally I call solipsistic reality. Solipsistic reality means that the only reality he’s capable of embracing has to do with his own self and the perception by and protection of his own self. And for a president to be so bound in this isolated solipsistic reality could not be more dangerous for the country and for the world. In that sense, he does what psychotics do. Psychotics engage in, or frequently engage in a view of reality based only on the self. He’s not psychotic, but I think ultimately this solipsistic reality will be the source of his removal from the presidency.

Moyers: What’s your take on how he makes increasingly bizarre statements that are contradicted by irrefutable evidence to the contrary, and yet he just keeps on making them? I know some people in your field call this a delusional disorder, a profound loss of contact with external reality.

Lifton: He doesn’t have clear contact with reality, though I’m not sure it qualifies as a bona fide delusion. He needs things to be a certain way even though they aren’t, and that’s one reason he lies. There can also be a conscious manipulative element to it. When he put forward, and politically thrived on, the falsehood of President Obama’s birth in Kenya, outside the United States, he was manipulating that lie as well as undoubtedly believing it in part, at least in a segment of his personality. In my investigations, I’ve found that people can believe and not believe something at the same time, and in his case, he could be very manipulative and be quite gifted at his manipulations. So I think it’s a combination of those.

Moyers: How can someone believe and not believe at the same time?

Lifton: Well, in one part of himself, Trump can know there’s no evidence that Obama was born in any place but Hawaii in the United States. But in another part of himself, he has the need to reject Obama as a president of the United States by asserting that he was born outside of the country. He needs to delegitimate Obama. That’s been a strong need of Trump’s. This is a personal, isolated solipsistic need which can coexist with a recognition that there’s no evidence at all to back it up. I learned about this from some of the false confessions I came upon in my work.

Moyers: Where?

Lifton: For instance, when I was studying Chinese communist thought reform, one priest was falsely accused of being a spy, and was under physical duress — really tortured with chains and in other intolerable ways. As he was tortured and the interrogator kept insisting that he was a spy, he began to imagine himself in the role of a spy, with spy radios in all the houses of his order. In his conversations with other missionaries he began to think he was revealing military data to the enemy in some way. These thoughts became real to him because he had to entered into them and convinced the interrogator that he believed them in order to remove the chains and the torture. He told me it seemed like someone creating a novel and the novelist building a story with characters which become real and believable. Something like that could happen to Trump, in which the false beliefs become part of a panorama, all of which is fantasy and very often bound up with conspiracy theory, so that he immerses himself in it and believing in it even as at the same time recognizing in another part of his mind that none of this exists. The human mind can do that.

Moyers: It’s as if he believes the truth is defined by his words.

Lifton: Yes, that’s right. Trump has a mind that in many ways is always under duress, because he’s always seeking to be accepted, loved. He sees himself as constantly victimized by others and by the society, from which he sees himself as fighting back. So there’s always an intensity to his destructive behavior that could contribute to his false beliefs.

Moyers: Do you remember when he tweeted that President Obama had him wiretapped, despite the fact that the intelligence community couldn’t find any evidence to support his claim? And when he spoke to a CIA gathering, with the television cameras running, he said he was “a thousand percent behind the CIA,” despite the fact that everyone watching had to know he had repeatedly denounced the “incompetence and dishonesty” of that same intelligence community.

Lifton: Yes, that’s an extraordinary situation. And one has to invoke here this notion of a self-determined truth, this inner need for the situation to take shape in the form that the falsehood claims. In a sense this takes precedence over any other criteria for what is true.

Moyers: What other hazardous patterns do you see in his behavior? For example, what do you make of the admiration that he has expressed for brutal dictators — Bashar al-Assad of Syria, the late Saddam Hussein of Iraq, even Kim Jong Un of North Korea — yes, him — and President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who turned vigilantes loose to kill thousands of drug users, and of course his admiration for Vladimir Putin. In the book Michael Tansey says, “There’s considerable evidence to suggest that absolute tyranny is Donald Trump’s wet dream.”

Lifton: Yes. Well, while Trump doesn’t have any systematic ideology, he does have a narrative, and in that narrative, America was once a great country, it’s been weakened by poor leadership, and only he can make it great again by taking over. And that’s an image of himself as a strongman, a dictator. It isn’t the clear ideology of being a fascist or some other clear-cut ideological figure. Rather, it’s a narrative of himself as being unique and all-powerful. He believes it, though I’m sure he’s got doubts about it. But his narrative in a sense calls forth other strongmen, other dictators who run their country in an absolute way and don’t have to bother with legislative division or legal issues.

