Thursday, January 11, 2018

Surviving Trump

Photo
President Trump arriving at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland for a trip to Nashville on Monday.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times 
Barely 12 months into the churn of the Trump presidency, when a week can be as eventful as a year, David Frum has published his new book aware of the perils he faces. “My choice of timing imposes on this project many risks of error and misunderstanding,” he concedes on the first page of “Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic.” There’s still plenty of time until the next presidential election for Trump and his sentries to do more: more fulminating, more tweeting, more back-stabbing, more enabling. “But if it’s potentially embarrassing to speak too soon,” Frum writes, “it can also be dangerous to wait too long.”
If this sounds a bit much as justification for a release date, it’s worth remembering that the neoconservative Frum, once a speechwriter for George W. Bush, was an early and ardent supporter of the Iraq war. Neocons don’t like to wait.
But Frum purports to offer more than a rushed assessment of the last year. After all, he says, President Trump is not a cause but a symptom. Like another new book, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s “How Democracies Die,” “Trumpocracy” is, in part, an exploration of the reasons for the president’s electoral upset and the roots of his rule. Trump, Frum writes, “did not create the vulnerabilities he exploited.”
Despite sterling conservative credentials — helping Bush coin the phrase “axis of evil”; co-writing “An End to Evil” with Richard Perle (evil being even more loathed than waiting) — Frum was developing a reputation as a Republican dissenter before the election of 2016 put him in full Never Trump mode, when he held his nose and voted for Hillary Clinton. (This was a real sacrifice, considering he deemed Clinton “a suspicious and vindictive personality.”) As a columnist at The Atlantic, Frum has spent the past year excoriating the president and the Republican Party as a toxic mix of hot heads in the White House and lily livers in Congress.
Photo
David FrumCreditMichael Bennett Kress 
“The worse Trump behaved, the more frantically congressional Republicans worked to protect him,” he writes in “Trumpocracy.” The government has “imported the spirit of thuggery, crookedness and dictatorship into the very core of the American state.” While the populace (or audience) gets swept along by the daily gusts of gossip and palace intrigues, Frum wants to direct our ire at all those mild-mannered functionaries who have allowed “this new regime of deceit and brutishness” to take hold.
Among Frum’s fellow Republicans who read this book, all but the most determined Trump enthusiasts should feel pin pricks of recognition and, depending on how much hypocrisy they can live with, a queasy discomfort. Frum relishes going on the attack, and he castigates members of a Republican establishment who have laid any pretensions to moral rectitude on the altar of a tax cut.
Continue reading the main story
The book seems to have been written in haste, a patchwork of bits and pieces from his Atlantic columns, additional examples of Trumpian malfeasance, and new ways of expressing old outrage. Frum has followed the blogger’s template, clogging his text with block quotes. Rambling disquisitions by Steve Bannon and Trump prove little besides the exceedingly hard time they have getting to a point. Paragraphs of wire stories are reprinted verbatim. Frum’s prescriptions for responding to Trump amount to cut-rate self-help: “Resistance begins by refusing to let him corrupt you personally.”
Photo
CreditAlessandra Montalto/The New York Times 
Frum has the pamphleteer’s flair for the scathing epithet, which can be energizing or enervating, depending on your tolerance for hyperbole. Even sympathetic readers may feel besieged when he works himself up to full throttle. “No single person could possibly plumb the foulnesses of the Trump presidency.” “The Trump White House is a mess of careless slobs.” Trump himself is “the most shameless liar in the history of the presidency.”
On that last note, Levitsky and Ziblatt might not disagree, though in “How Democracies Die” they are more methodical and less fervid in their assessments. The most withering designation they offer for President Trump is — get ready for it — “serial norm breaker.”
Then again, Levitsky and Ziblatt are political scientists, for whom being a serial norm breaker is serious stuff indeed. Norms are what have sustained American democracy “in ways we have come to take for granted.” They identify two in particular: “mutual toleration,” or the understanding among competing parties and politicians that they are legitimate rivals rather than existential enemies; and “forbearance,” or the understanding among politicians that just because they technically have the power to do something doesn’t mean they ought to use it. The erosion of these two norms can lead to a partisan death spiral. The authors argue that Trump has tried to eviscerate both.
“How Democracies Die” is a lucid and essential guide to what can happen here. Levitsky and Ziblatt show how democracies have collapsed elsewhere — not just through violent coups, but more commonly (and insidiously) through a gradual slide into authoritarianism. Autocrats often come to power through democratic elections rather than at the point of a gun. Establishment elites can inadvertently assist would-be despots, as insiders delude themselves into believing they can invite an outsider into power and then pull the puppet strings. As one German aristocrat boasted in 1933: “Within two months, we will have pushed Hitler so far into a corner that he’ll squeal.”
Photo
Steven Levitsky, left, and Daniel Ziblatt. CreditStephanie Mitchell 
A “profound miscalculation,” is how Levitsky and Ziblatt describe this attempt to share power with the Nazis. When presenting the most distressing historical analogies, the authors’ understatement is so subdued it verges on deadpan. But our current moment is so fraught that “How Democracies Die” is never dull, even if the writing can be. “If partisan animosity prevails over mutual toleration, those in control of congress may prioritize defense of the president over the performance of their constitutional duties.” This might be blanched prose, but it also sounds like a sly subtweet of the Republican Party.
In one of the most original turns in the book, Levitsky and Ziblatt assiduously dismantle the myth of American exceptionalism. Even during the supposed heyday of 20th-century bipartisan cooperation, “the norms sustaining our political system rested, to a considerable degree, on racial exclusion.” Jim Crow was allowed to flourish in a South that was “profoundly undemocratic.” The post-Confederate states had changed their constitutions and laws to deprive African-Americans of the vote, while Democrats and Republicans found common cause in a political system that was largely restricted to white people.
The authors hazard that most of the norm-breaking in the last few decades has been conducted by the Republican Party because, unlike its rival, it “has remained culturally homogeneous.” The Democrats have had to negotiate among varying interests in their ranks; the Republicans have not, allowing them to be more single-minded — and reckless, this book suggests — in their pursuit of power. But Levitsky and Ziblatt oppose those liberals who advise compromising the concerns of ethnic minorities in order to make Democrats more appealing to Trump’s white working-class base: “It would repeat some of our country’s most shameful mistakes.”
Each of these books ends on a characteristic note. Frum has prepared us for a grand finale, full of clashing cymbals and swelling violins: “We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American.” This kind of exhortation is as vague and bombastic as old calls for regime change in Iraq. Levitsky and Ziblatt are drier and more circumspect. There is no democratic paradise, no easy way out. Democracy, when it functions properly, is hard, grinding work. This message may not be as loud and as lurid as what passes for politics these days, but it might be the one we need to hear.

