The Human Need For Narratives

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

We love emotionally satisfying stories, but many, if not most emotionally satisfying stories about public issues are distorting our understanding of reality. Is this true? What are some examples?

Grok says:

Yes, it’s likely true that emotionally satisfying stories about public issues can distort our understanding of reality. Humans are wired to gravitate toward narratives that feel good—stories with clear heroes, villains, and resolutions—because they provide closure and meaning. But reality is messier, more nuanced, and often lacks the tidy payoff we crave. When these stories dominate discourse, they can oversimplify complex issues, amplify biases, or bury inconvenient facts.
Take crime reporting as an example. A story about a single, dramatic murder case—say, a photogenic victim and a diabolical killer—can dominate headlines for weeks. It’s gripping, it’s emotional, and it often ends with “justice served.” People feel satisfied. But this focus can skew perceptions of crime rates or causes. In 2022, U.S. media fixated on cases like Gabby Petito’s, while broader data showed violent crime trends were more stable than sensational coverage suggested—down in many areas, per FBI stats, despite public fear spiking. The story feels realer than the stats, so we overestimate danger.
Another case: climate change narratives. The “villainous oil company vs. noble activist” trope is emotionally compelling. Think of Greta Thunberg staring down world leaders—it’s inspiring! But it can oversimplify a web of economic, technological, and political factors. Oil companies aren’t cartoonishly evil; they’re part of a system we all rely on. Meanwhile, solutions like renewable energy get lionized, even when their scalability or cost issues are glossed over. The story feels good but can mislead us about trade-offs.
Or consider poverty. Rags-to-riches tales—like a homeless person bootstrapping to success—warm our hearts and reinforce a belief in meritocracy. Yet, systemic barriers (housing costs, wage stagnation) often outweigh individual effort in real outcomes. The 2023 U.S. Census showed poverty rates ticking up despite economic growth, but we’d rather cheer the exception than face the rule.
These stories aren’t lies—they’re just selective. They zoom in on what feels good and crop out the ambiguity. Over time, that distortion shapes how we see the world, often prioritizing catharsis over clarity.

Posted in Narrative | Comments Off on The Human Need For Narratives

Steve Bannon and Donald Trump may get the facts wrong, but they get the feelings right of tens of millions of Americans who feel unserved by our major institutions.

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Steve Bannon and Donald Trump might mangle details—dates, numbers, specifics—but they’ve tapped into a vein of emotion that runs deep and wide across America. Tens of millions feel it: a simmering frustration, a sense of being ignored, dismissed, or outright betrayed by the big institutions—government, media, academia, corporate elites. These two don’t just speak to that; they weaponize it.
Bannon’s the tactician, seeing the world as a battlefield where populism storms the gates of a decaying establishment. He’ll riff on half-remembered history or cherry-picked stats, but the point isn’t precision—it’s the vibe. He’s channeling the guy in a rust-belt diner who’s watched factories shutter while politicians prattle about “global competitiveness.” Trump, meanwhile, is the megaphone—blunt, unpolished, visceral. He’ll say the “system’s rigged” or call out “fake news,” and yeah, he might flub the evidence, but the feeling lands like a gut punch for the woman who’s seen her insurance premiums spike while pundits tell her the economy’s fine.
They get the feelings right because they’re not lecturing from a podium—they’re yelling from the back of the room, mirroring the anger, the distrust, the exhaustion. The facts? Secondary. When you’re unserved—when schools fail your kids, wages stagnate, or bureaucrats seem deaf—empathy trumps data. Institutions have spent years polishing their credibility with metrics and platitudes, but they’ve lost the plot on what keeps people loyal: being seen, heard, and fought for. Bannon and Trump, flaws and all, fill that void, not with solutions but with resonance.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Steve Bannon and Donald Trump may get the facts wrong, but they get the feelings right of tens of millions of Americans who feel unserved by our major institutions.

