A few days ago, the New York Times did it again, lowballing the awfulness of Donald Trump. It headlined a front-page story about Trump’s efforts to attract Black voters this way: “Trump Courts Black Voters Even as He Traffics in Stereotypes.” This was an odd formulation. The piece opened:

He has repeatedly accused three Black prosecutors investigating him of “reverse racism.” He told a gathering of Black Republicans that Black people like him because he, too, has been charged by the criminal justice system. And he has suggested that Black people relate to his mug shot. 

There’s a fundamental tension in Donald J. Trump’s attempts to woo Black voters. He repeatedly traffics in stereotypes about Black Americans, yet he is counting on them, and aggressively courting them, to help him win back the White House in November.

“Traffics in stereotypes” is far too polite a way of saying the guy’s a racist. Much further into the article the newspaper that helps set the national agenda referred to his “lengthy history of making racist statements” and provided a few well-known examples. (It did, however, leave out his promotion of the racist birther conspiracy theory.) But the framing that Trump echoes “stereotypes” was yet another example of how media’s attempt to be fair benefits a racist demagogue who poses a threat to American democracy.

But let me shift gears and also cite this piece for another reason. As other political journalists have pointed out in recent months, recent polls—for whatever they are worth—show Trump inexplicably gaining support among Black voters:

Mr. Trump currently receives nearly four times the support from Black voters in polling than the 6 percent who actually voted for him in 2016, according to Pew Research Center data. He is vying for wins in states with major cities that have large Black populations, including Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Georgia. The margins of victory are expected to be small in those four states, where Mr. Trump hopes to offset his potential weaknesses with independent voters and suburban women.

This isn’t good news for Team Biden. Black Americans have provided Democrats a treasure trove of votes. They’ve been a firewall for the Ds. But in a close election, a shift of only a few points within this bloc could sink Biden. (Also a concern for the Biden campaign: Latino voters.) This increase in Black support for Trump is a bit of a mystery. Black unemployment, as of the end of 2023, was at a record low—which means lower than it was during the Trump years. And so often when Trump talks about Black voters, he demeans them, claiming they fancy Trump because he’s been indicted, had a mug shot taken, and is hawking a line of overpriced sneakers.

What gives? Black Americans have been hit harder by the post-pandemic inflation, and younger Black voters have noted they don’t see Biden doing much for them. It could be tough for Biden to address these attitudes. But there’s one thing the Biden campaign might be able to do to on this front: unleash Vice President Kamala Harris.

To explain, let me point to Nikki Haley’s recent departure from the GOP presidential contest. She never had a chance, of course, given the GOP is mostly a MAGA cult. But her presence in the race had an important affect: It drove Trump crazy. There are a bunch of political strategists who believe that a crucial task for Biden and the Democrats is to remind voters how deranged Trump can be. Yeah, I know. It seems bizarre that some Americans have forgotten or are forgiving of him. But the goal is to let unhinged Trump be unhinged. Recall how he came across when he won the New Hampshire primary. Instead of delivering a gracious victory speech and thanking Haley for a good fight, he railed against her and made fun of her outfit. Driven by his psychopathology, he blew a tremendous opportunity to appear normal.

During her run, Haley’s pokes at Trump provoked him again and again, and he derided her as “bird brain” and made racist comments regarding her name. She got under his skin, and he showed his true stripes repeatedly. For his people, this was not a turn-off. But for swing voters, particularly suburban women, his mean-spiritedness and misogyny, no doubt, didn’t help. Yet with Haley gone, he’s not being triggered in the same fashion.

Enter Harris. A former prosecutor with a good jab, she has the capacity to swing at Trump—with derision and disregard—and spark his ire. This is not Biden’s strong suit. Though he can land a punch once in a while, he’s too gentlemanly in temperament. And, no doubt, he accepts the convention that the president ought to be somewhat above the fray. Besides, there’s a long tradition in American politics—before Trump—of the veep serving as the attack dog on the ticket. (See Spiro Agnew.)

There’s another thing that I assume you’ve already figured out. As a racist and misogynist, Trump will be highly sensitive to swipes and taunts from a Black woman. He will likely take the bait and respond in a manner that will amp up his worst qualities. That certainly could tick off a slice of voters, regardless of their skin color, but especially Black women.