The Best Plan

The best solution is the simplest: Vote, and organize others to register and to vote. If you believe Donald Trump represents a danger to the country and the world, you can take action to rein in his power. In November, you can help elect members of Congress who will fight Mr. Trump’s most dangerous behaviors. If that fails, there’s always 2020.
-The NY Times

Republicans Love Dumb Presidents

Ad will collapse in seconds…

Why Republicans Love Dumb Presidents

By 
Donald Trump and Sarah Palin. Photo: John Roca/NY Daily News via Getty Images
Michael Wolff’s account of the Trump administration has forced the president and his supporters to address the president’s mental fitness, or lack thereof. On Saturday, Trump labeled himself a “very stable genius.” On Sunday, he tweeted out quotes from a column defending his presidency, but awkwardly mistranscribed the key word “consequential” as “consensual” — not only the wrong word, but a fairly awkward one for a known genital-grabber to use — and then, urging his audience to “Please read entire column,” mistakenly typed in the author’s email address rather than the hyperlink for the column.
Anyway! You were saying — very stable genius.

Donald Trump Is His Own Worst Enemy

h
Faced with the accusation that he is a half-wit, the president and his defenders have formed two rebuttals. The first is that the mere fact Trump won the presidency and has approved conservative policies proves his wisdom. “Actually, he is smart enough to beat 16 other Republicans, who is smart enough to beat Hillary Clinton, who is smart enough to help Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan pass the largest tax cut in modern times,” argues Newt Gingrich. “This guy is the only guy that’s gotten anything done in, I don’t know how many years you want to count,” insists Rush Limbaugh, “so who’s smart, who is that moronic, who’s dangerous, who poses threats, who’s worth it, and who’s worthless?” Victor Davis Hanson argues, “Economic robustness seems predicated on massive deregulation, the expectation and then the reality of comprehensive tax reform and reduction, wooing home capital and industry, expanded energy production, loud business boosterism, recalibrating foreign investment and trade, and declining illegal immigration. Did Trump do that between scarfing down cups of Häagen-Dazs?”
The second defense holds that the questioning of Trump’s mental capacity is no more than liberal snobbery. “I still remember what the intellectuals of the late 1970s and the ’80s frequently said about my old boss, Ronald Reagan. Remember, he was unintelligent,” recalls Laura Ingraham. “He slept in the afternoons. He went to a second-rate college, just an actor, shallow.” Reagan “had the same problem and handled it well,” Trump tweets.
Both defenses have something in common. Rather than segregate questions about Trump’s brain away from the broader partisan debate, they dissolve the former into the latter. They believe that Trump’s being called dumb by the intellectual elite is intimately connected to his political identity. This belief is largely correct. As it has moved farther and farther right, the Republican Party has grown increasingly anti-intellectual. Trump’s base adores him, not despite his obvious mental limitations, but because of them.
Two caveats are in order. First, many intelligent people have conservative values, and rationally support the Republican Party. Second, while Trump’s lack of mental aptitude may be similar to that of previous Republican leaders in kind, it is very different in degree. That said, Trump’s flamboyant ignorance and disdain for intellectual standards are very much in keeping with modern conservative politics.
+++
The belief that the government should base its policy on neutral expertise dates back to the Progressive Era. The conservative movement has always recoiled at this model. Conservatives believed that elected officials ought to draw their guidance from the timeless limited-government values of the Constitution, which had been forgotten by the technocratic elites, but lived on in the simple values of ordinary people. A 1951 editorial in The Freeman, a conservative magazine, stated, “The truly appalling phenomenon is the irrationality of the college-educated mob that has descended upon Joseph R. McCarthy.” Ronald Reagan’s immortal “A Time for Choosing” speech declared the issue of the 1964 election to be “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