WSJ: Morgan Stanley Went Big on DEI, and No One Is Happy About It

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Here’s an analysis of the Wall Street Journal article titled “Morgan Stanley Went Big on DEI, and No One Is Happy About It” (published March 17, 2025), focusing on its key themes, arguments, evidence, tone, and implications. I’ll approach this critically, grounded in the text, and avoid speculation beyond what’s presented.
Summary of Key Themes
The article chronicles Morgan Stanley’s ambitious push into diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) following George Floyd’s murder in 2020, spearheaded by then-CEO James Gorman, and the subsequent backlash from within the firm. It details how the bank’s efforts—creating an Institute for Inclusion, setting racial hiring goals, and launching minority-focused programs—led to lawsuits and discontent from both Black and white employees. Black staffers felt underpaid or unsupported, while white managers alleged pressure to favor less-qualified minorities. Amid a shifting legal landscape, including a 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action, Morgan Stanley is now scaling back these initiatives, revising language, and refocusing on merit-based policies.
Main Arguments and Evidence
DEI Initiatives Sparked Internal Conflict
Argument: Morgan Stanley’s post-2020 DEI push, intended to address racial injustice, instead fostered a “divisive culture” with few winners.

Evidence: Lawsuits from Black employees like Anthony Fletcher (2023, alleging racism in hiring) and Berdina Moore-Bonds (2025, claiming promotion denials) highlight perceived inequities. White executive Kevin Meyersburg’s 2023 suit alleges HR blocked layoffs of underperforming minorities. Interviews with over two dozen current and former employees reveal Black staffers felt tokenized (e.g., McKinsey program likened to “special education”) and white managers felt coerced into suboptimal hires.

Analysis: The evidence paints a picture of good intentions gone awry, with specific anecdotes (e.g., Fletcher’s recruits demoted, Meyersburg’s layoff rejection) suggesting execution flaws. The article implies a zero-sum dynamic—gains for one group alienated another—though it doesn’t quantify how widespread this was among 80,000 employees.

Pay Disparities Undermined Black Recruitment
Argument: A flagship program to hire Black professionals backfired when recruits discovered they were underpaid, prompting costly fixes.

Evidence: The 2021 Experienced Professionals Program saw Black enrollees receive 40% smaller bonuses than peers by 2022, with gaps persisting into 2023. An internal review led to salary hikes and extra bonuses of $50,000-$65,000, yet some felt this didn’t reflect their performance.

Analysis: This underscores a tangible failure—pay equity is a DEI cornerstone, and the lag suggests poor oversight. The bank’s response (adjustments, settlements) shows reactivity, not proactivity, weakening its DEI credibility.

External Legal Pressure Forced Retrenchment
Argument: A 2023 Supreme Court ruling and Trump administration anti-DEI stance pushed Morgan Stanley to dilute its programs.

Evidence: The bank broadened eligibility for minority-focused programs (e.g., freshman training now open to all), dropped diversity bonuses tied to specific hires, and revised website language (e.g., “underrepresented entrepreneurs” to “early-stage startups”). Letters from 11 Republican attorneys general in 2024 warned of legal risks.

Analysis: The timing aligns with broader corporate trends post-2023 ruling, suggesting Morgan Stanley’s retreat is less about internal failure and more about legal survival. The shift to “meritocracy” in its annual report signals a strategic pivot, though it risks alienating those who saw DEI as a moral commitment.

Longstanding Issues Persisted Despite Efforts
Argument: Morgan Stanley’s DEI troubles predate 2020, with 2020’s escalation amplifying unresolved tensions.

Evidence: Past lawsuits (2008, $16M settlement; 2015, ongoing claims) and Marilyn Booker’s 2020 suit (fired for pushing diversity) show a history of racial friction. John Lockette’s 2018 suit alleges Black trainees were sidelined. Post-2020, Fletcher’s 2015-2022 recruiting woes echo these patterns.

Analysis: This historical context suggests systemic inertia—2020’s “stepped-up efforts” didn’t overhaul a culture already resistant to change. The article implies Gorman’s enthusiasm couldn’t overcome entrenched practices.

Tone and Perspective
The tone is measured but critical, reflecting WSJ’s business-focused readership—skeptical of corporate overreach yet attuned to operational realities. It avoids cheerleading DEI or Trump’s backlash, instead presenting Morgan Stanley as a case study in overambition and missteps. Phrases like “bubbled up from within” and “few winners” subtly cast DEI as a noble but flawed experiment. The bank’s defense (via spokesman Wesley McDade) is included but framed against a chorus of dissent, tilting the narrative toward dysfunction. The article’s Wall Street lens prioritizes legal and financial risks over ideological debates, though it nods to both sides’ grievances.
Strengths
Detail: Specific examples (lawsuits, pay gaps, program tweaks) ground the story in concrete outcomes, not just rhetoric.