Moyers: I suspect some elected officials sometimes dream of doing what an unopposed autocrat or strongman is able to do, and that’s demand adulation on the one hand, and on the other hand, eradicate all of your perceived enemies just by turning your thumb down to the crowd. No need to worry about “fake media” — you’ve had them done away with. No protesters. No confounding lawsuits against you. Nothing stands in your way.

Lifton: That’s exactly right. Trump gives the impression that he would like to govern by decree. And of course, who governs by decree but dictators or strongmen? He has that impulse in him and he wants to be a savior, so he says, in his famous phrase, “Only I can fix it!” That’s a strange and weird statement for anybody to make, but it’s central to Trump’s sense of self and self-presentation. And I think that has a lot to do with his identification with dictators. No matter how many they kill and no matter what else they do, they have this capacity to rule by decree without any interference by legislators or courts.

In the case of Putin, I think Trump does have involvements in Russia that are in some way determinative. I think they’ll be important in his removal from office. I think he’s aware of collusion on his part and his campaign’s, some of which has been brought out, a lot more of which will be brought out in the future. He appears to have had some kind of involvement with the Russians in which they’ve rescued him financially and maybe continue to do so, so that he’s beholden to them in ways for which there’s already lots of evidence. So I think his fierce impulse to cover up any kind of Russian connections, which is prone to obstruction of justice, will do him in.

Moyers: I want to ask you about another side of him that is taken up in the book. It involves the much-discussed video that appeared during the campaign last year which had been made a decade or so ago when Trump was newly married. He sees this actress outside his bus and he says, “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her,” and then we hear sounds of Tic Tacs before Trump continues. “You know,” he says, “I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet, just kiss, I don’t even wait.” And then you can hear him boasting off camera, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything, grab them by the. . . . You can do anything.”

Lifton: In addition to being a strongman and a dictator, there’s a pervasive sense of entitlement. Whatever he wants, whatever he needs in his own mind, he can have. It’s a kind of American celebrity gone wild, but it’s also a vicious anti-female perspective and a caricature of male macho. That’s all present in Trump as well as the solipsism that I mentioned earlier, and that’s why when people speak of him as all-pervasive on many different levels of destructiveness, they’re absolutely right.

Moyers: And it seems to extend deeply into his relationship with his own family. There’s a chapter in “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” with the heading, “Trump’s Daddy Issues.” There’s several of his quotes about his daughter, Ivanka. He said, “You know who’s one of the great beauties of the world, according to everybody, and I helped create her? Ivanka. My daughter, Ivanka. She’s 6 feet tall. She’s got the best body.”

Again: “I said that if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” Ivanka was 22 at the time. To a reporter he said: “Yeah, she’s really something, and what a beauty, that one. If I weren’t happily married — and, you know, her father . . .”

When Howard Stern, the radio host, started to say, “By the way, your daughter —” Trump interrupted him with “She’s beautiful.” Stern continued, “Can I say this? A piece of ass.” To which Trump replied, “Yeah.” What’s going on here?

Lifton: In addition to everything else and the extreme narcissism that it represents, it’s a kind of unbridled sense of saying anything on one’s mind as well as an impulse to break down all norms because he is the untouchable celebrity. So just as he is the one man who can fix things for the country, he can have every woman or anything else that he wants, or abuse them in any way he seeks to.

Moyers: You mentioned extreme narcissism. I’m sure you knew Erich Fromm —

Lifton: Yes, I did.

Moyers: — one of the founders of humanistic psychology. He was a Holocaust survivor who had a lifelong obsession with the psychology of evil. And he said that he thought “malignant narcissism” was the most severe pathology — “the root of the most vicious destructiveness and inhumanity.” Do you think malignant narcissism goes a long way to explain Trump?

Lifton: I do think it goes a long way. In early psychoanalytic thought, narcissism was — and still, of course, is — self-love. The early psychoanalysts used to talk of libido directed at the self. That now feels a little quaint, that kind of language. But it does include the most fierce and self-displaying form of one’s individual self. And in this way, it can be dangerous. When you look at Trump, you can really see someone who’s destructive to any form of life enhancement in virtually every area. And if that’s what Fromm means by malignant narcissism, then it definitely applies.

Moyers: You said earlier that Trump and his administration have brought about a kind of malignant normalcy — that a dangerous president can become normalized. When the Democrats make a deal with him, as they did recently, are they edging him a little closer to being accepted despite this record of bizarre behavior?

Lifton: We are normalizing him when the Democrats make a deal with him. But there’s a profound ethical issue here and it’s not easily answered. If something is good for the country — perhaps the deal that the Democrats are making with Donald Trump is seen or could be understood by most as good for the country, dealing with the debt crisis — is that worth doing even though it normalizes him? If the Democrats do go ahead with this deal, they should take steps to make clear that they’re opposing other aspects of his presidency and of him.