College-educated voters used to be a loyal Republican constituency. But the conservative movement used to be a dissenting faction within, and sometimes outside, the Republican Party. As the GOP has grown more conservative, it has simultaneously grown more anti-intellectual. It has been a jagged downward path from Reagan to Trump.
Trump and his allies are correct that Reagan’s critics accused him of senility in office. That is because Reagan had almost certainly undergone significant mental decline by his second term. Lou Cannon’s biography describes President Reagan frequently misidentifying members of his own Cabinet, describing movie scenes as though they were real, changing his schedule in order to follow the advice of an astrologer, and bringing up a science-fiction movie, in which aliens cause the Soviets and Americans to come together, with such frequency that Colin Powell would joke to his staffers, “Here come the little green men again.” As Cannon concluded, “The sad, shared secret of the Reagan White House was that no one in the presidential entourage had confidence in the judgment or the capacities of the president.”
Reagan succeeded because his staff insulated him from his own limitations — much to the chagrin of movement conservatives, whose slogan, “Let Reagan be Reagan,” reflected their not-wrong understanding that the largely moderate White House staff was softening the president’s hard ideological edges. The cult of Reagan that developed on the right transformed a historical accident into a governing ideal. Everything Reagan did was retrospectively perfect, and every subsequent Republican presidential contender has labored to cast himself as Reagan’s heir.
Since Reagan’s time, conservatives have not only reflexively dismissed questions about the intelligence of any leader who seemed wanting, but presented these traits as encouraging evidence of Reaganesque qualities. Reagan’s immediate successor, George H.W. Bush, was a highly qualified and experienced public servant who, not coincidentally, failed to win the trust and affection of his party’s base. His son, George W., cast himself as the heir to Reagan rather than to his own father. In 1999, Bush offered up, as an example of something he does not like to do, “sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or something.” Bush eventually grew to take his job more seriously, but his trust in his gut instinct over analysis never left him.
The vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin represents an important marker in the evolution of the Republican Party. A candidate who plainly lacked familiarity with national-level public policy was nonetheless not only defended by conservatives, but embraced with a fervor that exceeded the grudging enthusiasm of the candidate who selected her. That liberals abhorred her as a rube merely served to confirm her authentic membership in the conservative tribe. “This is not the first time that I’ve seen a governor being questioned by some, quote, ‘expert,’” insisted John McCain in her defense. “I remember that Ronald Reagan was a cowboy.”
Donald Trump was able to vanquish his rivals and capture the Republican nomination for many reasons, but one of them was his ability to win a race to the mental bottom. He dominated the many televised debates with crude bullying. No candidate before Trump had made such a mockery of the very idea of having facts to support his position; he would simply dismiss his adversaries as short, ugly, nerdy, or female. His inability to grasp complexity has forced Trump to fixate relentlessly on a simple themes, like the wall and the lack of gratitude displayed by minorities, that resonate with his supporters. Trump is the apotheosis of the anti-intellectual style, the perfect spokesman for the conservative agenda.
Trump’s allies have tried to swat away questions of his mental fitness by casting him as a populist who speaks the plain language of regular people. “When President Trump refuses to speak in stale political platitudes, his critics think he is missing something. But the truth is, President Trump speaks to the country in an authentic and genuine way that Americans understand and appreciate,” says Ronald Lauder, voice of the people and heir to the Estée Lauder fortune.
Trump himself does not play the pseudo-populist game. He brags incessantly about his brains and his academic pedigree, from his Ivy League status to his brainy uncle. Being seen as a regular Joe is his worst nightmare. He wishes to be seen as a brilliant mind. Yet Trump owes his success to his inability to carry it off.