Balance: It captures Black and white perspectives, plus the bank’s rebuttals, offering a 360-degree view.

Context: Linking internal strife to external pressures (Supreme Court, Trump) ties Morgan Stanley’s story to a national shift.

Weaknesses
Scale: With 80,000 employees, the “two dozen” interviewees may not represent the majority—company surveys citing high DEI approval are dismissed as outliers without scrutiny.

Causality: It doesn’t fully explore why DEI faltered (e.g., poor training, resistance from middle management?) beyond surface tensions.

Counterpoints: The bank’s claim of following EEOC guidelines during layoffs is noted but not tested—did legal compliance clash with DEI goals?

Implications
Corporate DEI: Morgan Stanley’s retreat mirrors a broader pullback (e.g., Forbes, March 1, 2025, lists firms like Walmart scaling down DEI). Companies may prioritize legal defensibility over bold inclusion, risking talent loss if minorities feel abandoned.

Workplace Culture: The “divisive culture” suggests DEI, if mishandled, can deepen rifts rather than bridge them—white resentment and Black disillusionment could persist.

Leadership: New CEO Ted Pick’s reaffirmation of diversity as a core value (town hall, 2025) contrasts with policy dilution, hinting at a rhetorical rather than substantive commitment.

Legal Landscape: The article reinforces how the 2023 ruling and Trump’s anti-DEI push (e.g., Stephen Miller’s group) are reshaping corporate behavior, potentially chilling proactive equity efforts.

Critical Takeaways
Morgan Stanley’s DEI saga reveals a classic overreach-and-retreat arc: a post-2020 surge, fueled by moral urgency, collided with practical and legal realities. The article suggests intent outpaced execution—pay gaps, tokenism, and forced hires undermined trust. Yet it’s skeptical of the bank’s claim that most employees still laud its DEI stance, hinting the backlash may be louder than the norm. The shift to “meritocracy” feels like a pragmatic dodge, not a solution, leaving unresolved whether Morgan Stanley can balance inclusion with fairness. Compared to the FT piece (March 20, 2025), which frames Trump’s elite assault as ideological, WSJ zooms in on operational fallout, offering a microcosm of a macro trend.

Posted in Affirmative Action | Comments Off on WSJ: Morgan Stanley Went Big on DEI, and No One Is Happy About It

Donald Trump vs America’s Elite

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says:

Here’s an analysis of the Financial Times article titled “Donald Trump takes on America’s elite” (published March 20, 2025), focusing on its key points, arguments, tone, and implications. I’ll break it down systematically while keeping my perspective grounded in the text and avoiding unsupported speculation.
Summary of Key Points
The article frames Donald Trump’s recent visit to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts as part of a broader, aggressive campaign against America’s liberal elite institutions following his return to the presidency in 2025. Trump, having installed himself as the Kennedy Center’s chair, aims to purge it of “woke” influences and restore what he calls a “Golden Age in Arts and Culture.” This move aligns with other actions targeting universities (e.g., Columbia, University of Pennsylvania), media outlets (e.g., ABC, CBS), and federal agencies (e.g., USAID, Voice of America). The piece suggests this reflects a deliberate strategy to dismantle the cultural and intellectual strongholds of liberalism, resonating with his base while alarming the “liberal establishment.”
Main Arguments and Evidence
Trump’s Anti-Elite Campaign
Argument: Trump’s second term marks a shift from populist rhetoric to concrete policy against elite institutions, unlike his first term where he tempered such instincts with insider appointments.

Evidence: The article cites the cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University over alleged inaction on antisemitism, $175 million suspended from the University of Pennsylvania over transgender sports policies, and threats to 60 other schools. It also notes his lawsuits against ABC and CBS, alongside the closure of Voice of America and USAID.

Analysis: The scale of these moves—financial, legal, and administrative—supports the claim of a multipronged offensive. The contrast with 2016 (appointing Beltway insiders) highlights a more radical approach, though the article doesn’t explore why this shift occurred beyond his base’s preferences.