I realize that a lot of people within the politico-media cosmos are down on Harris. I’m not quite sure why. (Is it just misogynoir?) She definitely has not met her full potential as vice president, but the reasons for that seem unclear. And MAGA Republicans relish targeting her. She’s the second beat in the one-two assault on Biden’s age: He’s too old to make it through another term and she will become president.

In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the White House has been deploying Harris to press the issue of reproductive freedom. On Thursday, she became the first sitting vice president or president to visit an abortion provider when she dropped in on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Minnesota. This is certainly a good use of Harris. Yet my hunch is that she could also be an effective Trump tormentor with a simple mission: push Trump to be Trump.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Since not every Our Land subscriber opens each issue of this newsletter—we can see how many people peruse the emails we zap out (Big Brother!)— I’m going to repeat some messages from the last issue. Sorry to those who have seen them, but since I can’t personally shake each of you by the collar and exclaim, “Read this!,” I don’t have much choice…

I know that like me you probably are besieged daily with emails from nonprofit groups, political candidates, and others declaring that they are facing dire financial circumstances and they need you to donate RIGHT NOW. Or else it could be kaput! I’m not going to push the fright button here, but I would like to share with you a fact: Our Land needs more premium subscribers. Across the entire media universe at this moment, readership and viewership are mostly down. (This is true particularly true for right-wing websites.) And there’s been a small but noticeable trailing off in premium subscriptions for Our Land.

What does this mean for you? Folks on the business side of this enterprise want to discuss with me what they call “options.” This means fiddling around with the product to entice more people to plunk down a few bucks a month for the premium edition. Many people only subscribe to the free version. (And I thank you all.) But those who pay for the full Our Land get the complete shebang (more content, culture reviews, the interactive Mailbag, MoxieCam™, and other features). More important, they keep this enterprise afloat—and make it possible for the rest of you to receive the limited offering. Yet if not enough subscribers pony up, then the whole venture could be at risk.

Thus, the business pooh-bahs have sent along some suggestions, most of which include cutting back on the content in the limited edition. That could mean providing only a few paragraphs of the opening item as a tease, hoping that prompts readers to sign up for the premium version. It might also entail entirely ending the limited version after a trial period—or just sending out an issue every few weeks or once a month to non-premium subscribers. The bottom line: giving you non-premium Our Landers less.

That runs against my own instinct. I take pride in what I write, and I want as many people to read it as possible. I enjoy residing within a wide Our Land universe. But I understand what the suits are saying. (Actually, none of them wear suits.) So who will decide what we do? In a way, you will. If we can bulk up premium subscriptions—which means you non-premies sign up—we can keep going as is. If not, we might have to try one of the “options.” This not quite a “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll shoot this dog” situation. But we do need you.

One perk for premium subscribers is that they can attend Our Land Zoom get-togethers. These sessions have been fun. We gather in our boxes and talk (or commiserate) about the events of the day, week, month, or century. I hope soon to bring in some special guests. The way it works is that on the day of the gathering we send out a Zoom link to premium subscribers only. All you have to do is hit the link at the right time. The next one will be on March 20 at 8 p.m. ET. So please join me and your fellow Our Land readers for an evening of good chat and camaraderie. Hint, hint: If you’re not a premium subscriber, there’s plenty of time to sign up and receive the invitation.

The House Republican impeachment crusaders are having a tough time of it. After over a year of Keystone Kops investigating, they have not yielded evidence that President Biden engaged in any improbity worthy of the label “high crimes and misdemeanors.” They tried hard at the hearing this week that featured former special counsel Robert Hur, who concluded Biden’s retention of classified material (which he readily returned) did not warrant prosecution. (You can see my report on how that hearing spotlighted the sleazy assault that Hur still mounted against Biden.) But they persist. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), who is co-piloting the clown-car investigation with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), on Fox News spouted this doozy: “You look at how Donald Trump is being treated. He had documents in one location behind a locked door.”

Uh, no. As folks on Twitter quickly pointed out, the former guy had documents in multiple and unsecured locations, including a storage room, a bathroom, an office, a bedroom, and a ballroom. You’d think Comer would know the basics of the Trump case. But, then, you’d be wrong.