Moyers: There’s a chapter in the book entitled, “He’s Got the World in His Hands and His Finger on the Trigger.” Do you ever imagine him sitting alone in his office, deciding on a potentially catastrophic course of action for the nation? Say, with five minutes to decide whether or not to unleash thermonuclear weapons?

Lifton: I do. And like many, I’m deeply frightened by that possibility. It’s said very often that, OK, there are people around him who can contain him and restrain him. I’m not so sure they always can or would. In any case, it’s not unlikely that he could seek to create some kind of crisis, if he found himself in a very bad light in relation to public opinion and close to removal from office. So yes, I share that fear and I think it’s a real danger. I think we have to constantly keep it in mind, be ready to anticipate it and take whatever action we can against it. The American president has particular power. This makes Trump the most dangerous man in the world. He’s equally dangerous because of his finger on the nuclear trigger and because of his mind ensconced in solipsistic reality. The two are a dreadful combination.

Moyers: One of your colleagues writes in the book, “Sociopathic traits may be amplified as the leader discovers that he can violate the norms of civil society and even commit crimes with impunity. And the leader who rules through fear, lies and betrayal may become increasingly isolated and paranoid as the loyalty of even his closest confidants must forever be suspect.” Does that sound like Trump?

Lifton: It’s already happening. We see that it’s harder and harder to work for him. It’s hard enough even for his spokesperson to affirm his falsehoods. These efforts are not too convincing and they become less convincing from the radius outward, in which people removed from his immediate circle find it still more difficult to believe him and the American public finds it more difficult. He still can appeal to his base because in his base there is a narrative of grievance that centers on embracing Trump without caring too much about whether what he says is true or false. He somehow fits into their narrative. But that can’t go on forever, and he’s losing some of his formerly loyal supporters as well. So he is becoming more isolated. That has its own dangers, but it’s inevitable that it would happen with a man like this as his falsehoods are contested.

Moyers: You bring up his base. Those true believers aren’t the only ones who voted for him. As we are talking, I keep thinking: Here we have a man who kept asking what’s the point of having thermonuclear weapons if we cannot use them; who advocates using torture or worse against our prisoners of war; who urged that five innocent young people here in New York, black young people, be given the death penalty for a sexual assault, even after it was proven someone else had committed the crime; who boasted about his ability to get away with sexually assaulting women because of his celebrity and power; who urged his followers at political rallies to punch protesters in the face and beat them so badly that they have to be taken out on stretchers; who suggested that maybe some of his followers might want to assassinate his political rival, Hillary Clinton, if she were elected president, or at the very least, throw her in prison; who believes he would not lose voters if he stood in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shot someone. And over 63 million people voted to elect that man president!

Lifton: Yes, that’s a deeply troubling truth. And I doubt the people who voted for him were thinking about any of these things. What they were really responding to was a call for change, a sense that he was connecting with them in ways that others never had, that he would express and represent their interests, and that he would indeed make this country one dominated again by white people, in some cases white supremacists. But as you say, these people who embraced that narrative unquestioningly are a lesser minority than the ones who voted for him. And of course, he still didn’t win the popular vote. But it’s true — something has gone wrong with our democratic system in electing a man with all these characteristics that make up Donald Trump. Now we have to struggle to sustain the functional institutions of our democracy against his assault on them. I don’t think he’ll succeed in breaking them down, but he’s doing a lot of harm and it’ll take a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people to sustain them and to keep the democracy going, even in its faltering way.

Moyers: He still has the support of 80 percent of Republican voters — 4 out of 5. And it seems the Republican Party will tolerate him as long as they’re afraid of the intensity of his followers.

Lifton: Yes, and that’s another very disturbing thought. Things there could change quickly too. What I sense is that the whole situation is chaotic and volatile, so that any time now there could be further pronouncements, further information about Russia and about obstruction of justice, or another attempt of Trump to start firing people, including Mueller, and that this would create a constitutional crisis which would create more pressure on Republicans and everybody else. So even though that is an awful truth about the Republicans’ hypocrisy in continuing to support him, that could change, I think, almost overnight if the new information were sufficiently damning to Trump and his administration.

Moyers: Let’s talk about the “Trump Effect” on the country. One aspect of it was the increase in bullying in schools caused by the rhetoric used by Trump during the campaign. But it goes beyond that.

Lifton: I think Trump has had a very strong and disturbing effect on the country already. He has given more legitimacy to white supremacy and even to neo-fascist groups, and he’s created a pervasive atmosphere that’s more vague but still significant. I don’t believe that he can in his own way destroy the country, just as he can’t eliminate climate awareness, but he can go a long way in bringing — well, in stimulating what has always been a potential.

