The New Yorker's Ryan Lizza has a nice piece with lots of on-the-record commentary from intelligence professionals on what easy marks Jared et al. were for the Russian intelligence operatives targeting them. Regarding Kushner's story that his meetings with Russian operatives were uneventful:
Longtime intelligence officials have a more jaundiced view. Michael Hayden, the former head of the National Security Agency, told me that he was convinced the meeting was a classic “soft approach” by Russian intelligence. He cited a recent Washington Post article, by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, that argued that the meeting “is in line with what intelligence analysts would expect an overture in a Russian influence operation to look like,” and that it may have been the “green light Russia was looking for to launch a more aggressive phase of intervention in the U.S. election.”
Hayden told me, “My god, this is just such traditional tradecraft.” He said that he has talked to people in the intelligence community about Mowatt-Larssen’s theory and that “every case officer I’ve pushed on this” agreed with it. “This is how they do it.”
Hayden explained that the Russians would have learned several things from the approach. “Would they take the meeting?” he said. “So, then you get the willingness. No. 2, would they report the meeting?” Hayden suggested that Russian intelligence was sophisticated enough to know whether the Trump campaign reported the meeting to the F.B.I., which it didn’t. So, while Kushner claimed that the meeting was irrelevant, from a Russian intelligence perspective it would have been seen as a clear signal. “At the end, they have established that these guys are willing,” Hayden said, pausing. “How do I put this? They did not reject a relationship.”
. . . As with his accounts of all the other interactions with Russians, Kushner claims he was simply a naïve staffer exchanging benign pleasantries. His professed innocence about the nature of these contacts may be the most troubling part of his testimony. The Russians were running a complex—and seemingly successful—campaign to gain access to Trump’s orbit, and the President-elect’s most trusted adviser claims he was clueless about what was actually going on. Kushner’s testimony does not reveal evidence of any crimes, but it does reveal a campaign and Presidential transition that were remarkably easy targets for Russian intelligence efforts.
“The Russians clearly thought they had reasons to believe this would be a friendly audience,” Hayden said. “If you’ve never seen a major-league curveball, you shouldn’t pretend you’re a major-leaguer.”
This reminded me of a piece by Dan Drezner riffing on a widely panned David Brooks piece on the ways in which the "meritocratic class" erects not just economic barriers to entry, but also (and more importantly, in Brooks' view) cultural barriers to entry. If you don't know all the cultural codes, Brooks argued, you can't play with the (supposed) meritocrats. Brooks took a lot of heat for a predictably tone-deaf anecdote that Brooks chose to illustrate his point, but Drezner argued that the more important takeaway was the flip-side of Brooks' point:Hayden told me, “My god, this is just such traditional tradecraft.” He said that he has talked to people in the intelligence community about Mowatt-Larssen’s theory and that “every case officer I’ve pushed on this” agreed with it. “This is how they do it.”
Hayden explained that the Russians would have learned several things from the approach. “Would they take the meeting?” he said. “So, then you get the willingness. No. 2, would they report the meeting?” Hayden suggested that Russian intelligence was sophisticated enough to know whether the Trump campaign reported the meeting to the F.B.I., which it didn’t. So, while Kushner claimed that the meeting was irrelevant, from a Russian intelligence perspective it would have been seen as a clear signal. “At the end, they have established that these guys are willing,” Hayden said, pausing. “How do I put this? They did not reject a relationship.”
. . . As with his accounts of all the other interactions with Russians, Kushner claims he was simply a naïve staffer exchanging benign pleasantries. His professed innocence about the nature of these contacts may be the most troubling part of his testimony. The Russians were running a complex—and seemingly successful—campaign to gain access to Trump’s orbit, and the President-elect’s most trusted adviser claims he was clueless about what was actually going on. Kushner’s testimony does not reveal evidence of any crimes, but it does reveal a campaign and Presidential transition that were remarkably easy targets for Russian intelligence efforts.
“The Russians clearly thought they had reasons to believe this would be a friendly audience,” Hayden said. “If you’ve never seen a major-league curveball, you shouldn’t pretend you’re a major-leaguer.”
There is a flip side to this argument, however. It is not just that social codes and mores can act as a barrier to upward mobility by some. It is also possible that some people successfully enter the meritocracy through the mastery of these codes rather than mastery of any substantive set of skills.
To see what I mean, consider the reaction yesterday to the political dumpster fire that is Donald J. Trump Jr. In their write-up, my Post colleagues Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker offer up a Trump staffer’s defense of DJT Jr.: “One White House official went so far as to stop communicating with the president’s embattled son, although this official spoke sympathetically about his plight, casting Donald Trump Jr. as someone who just wants to hunt, fish and run his family’s real estate business.” In other words, Trump Jr. is not that bright and so should be treated as such. The New York Post editorial is pretty blunt on this point; it’s titled, “Donald Trump Jr. is an Idiot.”