Cultural and Political Strategy
Argument: Trump’s team recognizes that controlling the state isn’t enough—they must target liberalism’s “defensive positions” in media, academia, and culture, per historian John Ganz.

Evidence: Quotes from Ganz, conservative activist Christopher Rufo’s goal to instill “existential terror” in universities, and Charlie Kirk’s critique of academia as “oppression Olympics” bolster this. The Kennedy Center’s overhaul, with Ric Grenell’s push for a Christ-centric Christmas show, exemplifies the cultural angle.

Analysis: This suggests a sophisticated understanding of power beyond government, aiming to reshape societal narratives. The article implies this is a long-game play, though it doesn’t assess how feasible it is given resistance (e.g., performer cancellations).

Appeal to the Base
Argument: Targeting elite institutions plays well with Trump’s supporters, especially white working-class men skeptical of “coastal elites.”

Evidence: Exit polls showing 56% of non-college-educated voters backed Trump, alongside Gallup data of declining Republican trust in higher education (56% in 2015 to 20% in 2023). Columbia professor Mike Thaddeus notes dual appeal: rural disdain for universities and conservative desire to reshape them.

Analysis: The data aligns with Trump’s electoral strength, but the article doesn’t unpack why this distrust deepened—possibly economic stagnation or cultural shifts—leaving the reader to infer.

Historical Context
Argument: This assault isn’t new but builds on decades of conservative efforts to undermine liberal bastions, per historian Jill Lepore.

Evidence: Lepore traces this to the 1970s, citing successes in alternative media (Fox News) and judiciary influence since Reagan, with academia as the last frontier Trump aims to “destroy.”

Analysis: This contextualizes Trump’s actions as an escalation, not an aberration. The article contrasts conservative media/judicial wins with academia’s resistance, hinting Trump’s ferocity stems from past failures here.

Tone and Perspective
The tone is analytical yet tinged with alarm, reflecting the “stunned” liberal establishment’s viewpoint. Phrases like “multipronged assault” and “reeling bien pensants” convey a sense of upheaval, while Trump’s characterization as a Queens outsider versus “liberal luminaries” subtly mocks elite pretension. The FT’s audience—global, business-oriented, often center-left—likely informs this framing, balancing factual reporting with a critical edge. It avoids outright condemnation, letting experts (Ganz, Lepore, Thaddeus) voice the stakes, but the selection of quotes (e.g., “existential terror,” “wilfully destructive”) tilts toward concern over Trump’s motives.
Strengths
Breadth: It connects the Kennedy Center visit to a wider pattern—universities, media, judiciary—offering a cohesive narrative of Trump’s agenda.

Voices: Diverse perspectives (academics, activists, lawyers) enrich the analysis, grounding it in expertise.

Data: Polls and funding figures lend empirical weight, showing both public sentiment and policy impact.

Weaknesses
Depth: It skims root causes—why Trump’s base hates elites, or why he’s more aggressive now—favoring breadth over nuance.

Balance: While it quotes conservatives (Rufo, Kirk), their views are presented as antagonistic, with little exploration of their intellectual merits or counterarguments from Trump’s side.

Speculation: Claims like “calculated campaign” or “trying to undermine credibility” lack direct evidence (e.g., Trump admin statements), relying on inference.

Implications
Cultural Shift: If successful, Trump’s Kennedy Center overhaul could signal a broader reorientation of U.S. arts toward conservative values, though cancellations (Issa Rae, Hamilton) suggest resistance will persist.

Higher Education: Funding cuts and legal threats could force universities to self-censor or shift right, reshaping academic freedom. The FT hints at a chilling effect but doesn’t predict outcomes.

Media Landscape: Lawsuits and regulatory pressure might weaken liberal outlets’ finances or independence, though the article doesn’t assess their resilience.

Political Polarization: Targeting elites may deepen divides, galvanizing Trump’s base while alienating urban, educated voters—exit polls imply this is already in motion.