Poor Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush who now tosses out conservative folderol for the Washington Post. In a column this past week, he bemoaned that Trump was making it hard for him to vote for Trump. He pointed to Trump’s lack of support for Ukraine, his opposition to banning TikTok, and his attraction to neo-isolationists and RINO hunters. Thiessen fretted that a second Trump term will be “a radical departure focused on revenge and retreat from the world.”

As for Trump’s lies about 2020, his attempt to mount a coup, and his incitement of terroristic and insurrectionist violence, Thiessen only had this to say: “while Jan. 6, 2021, was a disgrace, the system of strong checks and balances our Founding Fathers established held that day.”

Thus, there’s no reason to worry that Trump, if elected again, “will be a dictator.” That is, there’s no cause to be concerned about an anti-democratic authoritarian because his scheme to overturn an election failed. What a doofus argument. If someone plots a murder but the crime is prevented, no harm done? The system worked, yay! Thiessen noted that he can never vote for Biden and pleaded: “I want to vote for Trump. But he needs to give me—and millions like me—permission to do so.”

His quick dismissal of Trump’s attempt to overthrow the constitutional order—as well as the absence of any reference to Trump’s colossal mismanagement of the Covid pandemic—is a good illustration of the moral bankruptcy of the conservative movement.

The judges this week believe they are engaging in a DCotW first: handing the trophy to a foundation for a press release. The Dwight D. Opperman Foundation is named after a deceased businessman who was once the CEO of Thomson Reuters. Since 2020, this charity has handed out the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Leadership Award, and this week it announced the “five iconic individuals” who won for demonstrating “extraordinary accomplishments in their chosen field” and who will be feted at “an exclusive ceremony and gala at the Library of Congress next month.” The winners: Elon Musk, Sylvester Stallone, Martha Stewart, Michael Milken, and Rupert Murdoch.

Yes, you read that right. This foundation, in the name of RBG, is celebrating Elon Musk, who has amplified racist and antisemitic posts and ideas on X/Twitter. And Murdoch, whose Fox News helped purposefully spread Trump’s disinformation about the 2020 election that incited the January 6 riot. In fact, it’s not unreasonable to say that Murdoch has profited from a media empire that has steadily deployed a universe of falsehoods to challenge and undermine the values that Ginsburg fought for her entire life. This is like handing the Smokey the Bear Leadership Award to arsonists. As for Stewart, Ginsburg was apparently a fan of Stewart, despite the lifestyle guru having been busted for insider trading. Milken, a pioneer of junk bonds, was indicted in 1989 for racketeering and securities fraud. He pleaded to lesser charges, was fined hundreds of millions of dollars, and served two years in prison—before reinventing himself as a philanthropist. And who doesn’t like Sly Stallone?

Julie Opperman, the foundation chair, gushed, "Going forward, to embrace the fullness of Justice Ginsburg's legacy, we honor both women and men who have changed the world by doing what they do best." One can wonder how many Americans died because of Fox’s promotion of Covid disinformation. And Washington corporate lawyer Brendan Sullivan Jr., best known for being Oliver North’s attorney during the Iran-contra scandal and now chair of the RBG award, declared, "The honorees reflect the integrity and achievement that defined Justice Ginsburg's career and legend." Murdoch and integrity? Musk and integrity? This is Soviet-style propaganda. In the press release, Murdoch chimed in: “This recognition not only reflects my journey in the media and publishing industry but also represents the relentless defense of civil liberties and a commitment to civil discourse that Justice Ginsburg embodied.” A commitment to civil discourse?

RBG must be spinning in her grave. The judges were too disgusted by all this to sign the paperwork for this week’s prize. But my colleague Ali Breland and I posted a scoop yesterday: the Ginsburg family denouncing the award and requesting that RBG’s name be withdrawn from these honors. Plus, we reported that Julie Opperman is a major Trump and GOP donor. Now it makes sense, right? You can read our piece here.

Speaking of idiotic awards, several readers were enraged when they read in a recent Our Land about the ADL honoring Jared Kushner. Deborah Lynch sent in a missive that represented this sentiment:

This past week, l have been praying someone of your stature would write about the scandalous betrayal by the ADL in “honoring” Jared Kushner. I have told the ADL that l am resigning my membership and changing my will to exclude it in my initially generous contribution. I can’t be the only “regular” Jew who feels so disrespected and rejected. l’m ready to hit the streets over this. ls there some way to organize and make ADL answer for this? You have always been one of my favorites and hope you can/will do more than writing an exquisite article. 