You mentioned Erich Fromm. I met him through [the sociologist] David Riesman. David Riesman was a close friend, a great authority on American society. He emphasized how there’s always an underbelly in American society of extreme conservatism and reactionary response, and when there’s any kind of progressive movement, there’s likely to be a backlash of reaction to it. Trump is very much in that backlash to any kind of progressive achievement or even decent situation in society. He is stimulating feelings that are potential and latent in our society, but very real, and rendering them more active and more dangerous. And in that way, he’s having a very harmful effect that I think mounts every single day.

Moyers: Some people who have known Trump for years say he’s gotten dramatically worse since he was inaugurated. In the prologue to “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” Dr. Judith Lewis Herman writes this: “Fostered by the flattery of underlings and the chance of crowds, a political leader’s grandiosity may morph into grotesque delusions of grandeur.” Does that —

Lifton: That’s absolutely true. It’s absolutely true. And for anyone with these traits — of feeling himself victimized, of seeking to be the strongman who resolves everything, yet sees truth only through his own self and negates all other truth outside of it — is bound to become much more malignant when he has power. That’s what Judith Herman is saying, and she’s absolutely right. Power then breeds an intensification of all this because the power can never be absolute power — to some extent it’s stymied — but the isolation while in power becomes even more dangerous. Think of it as a vicious circle. The power intensifies these tendencies and the tendencies become more dangerous because of the power.

Moyers: But suppose that if Donald Trump is crazy, as some have said, he’s crazy like a fox, which is to say all this bizarre behavior is really clever strategy to mislead, distract and deceive others into responding in precisely the manner that he wants them to.

Lifton: I don’t think that’s quite true. I think that it’s partly true. As I said before, Trump both disbelieves and believes in falsehoods, so that when he did thrive on his longstanding and perhaps most egregious falsehood — the claim that Obama was not born in the United States — he’s crazy like a fox in manipulating it because it gave him his political entrée onto the national stage — and also, incidentally, was not rejected by many leading Republicans. So he was crazy like a fox in that case. But it’s more extreme even than that. In order to make your falsehoods powerful, you have to believe in them in some extent. And that’s why we simplify things if we say that Trump either believes nothing in his falsehoods and is just manipulating us like a fox or he completely believes them. Neither is true. The combination of both and his talent as a manipulator and falsifier are very much at issue.

Moyers: You may not remember it, but you and I talked l6 years ago this very week — a few days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. ll — and PBS had asked me to go on the air to talk to a variety of people about their response to those atrocities.

Lifton: I haven’t forgotten it, Bill.

Moyers: And in our discussion, we talked about your book, “Destroying the World to Save It,” about that extremist Japanese religious cult aum shinrikyo that released sarin nerve gas in Tokyo subways, you compared their ideology to Osama bin Laden: “He wanted to destroy a major part of the world to purify the world. There was in this idea, or his ideology, a sense of renewal.” We saw it in that Japanese cult. So the issue I am getting at is that such an aspiration can take hold of any true believer — the desire to purify the world no matter the cost.

Lifton: It is a very dangerous aspiration, and it’s not absent from the Trump presidency, although I don’t think it’s his central theme. I think it’s a central theme in Steve Bannon, for instance, who is an apocalyptic character and really wants to bring down most of advanced society as we know it, most of civilization as we know it, in order to recreate it in his image. I think Trump has some attraction to that, just as he had attraction to Bannon as a person and as a thinker, and that influence is by no means over. He’s still in touch with Bannon. So there is this apocalyptic influence in the Trumpean presidency: The world is destroyed in order to be purified and renewed in the ideal way that is projected by a Steve Bannon. And there is a sense of that when Trump says we’ll make America great again, because he says it’s been destroyed, he will remake it. So there is an apocalyptic suggestion, but I don’t think it’s at the very heart of his presidency.

Moyers: So our challenge is?

Lifton: I always feel we have to work both outside and inside of our existing institutions, so we have to really be careful about who we vote for and examine carefully our institutions and what they’re meant to do and how they’re being violated. I also think we need movements from below that oppose what this administration and administrations like it are doing to ordinary people. And for those of us who contributed to this book — well, as I said earlier, we have to be “witnessing professionals” and fulfill our duty to warn.

With all eyes on DACA, the Trump administration is quietly killing overtime protections

(Credit: AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

On September 5, the administration of Donald Trump formally announced that they won’t try to save Obama’s overtime rule, effectively killing a potential raise for millions of Americans. This disturbing development has largely slipped under the radar during a busy news week, marked by Trump’s scrapping of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Twenty-one states and a number of business groups sued the Obama administration last September, after the Department of Labor (DOL) announced the new rule, accusing the former president of overreach.

