Dealing With The Deluge

Coping in a second Trump term.

Lawfare honcho Ben Wittes provides “A User’s Guide to Following the News.” The premise:

I’m going to give you seven principles for following the rest of the news emerging from the first week of the second Trump presidency—and, more generally, the flood of news that emerges from a presidency that is all about attention. 

The whole essay is worth reading but I want to highlight two, related, points from it.

Principle #1: Slow Down.

The news actually doesn’t care if you follow it. Not a single one of the president’s executive orders, nominations, pardons, or statements would have been worse if you had ignored it, come to it a few hours later, or stressed about it less. Your emotional reaction to the news actually affects it not one whit. Stressing about the news doesn’t make the news better. It just makes you feel worse.

Not only does your anxiety not accomplish anything productive, it actually inhibits productive thought on your part. How are you supposed to think creatively about what you might do about Thing A if you finished worrying about Thing A four hours ago, because you’ve already motored through Things B, C, D, and E and you’re currently fretting about Thing F? What if you had spent those four hours baking a strudel with Thing A vaguely on your mind instead? You might have had a great idea of something useful to do about Thing A during that time—and you’d have a strudel.

You need to accept that you can’t follow all the news. There’s too much of it. It’s coming too fast. And a lot of it requires genuine expertise to understand.

I am about as sophisticated a consumer of executive power news as there is. I do it for a living. I have a team of professionals that I’ve set up to do it with me. And I can’t follow it all either. The most I can do is follow certain discrete streams of news, assign others to follow other discrete streams of news, and ignore the rest.

Principle #2: Feel Free to Ignore Important News

There’s an important principle that follows from not being able to follow all of the news: You have to ignore some of it.

Grant yourself this indulgence. If you follow everything, you follow nothing well. Allow yourself to specialize. You’ll be better at the stuff you do follow.

Note that ignoring the rest does not mean deciding the rest is unimportant. Far from it. The rest is very important. But I don’t do tax policy. I don’t do health care. I don’t do environmental policy. I don’t do basketball. The rest may be the most important things in the world, but they are someone else’s job.

The first trick to staying sane is deciding which part of the news is your job to follow and which part is not.

While I’ve failed in these first few days of the new administration to fully follow Principle #1, I’ve done pretty well with Principle #2 and the others. There’s really no value in doomscrolling social media or constantly checking your favorite outlets to see what the latest outrage will be. They will, sadly, keep.

There will inevitably be accusations of privilege since it’s a lot easier to calm down if you’re not personally worried about, say, being deported or losing one’s job because they’re in a category not favored by the new administration. My wife and I are both Federal employees, which means we could well be impacted by new policies, but armed agents aren’t going to kick our doors in. Probably.

But, honestly, Wittes’ advice is actually more salient for those in targeted groups. There’s no value and real harm from panic and scattered thinking. That time and energy would be better spent contingency planning and researching one’s legal options.

FILED UNDER: Media, US Politics, ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Sleeping Dog says:

    As much as possible, I’ve been trying to ignore what is happening and avoiding reacting to every outrage. Yes, I have a level of privilege to do so, but I need my sanity.

    8
  2. Andy says:

    I would just add that the “flood the zone” strategy is real and works. By trying to defend everything, one ends up defending nothing. And one also needs to make accurate and truthful assessments to know where to focus efforts. Catastrophizing everything is not helpful.

    It’s also important to think about the future. Trump is a lame duck, and the midterms are in two years. Any strategy should not be reflexively oppositional to signal opposition to Trump and his policies (or dumb, useless things like complaining about NYT headlines)—it should be geared toward winning elections, which means effectively persuading people to vote for the candidates one supports.

    9
  3. al Ameda says:

    Pretty good piece. I’ve changed up my routine too.
    My current ‘method’ is to go off the (televised/streaming news and opinion) grid for most of the day.
    I pretty much use my phone to listen to music on my daily 4-5 mile walk.
    I’ve embargoed MSNBC’s Joe and Mika after they crawled down to Mar-a-Lago.
    And I now consume more current affairs information by reading (as opposed to tuning in to opinion shows)

    It definitely lowers the temperature.

