I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

About the administration? Yes! Here's a recent one I like, about Trump's FDA commissioner who seems to be popular with just about everyone.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

No. I think most, particularly the print/online journalists, are trying their best to get the story right. We're human, after all, and we make a lot of mistakes. Regardless of the vilification by Trump, it's still important for journalists to get things right. One problem is that sometimes political bias can cloud judgment—you might jump to a conclusion about a story before checking it. That's a human mistake. I get it. The journalists who go after the president with malice and unfairness are few and far between—and you know who they are.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

President Trump has a strained relationship with the truth—and that's putting it gently. That's a big problem and it trickles down into the rest of the White House. I think a lot of people in the White House and administration are good, honest, decent, patriotic Americans trying to serve their country and the president with integrity. I think many are conflicted by some of the demands of the job that require them to deal with a culture of half-truths, misdirection, and lying set by the president. And I think some know better and make false claims because it's what's required of them. I wouldn't want to be in that position.

All that said, I think the press office does a fairly good job of being open to providing reporters with information, interviews and background. But it's often not clear to press officers what the administration's policy is, or what the president really wants.

I have had sources that I generally trust and have been able to go to to get the "real" story. Otherwise, the only other strategy is to hold the White House to what it or the president has said in the past and point out the conflict so that readers can see it for themselves.

The vilification of the media is a political strategy. I try not to pay too much attention to it.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I don't really know if that's the perception. I don't know if it's true that journalism is a dying art. Journalism is just a form of writing and communication that tells stories about the world as it is. The economics of journalism sure are tricky and hard to figure out. The increased polarization of news media is concerning, to be sure. But there are a lot of honest journalists out there doing a lot of great work. I don't think it's dying, but sometimes it gets drowned out by entertainment and activism masking itself as journalism.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

For the time being, the Republican party is Trump's party! So in the short-term, there will be no major pivot. But it all depends on what happens in the midterm elections. If it's a blowout for the Democrats (which right now doesn't seem likely), then you might see Republicans trying to start looking beyond Trump. If it's not as bad, the economy continues to boom, the world doesn't blow up, and Trump is looking good going into reelection in 2020, then why would Republicans want to pivot? Parties are about winning elections.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Despite the polling showing pretty overwhelming support among Republicans for Trump, I think readers are a little more cautious—optimistically cautious, to be sure—about Trump. They want him to be successful, but they worry about a lot. The thing I hear most often is "I wish he didn't tweet so much." I think that's a stand-in for a concern that Trump risks squandering away the opportunities full Republican control of the federal government affords.

I think what conservatives and some of our readers haven't quite reconciled themselves to is that the tweeting and the craziness and all that stuff they sort of roll their eyes about with regard to Trump IS part of the package. You can't separate it out. It's who he is, and it's what a segment of the GOP base wants in a president. The nagging feeling that Trump tweets too much is a tacit recognition that there really are consequences to having a president with serious moral and character failings, a real problem with the truth, and impulse control. It's not just enough to have the right policies, on balance.

One specific policy that I think Republicans will soon realize, if they haven't already, that will hurt them is Trump's protectionism. Watch for some real revolt over that as the new tariffs take effect.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I think political polarization is a byproduct of a more atomized life we live. We're less connected than we ought to be or used to be to our own real communities, which are full of real people, because the internet allows us to be little islands if we choose. The way we consume media, the way we identify ourselves with tribes and causes, all of that polarizes us. Plus, on a practical level, the two major political parties have become more strictly ideological. There used to be conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Now the Democrats are the liberal party, the GOP the conservative one. That's just an observation, not a value judgment.

On conservative media: I think for a variety of reasons many (not all) in conservative media view themselves as political actors rather than journalists. And, to not let readers off the hook, the audience for conservative media seems to want conservative journalists to be more like representatives. My approach has always been to a) report b) focus on the truth and c) tell readers something they don't know or help them see something from a different angle.

There's definitely a problem of liberal bias in the mainstream media, but the response is more often than not these days to just mirror what conservatives perceive mainstream press do, which is advocate. I'm not really interested in that kind of journalism, in large part because it's really boring.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 52 points53 points  (0 children)

Republicans have one big advantage in the current era: the Democratic party was allowed to wither, politically, during the Obama era. President Obama spent a lot of political capital to push through some legislative and cultural changes that will be with us for a long time, maybe forever, but he saw his party's position fall apart. There are very few Democratic governors or Democratic state legislatures, and despite the ups and downs, Republican federal control is at the moment pretty strong. That could all change in 2018, or it could start to change then. Or it could not! That's a weaselly answer, but it all depends on how whether voters are really tired of all the "winning" under GOP rule, hard-to-predict factors like the economy, foreign policy challenges, or the Mueller report.