That lawsuit led to Amos Mazzant, a federal Obama-appointed judge in Texas, putting the rule on hold last November, shortly before it was set to become law. On August 31, Mazzant struck the rule down, and—less than a week later—Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to challenge the District Court’s decision. In a court filing, a DOJ lawyer said that the administration would not appeal.

The Obama administration’s rule would have raised the overtime salary threshold considerably. The threshold hadn’t been increased by any administration to adequately reflect wage growth or inflation, which means that many workers only see overtime pay if they make less than about $23,660 a year. Obama had scheduled that number to be bumped up to about $47,476 after reviewing 300,000 comments on the subject.

“The overtime rule is about making sure middle-class jobs pay middle-class wages,” former Labor Secretary Tom Perez told reporters on a call after the rule was announced in May 2016. “Some will see more money in their pockets … Some will get more time with their family … and everybody will receive clarity on where they stand, so that they can stand up for their rights.”

While the overtime rule faced predictable opposition from Republicans and business groups, it also received backlash from some liberal advocacy organizations. In May 2016, U.S. PIRG, the popular federation of non-profit organizations, released a statement criticizing Obama’s decision. “Organizations like ours rely on small donations from individuals to pay the bills. We can’t expect those individuals to double the amount they donate,” said the group.

Critics of the statement pointed out that U.S. PIRG’s opposition suggests they have employees not being paid for overtime despite their low wages. The group was slammed by progressives for supporting a regressive policy when it benefited their economic interests.

The DOL claimed that the rule would mean a pay increase for about 4.2 million Americans, but the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) contends that the DOL’s figure is far too low. According to EPI, the DOL’s analysis fails to take the impact of George W. Bush’s overtime policies into account and relies heavily on statistics that were generated before he took power. EPI estimates that, because of changes to employee classifications in 2004, roughly 6 million workers had their right to overtime destroyed.

The EPI’s study of the overtime rule determined that about 12.5 million workers would have been impacted if it had been implemented. A wide range of workers would have potentially seen a pay increase, including 6.4 million women, 1.5 million African Americans and 2.0 million Latinos, the EPI concludes.

“Once again, the Trump administration has sided with corporate interests over workers, in this case, siding with business groups who care more about corporate profits than about allowing working people earn overtime pay,” Heidi Shierholz, who leads the EPI’s Perkins Project on Worker Rights and Wages, told In These Times.

The Trump administration’s move might be disappointing for workers’ rights advocates, but it’s hardly surprising. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump vowed to kill the overtime rule if elected. “We have to address the issues of over-taxation and overregulation and the lack of access to credit markets to get our small business owners thriving again,” he said in an interview. “Rolling back the overtime regulation is just one example of the many regulations that need to be addressed to do that.”

While many pundits have focused on Trump’s unrelenting series of failures and scandals, his administration has quietly waged a fairly successful war on labor. In addition to nixing one of Obama’s most notable policy achievements, the Trump administration is also poised to stack the National Labor Relations Board with a pro-business majority, has proposed major cuts to the Labor Department and has rolled back safety protections for workers.

Last month, Bloomberg reported that Trump’s Labor Department had created an office specifically designed to reconsider government regulations. The office will be run by Nathan Mehrens, the anti-union lawyer who is also in charge of the department’s policy shop.

Trump geared much of his campaign rhetoric toward the U.S. worker, vowing to dismantle exploitative trade agreements and bring back jobs. However, his administration has simply emboldened the anti-labor forces that have dictated economic policy for decades.

Why Hurricanes Harvey and Irma won’t lead to action on climate change

The Sunrise Motel remains flooded after Hurricane Irma hit the area on September 11, 2017 in East Naples, Florida. (Credit: Getty/Mark Wilson)

It’s not easy to hold the nation’s attention for long, but three solid weeks of record-smashing hurricanes directly affecting multiple states and at least 20 million people will do it.

Clustered disasters hold our attention in ways that singular events cannot — they open our minds to the possibility that these aren’t just accidents or natural phenomena to be painfully endured. As such, they can provoke debates over the larger “disaster lessons” we should be learning. And I would argue the combination of Harvey and Irma has triggered such a moment.

The damages caused by the storms will undoubtedly lead to important lessons in disaster preparation and response. For many, though, the most urgent call for learning has been to acknowledge at long last the connection between climate change and severe weather.

Will this cluster of disasters provide the lever that will move climate change in the United States from a “debate” to an action plan?