About Andrew Jackson


Making Andrew Jackson Great Again?

Historians/History  
tags: slavery,  Civil War,  Andrew Jackson,  Trump,  Fake News 

77Shares
 42
 24
 11


Manisha Sinha is the Draper Chair in American History at the University of Connecticut and the author of The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition (2016).

Thanks to Donald Trump, Andrew Jackson is in vogue again. A few weeks ago Trump tweeted “Go get the new book on Andrew Jackson by Brian Kilmeade…Really good. @foxandfriends.” Trump of course fancies himself as an heir to Jackson, a comparison first peddled by the now out-of-favor Steve Bannon. One has lost count of the number of times Trump has been photographed with a portrait of Old Hickory looming behind him, most inappropriately during a ceremony honoring the Navajo code talkers, veterans of the Second World War. It is not clear if Trump has read Kilmeade’s new book on Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans, but he is reportedly a diligent viewer of Kilmeade’s morning show on Fox news. The two form apparently a mutual admiration society. Having recently presented at a conference on Andrew Jackson marking his 250th birthday at Yale University, I am struck by how this historical analogy is more false than true. Perhaps even the ghost of Jackson is protesting since the historic magnolia tree he planted at the White House in honor of his beloved wife, Rachel, has finally given up and will be removed. We are living in an age of not just fake news but fake history. 
Traditionally, Jacksonian Democracy, the elimination of property holding qualifications for voting and an attack on Hamiltonian economic views, was understood to represent the expansion of American democracy, albeit for adult white men only. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. put forward this view in his magisterial The Age of Jackson in 1945. Many American historians since have retold that familiar story of what was called the Republican-Democratic Party, drawing a linear genealogy of American democracy from Jeffersonian Republicanism and Jacksonian Democracy to FDR’s New Deal liberalism. Counter narratives that portrayed Jackson as an Indian killer and slaveholder have long inhabited the edges of the history of Jacksonian Democracy. More recently they have occupied center stage. But the history of Andrew Jackson, indeed Jacksonian Democracy or as it was properly called by many contemporaries, “the white man’s democracy,” is a bit more complicated than either version. Today, Trump and his followers have sought to encompass Jackson and his newfound admirer under a broad blanket of populism. But this attempt reveals the disjunctures rather than the similarities between the white man’s democracy of Andrew Jackson and the alt-right, white nationalism of Trump, a product as much if not more of fascist, anti-democratic forces of the twentieth century rather than of its nineteenth century antecedents.
Careful historians of the age of Jackson have shown that the institution of white manhood suffrage preceded the election of Andrew Jackson, even though the process continued to unfold during his Presidency, and that the white man’s democracy in the United States was accompanied by the disfranchisement and severe curtailing of black men’s suffrage in many northern states. Jackson represented the coming of age of the “common man” or what I would call the common white man. Moreover his economic policies that would define the Second Party System of the American Republic, anti-Bank of the United States, anti-infrastructure, and anti-protection or what was known as the American system, proved to be a windfall for “pet” Democratic state banks and champions of free trade. When it came to white women, Jackson’s chivalry, his undying fidelity to his dead wife and his determination to uphold the honor of Peggy Eaton, wife of his Secretary of War, even at the cost of risking his administration, stands in glaring contrast to Trump’s abusive attitudes and behavior toward women. While it is important to note the limits of Jacksonian Democracy, political, social, and economic, it is clear that Trump’s accession, personality, and policies have little in common with Old Hickory’s. 
In 1824, Jackson was denied the White House according to his supporters by a “corrupt bargain” between John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, who combined their support in the Electoral College to defeat Jackson, winner of the national popular vote. In 1828 and 1832, Jackson won the Presidency by overwhelming majorities in the popular vote count. Trump’s election by the Electoral College, while losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly three million votes, the most in American history in a presidential election, could not be further from this scenario. Whatever kind of populism Trump evokes, he cannot even lay claim to the attenuated, racially exclusive nature of Jacksonian democracy. The profoundly anti-democratic nature of Trump’s election, aided by America’s rotten borough Electoral College, state and local level Republican schemes of voter suppression and gerrymandering, stands in glaring contrast to the course of American democracy in the nineteenth century when the electorate expanded dramatically and over 70 percent of eligible male voters typically cast ballots in elections. In contrast, a minority of a minority voted for Trump. Even at the symbolic level, while Trump blithely lied about the size of his inauguration crowd, a contemporary critic had this to say about the “multitude” at Jackson’s inauguration, the largest since the establishment of the Republic, that literally stormed the White House: “The Majesty of the People had disappeared, and a rabble, a mob, of boys, negros [sic], women, children, scrambling fighting, romping.” Jacksonian democracy presaged the emergence of a new kind of mass democratic politics in the United States. 
