Brooks and Capehart on Trump’s recent series of setbacks

Amna Nawaz:

President Trump had a series of seeming setbacks this week, raising some doubts about his grip on the GOP and his ability to govern in his second term.

For analysis, we turn now to Brooks and Capehart. That is New York Times opinion columnist David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart of MS NOW.

Great to see you both.

Jonathan Capehart:

Hey, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

Let's talk about the latest AP poll that looks at the president's overall approval rating.

Jonathan Capehart:

Shall we?

Amna Nawaz:

It's at 36 percent right now, which is a second-term low he's hit before, and it was lower at times in his first term, but the difference now is his approval on the economy specifically. It's at 31 percent.

I want to put to you what Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson wrote this week. She said: "What's crucial to understand about Mr. Trump's poor approval numbers is that unlike his last time in the White House, people now disapprove of him because of the economy, not in spite of it."

David, the president continues to insist affordability concerns are a Democratic hoax. Why?

David Brooks:

Well, if you look at the raw number, it's the same with Biden. If you look at the raw numbers, he's got a bit of a case. Median real wages after inflation are at their highest level in American history.

And then if you look about affordability, real wages are going up like this. Food, clothing, all this stuff is not going up as fast as real wages. The things that are going up really fast are health care and education. So those things are going up really fast and housing in blue cities.

So there are some things that are really busting people's budgets. So you got these overall numbers, which are OK. But then when you ask people, consumer sentiment, the University of Michigan survey, it's in the cellar. It's like an historic loss. So people — the economists can tell them they're doing OK.

But people say, no, I'm definitely not doing OK. And in this case, the people know more than the economists.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan, even Republicans I have talked to this week have said, he should not call it a hoax. We have to meet people where their concerns are. Is this sort of a gift to Democrats?

Jonathan Capehart:

Yes. Yes, it is. I mean, at no point did President Biden say to the American people, it's a hoax what they're telling you, you're doing great. He never said that.

What the president is doing is trying to convince people that what is happening to them in the supermarket, wherever they shop, that that's not happening, that they're not paying more for what they're buying for their family than they did a year ago, that they're not feeling the pain in the pocketbook.

And these poll numbers that are out today with the president's, you said the lowest approval rating on the economy, I always look not just at the overall approval rating, but what's his approval rating on any issue with Republicans.

And in the same poll, his approval rating has gone down nine points since March from 78 percent to 69 percent approval of his handling of the economy. That's still very high, but it's a way — it's a far comedown from where he's used to having support among Republicans, which is usually high 80s into the 90 percent.

Amna Nawaz:

Look at his support among party lawmakers. Let's take a closer look at Indiana this week and what we saw, because it was one of the most extraordinary examples so far of Republicans standing up to what Mr. Trump has said he wants, state lawmakers they're voting against a redrawn congressional map that he wanted to see in place that could have given them extra seats or additional seats in next year's midterms.

David, are we seeing the limits of the president's power here?

David Brooks:

I think a little. I wouldn't overread that.

I mean, having a 36 percent approval is a lot different than having a 42. It's much lower. Politicians are going to get a little anxious. But Indiana, A, it has a strong institutional Republican Party, where they believe in institutions. B, it's got governors like Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels, former governors, who are not shy about rebutting the president.

So it's got a political culture that is likely going to want to stand up for the Constitution. And that's what these lawmakers do. It's incredibly heroic, what they did, and a lot of them did it. And there was strength in numbers. And if you read their quotes, it's all the institution.

This is not a constitutional thing we're doing here. This is a betrayal of Constitution, a betrayal of voters. It's a betrayal of democracy. And they stood up and did the right thing. And I think history will look very admiringly at them and very negatively about Donald Trump, Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, and Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, all of whom betrayed the Constitution for the sake of partisanship.

Amna Nawaz:

Do you think other Republican lawmakers in other states where there's a similar effort could follow Indiana's example or was Indiana unique?

David Brooks:

I wouldn't recommend it in the South.

Yes. Well, as you begin to see 36 slip down approval — slip down to 32, then you begin to see people wavering away.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan, what do you make of that?

Jonathan Capehart:

I don't know about including Governor Newsom in the whole cavalcade of people defying the Constitution.