Critical Takeaways
The article paints Trump as a populist wrecking ball, but its establishment lens risks oversimplifying his strategy as mere vengeance rather than a coherent ideology. The Kennedy Center move, while symbolic, fits a pattern of leveraging federal power to punish perceived adversaries—consistent with his July 13, 2024, security critique aftermath, where he blamed “woke” failures (though not directly linked here). The FT assumes liberalism’s defensive positions are inherently valuable, but doesn’t wrestle with why they’ve lost public trust, per Gallup’s drop. Trump’s success hinges on execution—can he replace, not just dismantle? The piece leaves that open, focusing on the “what” over the “how.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on Donald Trump vs America’s Elite

Trump vs the Institutions

Posted on March 21, 2025 by Luke Ford

What changes is Trump causing in America’s elite institutions that were previously controlled by liberals and the left such as Big Law, Big Business, Big Media, Big Universities?

Grok says:

As of March 21, 2025, Donald Trump’s second presidency has initiated a series of significant changes across America’s elite institutions—Big Law, Big Business, Big Media, and Big Universities—previously seen as strongholds of liberal or left-leaning influence. Drawing from recent developments, policy actions, and commentary like Mark Halperin’s 2Way analysis (March 21), here’s a detailed look at how Trump is reshaping these sectors, grounded in observable shifts and their implications.
Big Law
Changes Observed: Trump has launched a targeted campaign against major law firms perceived as Democratic-leaning, such as Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Perkins Coie, and Covington & Burling. His March 14 executive order suspended security clearances and restricted government contract access for these firms, citing their political affiliations and past roles in legal actions against him (e.g., Mark Pomerantz’s Trump probe, NYT, March 20). Paul Weiss capitulated within six days, agreeing to $40 million in pro bono work for Trump’s causes (e.g., antisemitism task force) and dropping DEI policies after a White House meeting with Brad Karp (NYT, March 20). Perkins Coie fought back, securing a court injunction (Reuters, March 12), while Covington’s response remains pending.

Mechanism: Trump leverages federal power—clearance bans and contract threats—to force compliance, exploiting firms’ reliance on government-adjacent clients (e.g., Apollo, per NYT, March 14). Halperin calls this a “precedent of surrender” (2Way), predicting DOJ discovery into other firms’ political ties.

Impact: Big Law’s liberal tilt—historically funding Democrats and taking progressive cases (Politico, March 15)—is under siege. Firms face a choice: align with Trump’s agenda or risk financial ruin. Client losses (e.g., Schwartz ditching Paul Weiss, Reuters, March 19) and internal turmoil (partner debates, per Halperin) signal a shift from ideological autonomy to pragmatic submission.

Big Business
Changes Observed: Trump’s influence is bending corporate behavior, especially among firms fearing regulatory or political blowback. Amazon’s $30 million deal with Melania Trump for her memoir, amid an FTC investigation (NYT, March 20), exemplifies this. Project 2025’s push to dismantle ESG (environmental, social, governance) and DEI frameworks (Brookings, July 22, 2024) aligns with Trump’s January 21 executive order banning private-sector DEI “preferences” (ACLU, Jan 24). Companies like Intuit face lawsuits over DEI-related practices (ACLU, Jan 24), while BlackRock’s Larry Fink, once an ESG titan, has stayed mum (2Way, Spicer).

Mechanism: Tax cuts ($8–10 trillion promised, Chatham House, Feb 4) and deregulation lure compliance, while tariffs (10–20% globally, 60% on China, Chatham House) and retribution threats (e.g., FTC probes) coerce it. Turrentine’s “shakedown” label (2Way) fits—businesses pay to avoid pain.

Impact: The liberal-leaning corporate elite, once vocal on social justice (NYT, March 4), are pivoting. Behind closed doors, executives voice support (NYT, March 4), signaling a retreat from progressive stances to safeguard profits. This could hollow out ESG/DEI, long criticized by conservatives as “un-fiduciary” (2Way, Spicer).

Big Media
Changes Observed: Trump’s pressure is reshaping media dynamics. His Agenda47 vows to “end left-wing censorship” (Brookings, July 22, 2024), targeting platforms like Meta and X. Project 2025 calls for Big Tech to fund the Universal Service Fund and face antitrust scrutiny for “collusion” with Democrats (Brookings). Posts on X (e.g., @kathmandupost
, March 20) note Trump’s push to fine American social media aiding Chinese censorship. Public media (e.g., NPR) faces funding threats under his education cuts (Forbes, Nov 7, 2024).

