Anthony Scaramucci thinks he would have stopped Donald Trump's attacks on the press

It is interesting to speculate on an "what if?" In a way, the last fifteen months of American history would have been different if Anthony Scaramucci had remained at his post of Director of Communications of the White House.

Although this is not the subject of Scaramucci's new book "Trump: The President of Blue Collars", the fundamental difference between Scaramucci's pragmatic and medial approach to government and the politics of The extreme right now practiced in the White House may not be clearer. During our conversation, Scaramucci stated that he did not agree with the administration of President Donald Trump on issues such as transgender rights, wishing that "no one else" would be involved. they are opening up more to the liberal media who do not share their views and believing that, in general, the president needs to focus more. on the protection of minorities and other oppressed groups. Scaramucci insists that racism should not be considered as the main factor, but thinks that economic problems have also played a major role.

Is he right? Frankly, I'm not sure. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, there is ample circumstantial and statistical evidence to suggest that latent fanaticism toward non-white, non-cis and non-Christian groups has played a significant role in why many voters have been attracted by Trump. That said, the easiest way to verify this theory would have been that Trump's advisers are trying to move it away from the extreme right-wing white nationalist crowd and introduce it into a real economic populism. That may not have worked, but at least it would have allowed America to demonstrate if there was any truth to assume that a vote for Trump was not automatically a vote for hatred .

This conversation has been changed for more length and clarity.

I am grateful to break my balls a little before the start of the official registration. I can mention this in my article.

Of course. How could you not talk about it? I'm calling, I say, "Hey, is that the headquarters of Trump Victory, Trump 2020?" I mean, come on!

And I thought to myself, "Oh, oh, some sons crossed somewhere."

It's a good test to make sure you have a sense of humor, Matthew. We have jobs, so that's good.

Oh, absolutely. That brings me to my first question: why are you ready to talk to a liberal media outlet such as Salon, which is at the forefront of Trump's criticism in the Internet? What would convince Trump hypothetically to speak at a point of sale like Salon or perhaps even at Salon itself?

First, I think the president is at his best when he does things like that, so I would recommend him to go to Salon, and even everywhere, and even to the Daily Caller. You choose the place. They should be everywhere. If you have the opportunity, you can download my communication plan. It's on the Internet. Someone made him run away. I always thought we needed to work in the customer service industry and perhaps in order to reach the press, as opposed to Steve Bannon's "Declare War on the Media" strategy.

For me, I was blown away by Salon. I am a member of Salon. That made me think about hot coals, but I think this book contains a message that your readers would appreciate at least, and that's the case if you want to be Trump … and you have, anyway obviously, preached against him. If you want to beat him, I think, there are a lot of observational facts in the book about how he diverted the core of the Democratic Party constituency, the blue-collar families, and transferred them to his column. How did he manage that? And I'm trying to write a book to tell. I think I have an interesting voice to express this to people because I grow up in a blue-collar family.

Fortunately, I lived the arc of the American dream, I had some success in this wonderful country, but the story of my family is that of immigrants classic, where no one went to university. Everyone was working with their hands and people started working at the hour. For me, I try to explain why my cousin, who works in the glass business, votes for and supports Trump, or my cousin, Bobby, who has been huddling on Long Island Sound for less than 35 years and who did not go to university, voted for and supports Trump.

It's interesting that you say that because one of the other themes in your book, you described Trump as being ideologically flexible. You say that when he does not feel compelled to fight or that he does not feel defensive, he may be open to views that might surprise people. What do you think the Liberals could do to contact him on issues they consider important?

Well, I mean, I mean, I've always said that the President seemed relatively cold / indifferent on a lot of social issues. Ronald Reagan said that he was pro-life, and Donald Trump expresses the fact that he is pro-life, but I think they have one thing in common: they are both pragmatic, they recognize that the next generation of Americans has already decided that women had the right to choose as being related to their own body and that people had the right to marry.