    7
  4. Bobert says:

    @al Ameda:

    And I now consume more current affairs information by reading (as opposed to tuning in to opinion shows)

    But are you reading “opinion” pieces?
    I will grant you that maintaining one’s sanity should be a principle goal, but in an effort to do so, being less informed is counterproductive. (and IMO a goal of many politicos).

    An example, where I recently “learned” something I did not know: Where does this argument that “under the jurisdiction thereof” doesn’t really mean simply that a person is obligated to obey the laws of the US , that it (allegedly) means much more than that. I learned about this by listening to the opinion of those with which I fundamentally disagree. I believe that I am “smarter” and now more prepared to understand and present an opposing argument.

    Sometimes it is valuable to know and understand your opposition in preparation for an intelligent discussion.

    4
  5. Scott says:

    I find reading about the news creates a natural aesthetic distance than just watching it. Different brain pathways.

    4
  6. Jay L Gischer says:

    I heartily endorse this. I watched the airplane crash into the twin towers twice, maybe three times, then I turned the TV off. I didn’t need to see it over and over again. I have never regretted that decision.

    In that vein, something I’ve been pondering – on a topic close to me: The State of California issues, along with Name Change Orders, Gender Change Orders. A judge issues these, often together with name changes. It has the full force of law. As far as the legal system is concerned, the person named has the stated gender.

    How is this going to play out in the legal system. Full faith and credit is a thing. I would guess that some people (who aren’t friendly) know this.

    The vexing part is that this should all be a non-starter under the 14th Amendment, but we have people standing on their head to find weird legal theories to say it doesn’t. What problem does this solve? How does it make anyone’s life better?

    I wish I had some confidence that SCOTUS won’t decide that the 14th Amendment is phony somehow and we need to throw it all out and make up our own rules. I don’t have that confidence.

    2
  7. al Ameda says:

    @Bobert:
    Fair enough, good points.

    I will grant you that maintaining one’s sanity should be a principle goal, but in an effort to do so, being less informed is counterproductive. (and IMO a goal of many politicos).

    Definitely. People should always strive to be informed.

    What I meant to say is that reading is – compared with streaming video with the constant runner at the bottom of the screen – a completely different experience. It’s reached the point where when I want televised or streaming news, I first tune into the much more calm BBC News. The media (print, digital, televised, live events) that you use to obtain information matters.

    Sometimes it is valuable to know and understand your opposition in preparation for an intelligent discussion.

    Well, I consider myself to be very aware of the opposition.

    I’m from a large Catholic working class, public safety family. Of the ten of us I’m the only liberal, of the nine I think 6 are definitely Trumpers, most family friends are conservative too. I’m not delicate, I can take the heat. However I’ve told family members that if they really want to discuss issues, okay, but if they want only to troll me to be argumentative or mock my opinion, just don’t bother. Also, I do not proseltytize.

    Finally, unlike most of my very progressive friends, I actually know Republicans/MAGA people. I think that makes a difference in how I react and respond to the cesspool that is American politics today.

    5
  8. Kathy says:

    @Scott:

    I’ve noticed that.

    One thing I do is distance myself from the source. I rarely read what the felon rapist said, much less what he writes on data mining media*. For one thing, it’s either a lie, wrong, stupid, puerile, childish, or plain trolling. For another, it causes nothing but aggravation. I’d rather read what other people report about what verbal bs came off his oral anus.

    *I plain can’t stand listening to him. It’s like a dental drill mixed with nails on a chalkboard on the worst day in the deepest circle of hell.