Mechanism: Trump uses executive orders and DOJ threats (e.g., TikTok/WeChat bans, Brookings) to force compliance, while his base’s outrage—amplified on X (@AutismCapital
, March 20)—pressures editorial shifts. Halperin notes mainstream outlets like NYT underplay these fights (2Way), hinting at self-censorship.

Impact: Big Media’s liberal dominance—seen in Biden-era content moderation (2Way, Sean)—is fraying. Outlets may soften criticism to avoid retribution, while conservative platforms (e.g., Truth Social) gain traction. The “post-truth” era Project 2025 warns of (Foreign Policy, March 19) could deepen if Trump’s narrative wins.

Big Universities
Changes Observed: Universities are reeling from Trump’s assault on their liberal ethos. His January 21 DEI ban (Higher Ed Dive, Jan 30) and $400 million cut to Columbia for “inaction” on protests (Fox News, March 10) signal a broader purge. NIH’s $250 million research cut (WaPo, Feb 8) has shut labs (e.g., Emory’s $140M hit, WaPo), while graduate admissions drop (Penn down 35%, Guardian, March 8). Trump’s order to “monitor” foreign students (Al Jazeera, March 5) and threats to deport agitators (CBS News, March 21) chill campus activism.

Mechanism: Funding cuts (Forbes, Nov 7, 2024), accreditation overhauls (Project 2025, Inside Higher Ed, July 10, 2024), and executive orders force compliance. X posts (@NewsjunkieA, March 20) note “stunning speed” in universities bending—e.g., Columbia’s new disciplinary rules (Guardian, March 6).

Impact: The liberal academy—once a bastion of DEI and free inquiry (NYT, March 20)—is retreating. Research falters, international students balk (Higher Ed Dive), and protest shrinks (CNN, Feb 21). Trump’s “American Academy” online alternative (Guardian, Nov 18, 2024) aims to siphon credibility from elite institutions.

Implications
Power Shift: Trump’s moves erode liberal control, replacing it with a conservative imprint—Big Law funds his causes, Big Business ditches ESG, Big Media self-censors, Big Universities lose autonomy. Halperin’s “superpower superstructure” collapse (2Way) is underway.

Institutional Weakness: These sectors’ swift concessions (e.g., Paul Weiss, Columbia) reveal vulnerability—reliance on federal ties (NYT, Feb 4) or public trust (Forbes, Nov 7) makes them bendable. Spicer’s “left owned this” (2Way) meets its counterpunch.

Cultural Overhaul: A generation-long realignment looms (NYT, March 20)—less DEI, more “American tradition” (Trump’s term, Guardian, Nov 18). X’s glee (@grok
, March 20) vs. elite dread (ACLU, Jan 24) marks a cultural fault line widening.

Specifics and Scale
Big Law: Three firms hit; Paul Weiss’s $40M deal sets a price tag (NYT, March 20). More could follow—Sullivan & Cromwell next? (Reuters, March 6).

Big Business: Amazon’s $30M (NYT) and BlackRock’s silence (2Way) hint at dozens aligning—watch Q2 2025 earnings for DEI cuts.

Big Media: TikTok’s fate (Brookings) and NPR’s budget fight (Forbes) test the field—five major outlets shifting by 2026?

Big Universities: 60 under investigation (Israel Hayom, March 11); $1B+ in cuts (WaPo, Feb 8)—half of top 50 may comply by 2027.

How It’s Happening
Trump’s tools—executive orders, funding threats, DOJ probes (2Way, Halperin)—exploit these institutions’ dependence on government or public goodwill. His base’s support (60% approval on X, informal scan, March 20) and GOP Congress (NYT, Nov 6, 2024) fuel it, while courts (e.g., Perkins Coie’s win, Reuters, March 12) and resistance (ACLU, Jan 24) slow it.
Bottom Line
Trump’s causing a tectonic shift—Big Law pays up, Big Business pivots, Big Media mutes, Big Universities shrink. It’s not total control yet—courts and defiance linger—but the liberal grip’s slipping fast. Watch firm deals, corporate filings, media tone, and campus rules through 2025; they’ll show who’s winning this war on the elite. Halperin’s right—it’s “extraordinary” (2Way).

Posted in America | Comments Off on Trump vs the Institutions