I mean one of the strange things about me, and I think you may have picked it up in the book, is that I'm very socially liberal. I have worked on the gay marriage initiative in New York. I worked with Rob Reiner and Chad Griffin on the national gay marriage initiative and, like Ted Olson, who represented David Boies in the Supreme Court, Ted Olson being a Republican, I'm Republican for equality of marriages. I am also Republican and believe in the right to choose. So for me, I think, there is flexibility for the president. Again, that's my opinion. Like Ronald Reagan, he is obviously preaching toward an essential base, but I think the reality of the situation is that they are much more flexible than the way they speak to the public.

Speaking of social issues, do you have any thoughts on the Trump government's recent announcement of the possible redefinition of gender in order to negate the identities and experiences of transgender people?

I think it would be a very, very big mistake. Once again, the good news is that it has not happened yet. They may launch a related test balloon to see what their reaction is or to launch the balloon now to galvanize their base and bring out more Republican voters. I do not know. But I think it would be a very big mistake.

I think that one of the responsibilities of a majority government is to protect minorities in society. I am not transgender, but if anyone I liked was transgender, I would like him to enjoy the same rights and enjoy the same level of comfort and protection of the law as any other member of the society. I would be someone who would be frank about it and I would be against it.

It's interesting because in your book, and in general, you talk about the connection between Trump and blue-collar workers, and yet his own biography could not be any different from that of a blue-collar worker. Do you think Trump has real empathy for people in these circles?

We can describe it as we want it. I'm not in his brain, so I can not say whether he's empathetic or not. I can only tell you what I experienced during the election campaign and I can only tell you what I experienced with my personal family. They galvanized themselves behind him because they think he is an advocate for their cause. Now, some leftist members say, "Well, they just do it because there's a cultural war and that many of them are racial profilers or white nationalists, and they hate in some way so the same groups and that's why they're & # 39; re galvanize around Trump. I do not think it's a fair characterization.

That's not what I saw on 26 or 27 campaign stops. What I saw was in a generation where we moved from ambitious working-class families like the one I grew up to to desperate working-class families. What I have seen is a decline in wages leading to some degree of economic asphyxiation for a very large group of people. And so Trump is there, explaining the policies he will put in place and then applying to some of these policies. I mean, it's not me saying, it's going to see The Wall Street Journal.

The "Wall Street Journal" reported two Saturdays ago that the wages of the poorest 10% of society have risen by about 5½ in the last 18 months. One of the things he does not have credit for is that his policies have helped reduce the burden of commercialization of the workforce. Reducing illegal immigration has had the side-effect of improving African-American and Hispanic unemployment figures.

I am not in love with the warmongering of his rhetoric. I'm not in love with some of the incendiary tweets. I certainly think it's inappropriate for the President of the United States to call anyone openly on Twitter, even if they are arguing and even if they were together, or they're not. were not together or whatever. This is not serious. Doing this will create a headwind for his popularity rating. Many of the things I hear negative about it are personality-driven and less policy-related.

What do you think is the influence of Steve Bannon or people like Steve Bannon?

I think at the beginning of this story, I think Steve was there to defend this war with the media, to defend this ethnocentric nonsense, to defend this "white nationalism". He was always fleeing people and trying to divide the White House between globalist and nationalist, and I think it had a very bad impact on situations.

The other thing he was trying to do was try to tell people that he was the main agent responsible for Trump's victory. It's a lot of nonsense. He only entered the campaign when Trump has already beaten almost every member of the Republican party. That was after the appointment, he entered the campaign in August. Trump is on track to execute his strategy with or without Bannon.

That's what really caused me problems. If you listen to the tape, the guy from New York is like kissing my butt and he basically says, "Oh, we'd like to profile you here at the New Yorker," and I'm like, "I do not have need that. I'm not Steve Bannon where I try to promote myself, "and then I said what you would say when you're from Long Islands. I said I'm not Steve Bannon. I am not empty, empty, empty, empty. Do you follow what I say? If I knew I was registered, I obviously would not have said that, but I said it, so I have it, I got fired for it, I moved on to something else.