But the one other thing that I would add to this is, the bullying from the White House did not work. There was a story today. I cannot remember where I read it, but it quotes from people in the state legislature in Indiana who were saying that the threats that were coming from the White House, from officials just stiffened the spine of people.

Like, you don't talk to us that way. You do not do this. So, you can threaten us all you want. And so the folks in Indiana, they're institutionalists, but they but they also have a moral core. You're not going to talk to us like that.

And I hope other legislators around the country who are facing this pressure from the White House also resist.

Amna Nawaz:

I want to take a step back and look at some of the bigger trends we saw this week, because there's the president's frustration over the Indiana map. We saw a grand jury again refuse to indict Letitia James. We know the Department of Justice is facing a deadline to release the Epstein files.

We're seeing bipartisan concern over the president's alleged drug boat strikes in the Caribbean. So there's mounting frustration on a number of fronts. At the same time, we're seeing a ramping up of the president's overtly racist rhetoric.

That affordability speech in Pennsylvania just devolved into an anti-immigrant, racist rant. David, are those things related?

David Brooks:

Unclear. It could be just he's getting crankier and older.

He's not — he's always talked about certain kind of countries when referring to certain developing world countries. That was first term. He's always used this kind of language. Is he using it more nastily? Yes. Is it tied to his falling approvals? I'm not sure.

I think there's been a shift in the mind-set of the administration compared to Trump one. And we saw it not only in what he says in some random speech. We saw it in the most important event of the week, which was the release of the national security strategy, where they talked about civilizational erasure.

This is taking some of that idea that we're — we in the West have to fight off the hordes from the rest of the world. That's not only in a speech. That is the official foreign policy of the United States of America. And so that culture war mind-set is now from maybe back of mind or medium of mind, now it's front of mind, both in random rhetoric, but also in policy.

Jonathan Capehart:

I don't think it's random rhetoric.

This is something that the president has done time and time again, when he was running for president the first time, when he became president, when he ran for president, especially the second time. And now that he's president a second time, it is right there.

And when we have seen him go all in on racist rhetoric, it's when he's trying to scratch at that itch, that emotional, fearful itch to get people, I think, to get away from affordability and what's happening to them in their budgets and their pocketbooks, and get them to fearing and being afraid of their neighbors, being afraid of people around them as just a distraction.

And I think the more we talk about it, the more we shine light on it, the more we don't let him get away with saying what he said in Scranton. I think the better it is for all of us. It's not easy to hear the president of the United States say the things that he's been saying, not just in Scranton, but during this presidency.

We have to hold a mirror up to him just so that we are forced to contend with what he's saying.

Amna Nawaz:

So let's look ahead for just a moment here briefly, because we saw in Congress this week a failure to be able to extend those enhanced ACA subsidies. We know, fully expect tons of millions of Americans' premiums, health care premiums to go up.

David, it's one thing when beef prices go up, coffee prices go up. When people can't afford their health care, what's coming down the pike here?

David Brooks:

Yes, it's awful.

The health care costs bent after Obamacare, but now they're surging again. And so I think we all probably know people, I certainly know people in my own life who are looking at catastrophic increases in their health care costs.

And I have to believe politics — the government is going to act. Maybe I'm an idiot. It's likely. But that they're going to do something in Congress, because the…

Amna Nawaz:

In the remaining days?

David Brooks:

Well, I don't know. The political costs to so many lives is so ruinous. You would think they just give away some money to soften the blow.

Jonathan Capehart:

No, it's not going to happen.

And I say that because I'm looking at the calendar. The House has four legislative days before they adjourn on December 18. The Senate has five legislative days before they adjourn on December 19. The subsidies end on December 31. You know how many days it took to get the Affordable Care Act from introduction to passage? Four hundred and twenty-seven days.

You cannot do this kind of policymaking in four or five legislative days. You just can't.

Amna Nawaz:

Jonathan Capehart, David Brooks, we appreciate your optimism and sense of hope always. But we appreciate it.

David Brooks:

It's always ridiculous, isn't it?

Amna Nawaz:

But we appreciate you both being here every week. Great to see you.

Jonathan Capehart:

Thanks, Amna.

Amna Nawaz:

Thank you.

David Brooks:

Thank you.