    6
  9. Daryl says:

    I’ve made a fairly serious effort to tune out since election night.
    MAGA’s strategy for flooding the field with their poison makes it difficult.
    Like an aluminum boat with hundreds of rivets, something is going to seep in.
    And when a top advisor throws a Nazi salute, strap on a life jacket because you’re probably gonna capsize.

    2
  10. Erik says:

    @Jay L Gischer: something I’ve been struggling with, and that I believe the Democrats need to figure out how to deal with in order to govern again, is how far to let the loopholes go. By this I mean, for example, if Trump does something that seems obviously unconstitutional to generally anyone that doesn’t have a partisan ax to grind, but SCOTUS says, “seems ok to us” does that mean I should just accept that I didn’t have a correct understanding of the constitution and play by the new rule interpretation? More importantly, if not then what action do I need to take/advocate? If the law becomes arbitrary and capricious then we do t have rule of law, but if I advocate for ignoring SCOTUS then I am advocating for the rule of law to be only what I, and by extension, anyone else wants it to be and we don’t have rule of law. It’s a lose-lose situation.

    1
  11. Jax says:

    @Kathy: Looking at him OR listening to him. I hate it.

    4
  12. Charley in Cleveland says:

    Trump is the organ grinder’s monkey, and smarter ideologues (e.g. Stephen Miller, Russ Vought, Tom Homan) are actually grinding the organ. Sadly, the legacy media can’t make the distinction and happily reports on the monkey. Until and unless the “elite political reporters” smarten up, watching the network news or reading WaPo and NYT is a waste of time and energy.

    6
  13. Jen says:

    President Vindictive has suggested that he will be “recommending that FEMA go away.”

    He also said that he wants states to pay more for disaster relief and the federal government less.

    This ding-dong is thinking solely of California right now, and not the routinely-hit red states that border the Gulf of Mexico (I’m old-school, sticking with the OG name). Florida would be bankrupt by the next large hurricane.

    4
  14. Blue Galangal says:

    @Kathy:

    *I plain can’t stand listening to him. It’s like a dental drill mixed with nails on a chalkboard on the worst day in the deepest circle of hell.

    <3 and same same same.

    But to your point about not rewarding datamining sites with clicks, I think that's definitely point #3 for this post. The media enabled Trump's re-election in part for the clicks. They have admitted he’s great for their business. Biden’s competence was BORING. No eyeballs. Trump guarantees outrage = eyeballs.

    3
  15. Rob1 says:

    Trump and MAGA are a new phenomenon for our society as is the totality of that movement’s “flood the zone” strategy designed to overwhelm critical thought and pushback.

    The end result are, broadly, three groups: the mesmerized faithful, the opposition caught in an inefficient wack-a-mole response, and the exhausted who are disengaging from the drama-fest.

    For those who remain engaged and wish to be involved, pick a single issue to work on, and trust that others are working on other areas of concern. Then hit your chosen issue with consistent hard licks at a pace that suits your capacity.

    There are still actions that can be taken that matter, and someone has to step up to do them. Cumulatively, the small actions add up. Pay attention to local politics where one might have an effect.

    3
  16. Jay L Gischer says:

    @Erik: I don’ t know what you need to do Erik. I know that there’s a bunch of things I have no control over. I know that the way out of this is political, not legal. I don’t think every single law is going to be shredded by SCOTUS, but I find it hard to predict how they will jump on any issue. None of that is anything I have any control over. That sucks, but no amount of doomscrolling will change any of it.

    Meanwhile, I’m setting myself to try to take care of people I care about in a very immediate way. Money, and emotional support. I am trying to think of things that might be politically effective in this environment, too. Things that have an emotional punch to them.

    There was a bunch of things I thought would work, but didn’t. That was a rude wakeup call. I need, we need, to try something else.

    Through this, I think of certain relatives – people I really like as long as we aren’t talking politics – and wonder how to break through to them. You can find people like this all over. Decent people who have a deranged view of what a Democrat is, based on the propaganda they consume daily on Facebook (or Fox News).