Trump’s attempt to claim Jackson’s economic populism, with all its limitations, is similarly misguided. Trump and the party he represents have made it clear that theirs’ is the party of the 1 percent, the plutocrats and billionaires, even faux ones like Trump himself. The uneasy political alliance between southern slaveholders and northern plain folk in the Democratic Party built painstakingly by Jackson’s lieutenant, Martin Van Buren, would unravel under the pressure of the slavery controversy by the eve of the Civil War. But the Republican Party of today is an ideologically pure party of reaction, religious, economic, social, and political. While remaining closed to African Americans, the Democratic Party founded by Jackson was an immigrant friendly one, as long as they were white. Irish and German Catholics flocked to its standard put off by the evangelical, Protestant tone of its rival, the Whig party. Today of course nativism is a hallmark of the modern GOP and Trump has perfected it by abusing Americans of Mexican descent and with his idiotic plans to build a border wall. As Lincoln, calling out nineteenth century nativists, put it, “As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.” Trump’s campaign, it appears, took that advice literally.
The one part of Andrew Jackson’s legacy that Trump’s many critics, historians and pundits, have referred to in comparing him to Jackson is the latter’s reputation as an Indian fighter and enslaver. Even the most ardent of Jackson’s admirers cannot prettify his record here. During the First Seminole War, in defiance of direct orders, he pursued and killed hundreds of Creeks and as President, presided over the infamous Trail of Tears that forcibly displaced nearly 40,000 Cherokees, resulting in the death of around four to five thousand. Jackson’s personal fortunes were linked to the expansion of the slavery-based Cotton Kingdom, as a slave trader and slaveholder. The casual cruelty in his directive to pay ten dollars for a hundred lashes each inflicted on his runaway slave belies myths of a paternalistic slaveholder reproduced uncritically as recently as in a new Jackson biography by Steve Inskeep. 
Like a majority of the slaveholding republic’s early Presidents, Jackson was a slaveholder who had no qualms about owning human property or dispossessing Native Americans from their lands. At the same time, Jackson’s adoption of the Creek orphan, Lyncoya, and his call to arms to the black population during the Battle of New Orleans reveals a complicated racialist outlook. Adoption signaled not just benevolence but assimilation and cultural death for Native Americans, a step above extermination. Jackson was also willing to recruit not just free blacks but also the enslaved in defense of the slaveholding republic during the War of 1812. African American abolitionists consistently reprinted Jackson’s proclamation of gratitude to the free blacks of New Orleans right down to the Civil War in their demands for citizenship. In 1836, he pardoned Arthur Bowen, an eighteen-year old enslaved man sentenced to hang for threatening his mistress, at her behest. He deliberately arranged that the pardon should take effect on July 4th. 
Jackson’s staunch nationalism at times trumped his provincial identity as a southern slaveholder. He is a crucial figure in the development of the antebellum American state, a government of courts and parties as the political scientist Stephen Skowronek has called it. The antebellum party system emerged defined by his persona and policies. One can also trace the origins of the imperial Presidency to Jackson, much earlier than the twentieth century as most historians have argued. His Whig critics called him King Andrew and a recent biographer J.M. Opal, draws attention to his vengeful personality. But Jackson’s actions against perceived enemies of the nation state were much more than the result of fits of pique. He held no truck with abolitionists, demanding the federal censorship of their literature. But he also famously held no truck with South Carolinian nullifiers and the extreme states rights constitutional views of their avatar, John C. Calhoun. Jackson’s forceful proclamation against nullification or the alleged right of a state to nullify a federal law, which he linked to disunion and the tyranny of minority rule, was the one precedent that Lincoln could evoke in issuing his Emancipation Proclamation in the midst of Civil War. 
Unlike Jackson, Trump has kind words for those who have committed treason against the United States or have been defined as its enemies, an odd position for someone so devoted to the Stars and Stripes that he has attacked football players kneeling before it. Trump is particularly fond of neo-Confederate Nazis giving them the respect he has withheld from African American soldiers killed in combat. Trump’s inane suggestion that Jackson could have avoided the Civil War through compromise would probably surprise Jackson’s critics and supporters alike well acquainted with his uncompromising defense of the American Union and willingness to bring the country to the brink of war during the nullification crisis over federal tariff laws. Like many historians, I have studied Andrew Jackson, and Trump is no Jackson. Ideologically, the GOP today, the party of Trump is the party of Calhoun rather than the party of Jackson. 
Contrast also Jackson’s liberal use of patronage to staff federal appointments with Trump’s failure to fill many crucial positions in government. Trump and the current Republican Party’s anti-statist views would do away with government in either its earlier democratic or modern technocratic and bureaucratic incarnations. In the long history of the American Presidency, Trump, as historian Sean Wilentz recently argued, has no precedent, and his attempt to evoke Jackson’s legacy to legitimize the continuing horror of his Presidency is as many of his actions and words, implausible.