It’s easy to view disaster history in this cause-effect way — to hop in time from disaster to disaster and spot the reforms as though they naturally emerge from adversity and commitment to change. But as a historian with a focus on risk and disasters, I can say this view can be misleading.

Generational reform

Early in the 20th century, the United States went through an era of profound concern over urban disasters that seemed to threaten city life itself.

In December 1903, the Iroquois Theatre Fire in Chicago killed over 600 audience members due to faulty construction. Just over a month later, in February 1904, the Great Baltimore Fire consumed 140 acres of the city. That same month, a major fire ravaged Rochester. In June of the same year over 1,000 people died due to a fire aboard the General Slocum steamship in New York City.

Newspapers of the era were full of anger and fear over the dangers of fire and the unscrupulous actions of greedy builders and ship line operators. Despite the intensity of this 1903-04 disaster cluster, Americans would see many more such disasters (San Francisco 1906, Triangle Shirtwaist Fire 1911) before consequential reforms in fire safety were passed into law.

Eventually those reforms did arrive, but not all at once, and not with one bill. The reforms were distributed in building codes, city plans and product safety standards that came into place by the 1930s. The disasters defined moments in time; reform was generational.

The aftermath of September 11 provides another telling example. The disaster led to multiple investigations and studies, including the best-selling 9/11 Commission Report. Perhaps the most lasting effect of September 11 was the restructuring of government that created the Department of Homeland Security.

However, we should be careful when we leap quickly from disaster to reform. The federal response to 9/11 appeared swift and decisive but was in fact following a script set in place over the previous decade through repeated attempts by some policymakers to reshape the government’s capacity to respond to the terrorism threat.

It took years for scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology to finally explain the exact causes for the collapse of the Twin Towers. And in doing so, they uncovered fire, structural and evacuation vulnerabilities in the towers. These flaws were first witnessed in the 1993 bombing but dated back to the 1960s when the buildings were designed and built. The September 11 reforms did come, but only as part of a broad continuum of concern, research and debate over policy choices that had long preceded that terrible day.

Slow-moving disasters versus events

This brings us back to Harvey, Irma and the climate change connection. We have not seen any storm-day conversions on climate change in the Trump administration — indeed, EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt remarked that it was “insensitive” to even broach the topic while the storms were still active.

There is plenty of evidence in social psychology to indicate that individual perceptions of risk — or individual commitments to an ideology – cannot be easily shaken be external factors, even factors as dramatic as storms like Harvey, Irma or even Katrina.

This fits the historical pattern: Clustered disasters might sharpen our senses to the risks in our midst and even disturb our complacency, but they will not necessarily lead directly to new legislation or personal ideological shifts. Strong commitments to land use, profits and real estate development have historically militated against calls for caution, restraint and mitigation, even though these types of laws make Americans safer from disasters. This dynamic will not be altered by two hurricanes, no matter how terrifying their effects.

Better indicators of change, drawing from history, have proven to be events that cluster over much larger stretches of time. A “slow disaster” frame allows civil society and scientific researchers to build a case for change that is strengthened by disaster events. For example, the red alert about the toxicity of DDT raised by Rachel Carson in 1962 had immediate effects, but that was only one early step in a series of events that followed. It should be seen as part of a much more impactful and slower process of reform that led to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 and a wave of environmental regulations that took effect in that decade.

This relationship between discrete disaster events and slow disaster eras is a critical one for us to understand. We might just now be at the very beginning of such an era in the public consciousness over the connections between disasters such as hurricanes, fires, droughts and the slow disaster of climate change.

It’s frustrating for people who want quick government action on climate change to be told they should play a “slow disaster” game. And why shouldn’t they be angered if they have experienced the loss of a loved one or a home in the disasters of these past weeks? Still, it’s useful for us to see that even the most devastating disasters are probably points on a longer timeline — one that might lead to reform if and when broad-based political action prepares the way.

Indeed, disaster victims making common cause with scientists and engineers has been one proven way to bring about a type of learning from disaster that might be more effective towards achieving ambitious changes. These could include the United States reentering the global community on climate action and the passage of laws that would require climate change planning to affect future construction.

But the hurricanes of Harvey and Irma will be a catalyst for a new age of realism regarding the hazards of climate change only once civil society and our politicians recognize them as part of a pattern that stretches over decades, not weeks. Our urgency to learn from disaster is important, and it is a moral imperative. We would be wise to harness this urgency to form a generational commitment to reducing the suffering from disasters.

Scott Gabriel Knowles, Professor of History, Drexel University

Fall TV is in the Bad Place. So let’s go to “The Good Place”!

Kristen Bell, William Jackson Harper, and Ted Danson on "The Good Place" (Credit: NBC/Colleen Hayes)

Based on my foggy recollection, the last time it was this bad was 2003.