    That’s the problem before us. Let’s not forget that Republicans hold power right now on a knife’s edge. Their margin of victory was not that large. Not at all.

    1
  17. Scott F. says:

    I have decided that the “discreet stream of news” that I will follow is real world outcomes I can blame on Trump. I don’t feel I will need much to support putting the blame on Trump. The Orange One set the precedent over the last 4 years that everything bad in the world was Biden’s fault and turn-about is fair play. Egg prices super high – “Trump did that!” and don’t give me any of that H5N1 virus nonsense.

    If Trump will Fix It is the only GOP premise for holding power, then let them own every result. I think this is the best I can do to support @Andy’s astute call to make news consumption focused on winning future elections.

    1
  18. Kathy says:

    @Blue Galangal:

    I didn’t say not to reward data mining sites with clicks, but that’s a great idea.

    I meant I’ve never loaded Rapist Social in any browser under my control, nor ever linked to it. I honestly cannot say of my own knowledge whether anyone other than the rapist in chief ever posts there.

  19. al Ameda says:

    @Jen:

    He also said that he wants states to pay more for disaster relief and the federal government less.

    This ding-dong is thinking solely of California right now,

    Ironically, it appears that Governor Newsom has authorized $2.5B to address the wildfire disaster. Something no states other than Texas and Florida that border the Gulf of Not America could do.

    2
  20. JohnSF says:

    My ha’ppeny-worth, if its not cheeky from a non-American, based on experience of Conservative governance:
    Don’t get overly tasked about performative verbiage.
    See what actually happens.
    It seems highly likely that various p[arts of the administration are likely to descend into internal feuding (Musk vs Bannon, etc).
    Then you have the likely collisions between administration, Congressional GOP, courts various, the Fed, the bond markets, and recalcitrant reality in general.
    Develop a campaign basis for the 2026 elections aiming at a broad popular coalition that can win the key election constituencies.
    Use positions in state governments for that goal.
    A Trumpublican victory founded variously on grievance, corruption, oligarchic interests, religio-racial particularism, and denial of real issues, is not a solid basis for a long-term governing position.

    1
  21. dazedandconfused says:

    He’s trying to scare a lot of people. Resembles “small man’s disease” or could be something like Nixon’s “Mad Man” gambit writ-large for the globe. Can’t tell which it might be and the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

    The best COA is probably to don’t over-react, wait a bit, and expect he will wear himself out doing it before long. Dealing with the fallout is hard work, as is trying to be outrageous and angry all the time.

  22. DrDaveT says:

    @JohnSF:

    See what actually happens.

    It’s good advice, John, but unfortunately what we’re seeing actually happen is downright terrifying.

    I’m waiting to see how the courts deal with the explicitly illegal orders. In the first Drumpf administration, many ill-intended actions foundered on procedural and administrative ineptness. That requires courts to say “No, you may not do that, because law.” In the interim, the GOP has taken major, effective steps to ensure that the courts will not enforce the law if the GOP doesn’t want them to. Have they done enough? We will find out soon.

    1
  23. JohnSF says:

    @DrDaveT:
    Yes, it is scary.
    Will the bulwarks hold?
    I hope so, and on balance, think so.
    But I’m not going to be stupid and arseholish enough to tell you not to be concerned.
    If I were an American, I’d be very worried indeed.
    But, from an external perspective, I do think, and hope, that the US has legal, and democratic institutional, and cultural, obstacles to a tyranny.
    The current situation is not good; but it’s not catastrophic.
    At least, I hope so.
    Because, imho, the world still needs the USA. The proper USA: the democratic republic.
    We are looking at a future in which there are a lot of possible dark paths.
    I sincerely hope that they can yet be averted.

    1
  24. charontwo says:

    @dazedandconfused:

    and expect he will wear himself out doing it before long.

    That is not what will happen, he is just being his current self. All that will happen is he gets worse as his mental health continues to worsen.