Based on my own conversations, it would seem that most traditional D.C. wonks look at most of the Trump family and see a bunch of wealthy, not-very-bright boors who do déclassé things like eat their steaks well-done and with ketchup. Indeed, there is a whole conservative genre defending the Trumps for some of their gauche tendencies. Most of the Trumps gleefully ignore the cultural codes that Brooks describes, because they are rich enough to not care.
Then we get to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, and the narrative switches.
The rest of the Trumps might scream bridge and tunnel, but Jared and Ivanka have undeniably mastered the cultural codes of the educated class. It is hard to read a profile of either of them without words like “polished” or “poised” appearing.
Take the opening sentences to Jill Filipovic’s Politico essay from May: “Ivanka Trump is the poised, polished face of a chaotic White House, a bright young mother who many suspect is a voice of reason and moderation among the Steve Bannon acolytes in the West Wing, whispering socially liberal values in her daddy’s ear.” Look at the Post’s Style Section profile of Ivanka from this month: “Ivanka Trump’s office: clean, white, quiet. A zone of punctual start times and promptly offered water bottles, and a conference table at which she conducts meetings. A short, winding walk away from her father’s Oval Office downstairs.” Or as T.A. Frank noted in Vanity Fair, “let’s agree that one of the finest qualities of Jared Kushner is his tailoring. The fit is so good. Even with bespoke work, that’s hard to achieve.”
Let me posit that in mastering the cultural codes of the educated class, Kushner and Ivanka somehow fooled even veteran D.C. observers into presuming that they might actually be qualified and competent as well. Which all evidence suggests is not true.
[Several examples of Jivanka incompetence.]
Cultural codes are powerful, but they cut both ways. They make it easy for wonks to belittle fools and knaves like Trump Jr. But they also cause Washington elites to overestimate the talents of those who have cracked the cultural codes. This might explain why so many continue to pin so much hope on two people who are radically unqualified to work at the White House.
During the Republican Convention, even die-hard Democrats enthused over how sophisticated and polished Ivanka seemed, and I've read numerous comments suggesting relief that Jared is there to restrain Trump's worst impulses. I think this is all wrong. The kids aren't jarringly gauche like the vulgar Trump, but they're no more suited to high office than he is. No one should be fooled by their apparent sophistication. They don't know anything about anything, but President Dunning-Kruger has placed them at the heart of power, and that's dangerous for all of us.To see what I mean, consider the reaction yesterday to the political dumpster fire that is Donald J. Trump Jr. In their write-up, my Post colleagues Philip Rucker and Ashley Parker offer up a Trump staffer’s defense of DJT Jr.: “One White House official went so far as to stop communicating with the president’s embattled son, although this official spoke sympathetically about his plight, casting Donald Trump Jr. as someone who just wants to hunt, fish and run his family’s real estate business.” In other words, Trump Jr. is not that bright and so should be treated as such. The New York Post editorial is pretty blunt on this point; it’s titled, “Donald Trump Jr. is an Idiot.”
Based on my own conversations, it would seem that most traditional D.C. wonks look at most of the Trump family and see a bunch of wealthy, not-very-bright boors who do déclassé things like eat their steaks well-done and with ketchup. Indeed, there is a whole conservative genre defending the Trumps for some of their gauche tendencies. Most of the Trumps gleefully ignore the cultural codes that Brooks describes, because they are rich enough to not care.
Then we get to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, and the narrative switches.
The rest of the Trumps might scream bridge and tunnel, but Jared and Ivanka have undeniably mastered the cultural codes of the educated class. It is hard to read a profile of either of them without words like “polished” or “poised” appearing.
Take the opening sentences to Jill Filipovic’s Politico essay from May: “Ivanka Trump is the poised, polished face of a chaotic White House, a bright young mother who many suspect is a voice of reason and moderation among the Steve Bannon acolytes in the West Wing, whispering socially liberal values in her daddy’s ear.” Look at the Post’s Style Section profile of Ivanka from this month: “Ivanka Trump’s office: clean, white, quiet. A zone of punctual start times and promptly offered water bottles, and a conference table at which she conducts meetings. A short, winding walk away from her father’s Oval Office downstairs.” Or as T.A. Frank noted in Vanity Fair, “let’s agree that one of the finest qualities of Jared Kushner is his tailoring. The fit is so good. Even with bespoke work, that’s hard to achieve.”
Let me posit that in mastering the cultural codes of the educated class, Kushner and Ivanka somehow fooled even veteran D.C. observers into presuming that they might actually be qualified and competent as well. Which all evidence suggests is not true.
[Several examples of Jivanka incompetence.]
Cultural codes are powerful, but they cut both ways. They make it easy for wonks to belittle fools and knaves like Trump Jr. But they also cause Washington elites to overestimate the talents of those who have cracked the cultural codes. This might explain why so many continue to pin so much hope on two people who are radically unqualified to work at the White House.