That was the fall broadcast television gifted us with “Tarzan,” “The Mullets,” the Norm Macdonald vehicle known as “A Minute with Stan Hooper” and “Whoopi,” to name a few. Bless you if you don’t remember these shows, because some of us can never, ever forget they existed. Point being, it was bad y’all. Truly, madly, deeply terrible.

Regrettably this fall’s new slate is worse. Now, you may doubt that. I get it — I mean, “The Mullets,” right? What could be worse than that? Mediocrity. You see, as terrible as many of the offerings in the 2003-2004 season were, it was also the year that yielded “Arrested Development.” “One Tree Hill” and “The O.C.” debuted that fall, along with other decent dramas that in retrospect we should have appreciated more than we did, such as “Karen Sisco” and “Wonderfalls,” which debuted in midseason.

What we have now is a whole lot of valley with nary an incline in sight. There are a number of reasons this is the case, but some are obvious: Broadcast TV is currently operating in a narrow-cast world, relying on an increasingly outdated model still heavily dependent on raking in large audiences to meet advertiser expectations. That means series that aim for the middle and offend as few as possible get the green light, which can be a creativity killer.

During a year with hundreds of new options available to viewers, a show needs to make some noise if it’s going to survive. None of the new series do, at least in the initial episodes made available to critics. A few of last year’s options did, though you may have noticed what with the Hellmouth slowly yawning open.

But that was a year ago, and we’ve gotten used to life on the end of fiery oblivion. Hence, lacking better new options, now’s a great time to go reconsider a couple of last year’s series embarking upon their second seasons, starting with NBC’s “The Good Place,” kicking off its second season Wednesday at 10 p.m. with an hour-long episode.

You may have tuned in to the comedy’s very first episodes and perhaps found its comedy and conceit to be charming and little else. That’s reasonable. In many ways “The Good Place” fulfills the obligations of a broadcast comedy — not exactly shocking, given creator Mike Schur co-created “Parks and Recreation” and was a producer on “The Office.”  But with “The Good Place,” Schur takes the concept of inoffensiveness to absurd places. Its vision of a flawless afterlife is populated with endless frozen yogurt shops, where soul mates matched by some type of spiritual algorithm and denizens are physically barred from uttering vulgarities.

Even its foul-mouthed main character Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell) can’t drop all the f-bombs she typically carpets her conversation with. In this version of the afterlife, as designed by its benevolent architect Michael (Ted Danson) nothing can be forked up. And to Eleanor, that’s a pile of bullshirt. She knows she is definitely a bad person who doesn’t belong there, especially in comparison to her soulmate Chidi (William Jackson Harper), a philosophy scholar, and Tahani (Jameela Jamil), a philanthropist. Soon enough she finds another anomaly in Jianyu (Manny Jacinto), who supposedly is a Buddhist monk but it actually a hoodlum from Florida.

Now, you may have tuned in to “The Good Place” last year and thought to yourself, “Well, that’s adorable” before turning away. And I get that, what with that sphincter to the Upside Down puckering in the background. However, one distinction that raises “The Good Place” above the other network din is the way that it ended its first season which essentially transformed the show.

Here is where we’ll pause for the sake of people who haven’t seen “The Good Place,” but might be curious about it — which is a fine instinct — but might be worried that it’s too late to catch up on it before Wednesday night’s debut. It’s not! You can easily watch the first two episodes of season 1, and its final pair, episode 11 and 12, and be up to speed for Wednesday’s season premiere.

So stop reading and head over to Hulu or NBC.com, where the first season is available to stream for two more days. After that you’ll have to pay for it. And now, if you insist on continuing to read, you will be spoiled.

Got it? Do you understand that there are spoilers ahead?

Excellent.

See, the delicious evil of “The Good Place,” the hidden detail that makes it such a gem worth picking up in season two, is that the entire premise is a lie. Michael’s not an angelic architect, but a soulless demon who devised this bland paradise as a way of torturing Eleanor and her companions for all eternity. The first season finale paved the way for a reboot that takes several episodes to settle in this new season but basically remakes the series into a tongue-in-cheek indictment of the office politics and the ruthlessness of middle management. Viewers familiar with a hellish workplace may find incredible comfort in this new season that allows Danson to turn on his rakish appeal a little more, augmenting his already considerable chemistry with Bell.

Some series take time to a larger audience, and perhaps this current stew of meh dominating the fall menu will help sophomore successes like “The Good Place” taste all the sweeter. God, I hope that’s true, because in a season as disappointing as this one, we could really use something to believe in.