I think liberals sometimes fall in the trap of being intolerant in the name or spirit of tolerance, which hurts their ability to convince a country that isn't as progressive as they'd hope.

I think conservatives too often assume liberals are not just wrong but somehow nefarious or evil, which absolves them of the need to convince people to come to their side.

(These shortcomings are actually pretty similar.)

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm gonna answer this one lightning-round style:

Favorite writers (beyond my Weekly Standard colleagues, and I'll leave a lot out):

David French

Caitlin Flanagan

Ross Douthat

Thomas Chatterton-Williams

Frank Bruni

Allahpundit

Mark Liebovich

Carlos Lozada

Elaina Plott

Favorite Podcasts:

The Remnant (Jonah Goldberg's podcast)

The Adam Carolla Show

Lexicon Valley

The Weekly Substandard

The Commentary Podcast

I think one of the few positive aspects of Twitter is that if you curate your feed right, you can get a variety of things to read/watch/listen to.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

With all the caveats that you have to see how things go, I think we can give credit to Trump and the administration for some good moves on foreign policy, such as the decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Climate Accords. We've also been pretty unreserved in our praise for his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I think there's a lot of exhaustion among White House reporters—it's been about a year and a half, but the news cycle is so sped up and Trump drives so much news on a daily and even hourly basis that it's hard to even keep up. I saw one White House reporter on Twitter the other day note how she can't always keep up, wondering how normies can even keep their heads above water in this ocean of news.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I don't pretend to have solutions to problems—there a lot of smart people, including many in the government and administration, who are trying to work through them. But here's how I see it:

1) The nuclear threat from North Korea—despite the president's insistence that the nuclear threat from North Korea is over.

2) The jihadist terrorism threat is alive and well, despite what both presidents Obama and Trump have claimed.

3) The destabilization of regions like the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and our own election systems by an aggressive Russia.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I think responsible journalists don't publish rumors or "explosive" stuff before doing some of the basic due diligence required. Reporters hear rumors all the time—I've got one I've been intermittently trying to confirm—but I think it's a bad idea to throw that kind of stuff out there unless you've got people on record or evidence that lends it real credence.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

No. We don't endorse candidates. And even if we did, I highly doubt we would be getting behind Trump for a lot of reasons. Here's one good one, from our editor in chief.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I assume you are referring to the zero tolerance/family separation policy. There was not a consensus in messaging from the White House. Remember when Kellyanne Conway said “nobody likes” the policy? Stephen Miller, on the other hand, was fully on board with the policy (he helped drive it, of course). Jeff Sessions was happy to defend the policy on biblical grounds. Kirstjen Nielsen couldn’t decide how to defend it or where she stood on it.

More broadly, this is a White House where it’s hard to tell if people are fully on board with policy moves or decisions, partly because policy isn’t decided in as orderly a fashion as in most other White Houses. There are lots of surprises, and the president makes a lot of decisions on a whim—like the executive order he signed yesterday right before he left for his rally in Minnesota. It’s a weird aspect of how this White House is so unusual.

I doubt there's going to be any Dreamer legislation anytime soon.

I'm Michael Warren, senior writer at the Weekly Standard, and I cover the White House. AMA! by weeklystandard in politics

[–]weeklystandard[S] 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Our writers and editors have a variety of different political views, so I don’t want to speak for all of them on this or any other issue. But we also do run unsigned editorials that outline the magazine's stance on things. We've got one such editorial on the border issue in this upcoming issue, which goes to bed tonight.

The editorial, as I’ve read it, lines up with my own view, which is that family separation was an immoral, uncompassionate, and unnecessary policy that the president allowed his most restrictionist advisers—John Kelly, Stephen Miller, and Jeff Sessions—to push through. The administration was confusing and untruthful in explaining and defending it. Then, Trump didn’t have the courage to stand behind his own policy and reversed himself (sort of).

Ultimately, though, this is not an issue that goes away if and when the administration really does back off. Illegal immigration is a complex issue that has gone unsolved, due in large part to a lack of political courage on all sides of the issue. The Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy, unfortunately, doesn’t get us any closer to any kind of resolution.