Deborah, I think you took effective action by voting with your checkbook (and your will). I imagine other ADL supporters did so. I doubt the organization will reverse this decision, but if enough backers expressed the same sentiment, it might prevent it from pulling another boneheaded stunt in the future.

There was much reaction to the issue that pondered whether Trump’s victory in the GOP primary contest indicates that America—or a large part of it—is sleepwalking toward autocracy.

Harvey Berman emailed:

In my work as a psychiatrist, I am exposed to patients' defense mechanisms firsthand. The more traumatic something is, the more one mobilizes their defense mechanisms in an effort to reduce one's distress. One of the most primitive, pathological, and powerful mechanisms is denial. Trump's chaotic tenure produced more than his share of traumas. Consequently, millions of Americans have responded by mounting a wall of massive denial. They simply cannot accept the reality of how horrible 1/6/21 (as well as many other Trump misdeeds) was, so their unconscious mind revises the story of that day as something more benign. When it would simply cause someone too much pain to admit that a person they like is really such a horrible person, they rationalize away even the most horrendous of that person's sins. Admittedly, one's unconscious mind has to work overtime to absolve Trump of blame for everything wrong that he's done.

A reader who goes by the handle Cat Dancer wrote:

I think that if someone put together a rather exhaustive video summary of all the things you mentioned in your article, and all the things that you left out—that is, put it together in a form of a documentary, widely distributed on various channels and media—rather than just a short written summary which isn't deep enough or impressive enough to force people to remember, then that would be a step in the right direction.

Cat, if I may call you that, every day on Twitter I see short videos—not documentaries, granted—that cover many of Trump’s misdeeds, lies, and inane and hate-filled comments. A long-form documentary of all this could be useful, but the challenge is not in making such a film but in getting it in front of people who are open to persuasion. (See Harvey Berman’s note above.) There are very few to-be-convinced voters left in the electorate. And my assumption is that Trumpers would either not bother watching or dismiss such a piece of work. The best answer I got is that Biden and the Dems need to fight fiercely and ceaselessly call out Trump for his past catastrophes (1/6, the pandemic, and more), his authoritarian impulses and plans, and his never-ending assault on decency—while defending and championing Biden’s record. Alas, this is a battle, not an educational campaign. 

Regarding the outrageous Trump actions, I noted in that issue, Quentin Hardy responded,

You’re probably getting a big list of the ones you left out. I have to go with denigrating a Gold Star mother and calling wounded and dead service people losers. And yet ex-military people often think this grifter cares about them. That’s the thing about con jobs: There’s a part of us that wants to be conned.

“Moxie, sometimes I wonder if critiquing the media coverage of Trump has any impact.”
“We dogs have a saying: ‘Don’t bark at what you can’t catch.’”
“But you bark all the time at the deer.”
“I said it was a saying, not a plan of action.”

March 12, 2024: Jared Kushner and the award that’s not good for the Jews; old cops versus new cops in Criminal Record; James Grady delivers a different mystery with The Smoke in Your Eyes; and more.

March 9, 2024: Trump’s back on top, and this is not fine; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Mark Robinson); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

March 5, 2024: The threat to democracy from white rural rage; the common flaw of Maestro and Napoleon; Tierney Sutton’s jazzy take on the racial wealth gap; and more.

March 2, 2024: Barbara McQuade on disinformation in 2024; Richard Lewis, RIP; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Tommy Tuberville); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 27, 2024: The new “It Can Happen Here” project; the darkness of True Detective: Night Country; and more.

February 24, 2024: The racism is the point; the Smirnov affair; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Robert F. Kennedy Jr.); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 21, 2024: The great forgotten betrayal of the Trump years; the fifth season of Fargo gets political; the Black Keys get funky; and more.

February 17, 2024: A refresher on Trump’s porn-star/hush-money case; a farewell message from Alexei Navalny; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jared Kushner); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

February 13, 2024: Joe Biden’s age and how the media covers it; The Greatest Night in Pop lives up to its title; Slow Horses and For All Mankind and the challenge of producing high-quality television; and more. 

February 10, 2024: Biden or Trump and the memory hole; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Marjorie Taylor Greene); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.