Low Emmys ratings: No, Kellyanne, it’s not because of Trump jokes

(Credit: AP/Salon)

Kellyanne Conway knows how to please her boss. The morning after an Emmys Awards ceremony that repeatedly took aim at President Trump, Conway appeared on “Fox & Friends” and fired back using one of Trump’s favorite success metrics: ratings.   

“Between the Emmys, the Miss America pageant was very politicized, our sports are very politicized, and it looks like the ratings are suffering. It looks like America is responding by tuning out because they want you to stick to your knitting,” Conway said.

Unlike, say, the Trump administration’s claims about inauguration crowd size — claims which, incidentally, Sean Spicer was allowed to laugh about during the awards show as though the lie had all been in good fun — Conway’s ratings claims weren’t wrong. Big American cultural events have become increasingly politicized and in many cases television ratings for these shows have dipped. Sunday night’s Emmys was the latest example. The 69th rendition of the awards show was viewed by 11.38 million people, tying last year’s record low viewership.   

But correlation is not causation. We don’t know precisely why viewership was so low, but here are a few things we do know: First, the number of pay TV subscribers has been falling at fairly steady rate since the second quarter of 2014. Cord cutting has been most pronounced among viewers under 50 years old. And Sunday night’s Emmys ratings were down 19 percent in the key demo (adults aged 18-49). Secondly, the devastation from Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma left significant markets in Texas and Florida with limited access to television. Finally, the Emmys was up against a rematch of last year’s NFC Championship game.

The third explanation may have had an impact on Sunday night’s Emmys ratings but larger forces are at play. The Emmys goes up against a prominent NFL game every year, after all. And Conway wasn’t just talking about Sunday night’s Emmys broadcast. She also mentioned the Miss America Pageant and sports. This year’s Miss America Pageant, which aired September 10, also suffered a loss in ratings. As has the NFL this season. As has ESPN. Competition from the NFL can’t be blamed for all of those declines.

So what about political fatigue? Conway’s claims — an echo of Trump’s claims following Jemele Hill’s critical tweets — posit that viewers are turned off by the politicization of entertainment, “politicization” being tantamount to “negative coverage of Trump.” A significant portion of polled sports fans (26 percent) last year attributed their watching fewer games to the national anthem protests.

But what then to make of the gains other shows have made by being obsessively political and/or critical of President Trump? Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” ratings boom has coincided with Trump’s election. He’s ostensibly struck ratings gold by making fun of Trump. Just as Jimmy Fallon has purportedly suffered because he’s been too soft on Trump. And in sports, the fight between Floyd Mayweather and Connor McGregor earlier this summer was overtly political and it was a monetary bonanza.

Political fatigue may very well exist, but television executives at CNN, CBS  and Showtime alike will attest that, in Trump parlance, DJT still has the power to be a ratings machine. For good but mostly for ill, Trump’s name and presence has the power to do what has become increasingly rare: make large numbers of viewers tune into a given televised event. But when ratings dip in line with declines in cable subscribers, it’s probably in spite of rather than because of a focus on Trump. Which, if framed the right way, should have the same effect as what Conway said: It should soothe Trump’s fragile ego.

Author Tom Perrotta chooses topics that scare him

“As writers, we need to go into territory that confuses us, or scares us, or that we’re conflicted about,” Tom Perrotta, author of the novel “Mrs. Fletcher” told Salon’s Alli Joseph’s on “Salon Talks.” As a seven-time published novelist, Perrotta explains why he’s drawn to such controversial topics and the commonality behind all great writers.

“Mrs. Fletcher,” explores a mother and son’s sex lives, miles away from each other. While the 46-year-old mother, named Eve Fletcher, navigates porn and parenthood, her son Brendan is figuring out college, sex and identity politics.

“It’s not safe and that’s not what interests me,” Perrotta said. “I think a writer should always be open to these sort of deep ethical challenges—the material should be confusing and scary, or else why are we writing?”

Perrotta is also the author of bestsellers “The Leftovers” (turned into an HBO series) and “Little Children,” which was adapted into an Oscar-nominated film.

“I’m struck sometimes by how people have this desire to be a writer, without wanting to be a reader,” Perrotta said of aspiring writers. “I think everyone I know who has actually become a successful writer, is someone who is a passionate reader. That’s the first bar.”

It’s assumed every great musician is passionate about music, and consumes music all the time, but Perrotta says writing is very much the same, “you’ve got to be breathing books as a a reader and as a writer to do it.”

Watch the full “Salon Talks” conversation on Facebook.

Tune into Salon’s live shows, “Salon Talks” and “Salon Stage,” daily at noon ET / 9 a.m. PT and 4 p.m. ET / 1 p.m. PT, streaming live on Salon and on Facebook.