Tuesday, January 9, 2018

On Tragedy


Since I was only an English minor I cannot pontificate authoritatively on the types of tragedies, but I find myself thinking about this subject this morning relative to today's politics.
We are certainly living a tragedy in the country these days. But what type of tragedy? Greek, Roman, Elizabethan, or one of the many others?
I suggest we are living a tragicomedy so far. I say so far as long as you know who doesn't find his big button and thankfully so far as a person who personally hasn't yet been directly harmed by the potential button-pusher but mindful of the millions who have been harmed so far.
Laugh occasionally while I still can. This is my strategy going forward but knowing that any day now the laughs may be extinguished.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

Intelligenter


WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos offered a spirited defense of her boss’s intelligence on Friday, bluntly asking reporters, “Would a moron hire me?”
“My intelligence can be very intimidating,” DeVos said. “And if Donald Trump was a moron, he would not want to be around people who are intelligenter than him.”
As evidence that Trump does not feel inferior around highly intelligent people, DeVos singled out other members of Trump’s Cabinet. "Leave me out of it for a second,” she said. “If Donald Trump was such a blithering idiot, why would he have hired Rick Perry?”
“Jared Kushner is also super smart,” she added. “He doesn’t even work on Saturdays because he’s a Jewish person and whatnot, but he doesn’t have to because of his huge brain and all. He’s so smart I have a nickname for him. I call him Smart Jared.”
Arguing that only a “very smart person would hire such very smart persons,” DeVos said, “Think about it. Rick Perry, Jared Kushner, and me. Wouldn’t Donald Trump have to be pretty smart to hire four people like that?