D & # 39; agreement. I'd like to go to Trump's favorite president, Andrew Jackson. I would like to quote two quotes from Jackson himself. One of them kept coming back to me as I read your book, and I'm curious to see what Trump would think of this quote. It was at this point that Andrew Jackson vetoed the renewal of the National Bank's charter in 1832. He declared: "There is no necessary ills to the government. Its ills only exist in its abuses. If it were limited to an equal protection, and that, as the sky rains, equal favors above and below, rich and poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. What do you think of that, Scaramucci? quote, and how do you think Trump would react to this quote?

I think this quote is relevant for today. Ironically, I think Jackson made a mistake in repealing the central bank because it eventually caused more cycles of expansion and slowing of the economy, which necessitated the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. It is interesting to note that he quoted this quote as follows: this is a great and timeless quote, but he attached it to making the wrong decision about something. That's all the hindsight now.

I would specifically say with respect to Trump, President Trump, I would say that he's getting closer to this mark, closer to this quote, if he wants to enter the 50% zone and more of his ratings of approval. This is what I said earlier that responsible government protects minorities, whether they voted for it or not. The equal protection clause in the constitution requires a responsible government to protect minorities. I think that's the essence of this quote.

That was the quote from "Yin" Andrew Jackson. Now, I'm going to read you a quote from "Yang" Andrew Jackson. It's something he wrote to defend the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Although Trump never said anything about Native American Indians, you can probably see where I'm going after that. he read it to you.

He wrote about the Amerindians: "It is certain that these tribes can not exist surrounded by our colonies and in permanent contact with our citizens. They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire for improvement that are essential to any favorable change in their condition. "When I read this quote, I immediately thought of the caravan of Central American migrants heading to the US-Mexico border.I think of how many people of color, many Muslims, feel oppressed since Trump took office, and am curious to know what you think?

Once again, as I said, it is the interesting aspect of my book, and especially my relationship with the President, I do not have to like every aspect of the President to please him. I think it's dangerous in our society where we have these decisive tests. It's like, "Well, hey, do you like Trump, are you in 150% of everything? If you do not like Trump, if he does something great, we have to moan him and tell him it's a terrible thing, because now we have this litmus test. We have the Trump 100% Hate, or the Trump 100% Love. "

For me, I think he would do so much better if he skipped the highlights of his personality style, and he kissed more, he was more a gregarious man of the late 1990s or early 2000s and he was taking more risks. a well-rounded approach to all the different people and circumstances of these different people.

I think there is a distinction, if I may say so, between people who are outside the United States and in a caravan and people who are inside the United States, as far as what should be the right. People who are seeking asylum for political purposes, which are legitimate, must now have the opportunity to express themselves and to make themselves heard as to whether or not we should accept them in the country. If they enter the country illegally in direct violation of the laws written by the elected Democratic leaders, elected by the Republicans and signed by the Republican and Democratic Presidents, I think we should apply these laws. What happens is that if you do not enforce the laws and allow waves of illegal immigration, it upsets the fiscal balance, the society.

Milton Friedman had a lot to say about it. "Countries that have welfare states, which the United States certainly have, you must protect your border; otherwise, market forces being what they are, they will dictate many unnatural border crossings. So, in the United States, if you're a Muslim and you feel oppressed in the United States, we have to figure out what's going on. inside the administration so that these people feel less. But for people living outside the United States, they must respect the laws in the books and records to enter the country.

It is very difficult to say because of the society we live in now. The way in which the information is broadcast enters you by shouting from the right or from you from the left. It is very difficult to say what is the factual dynamics of this caravan. If it is politically motivated and sponsored by George Soros, or if they are all peace-loving people seeking political asylum because they are great libertarians and liberty advocates. Depending on which channel you turn on, you get two different stories. You know what I mean? I'm just not close enough to know which is factually accurate.

I think you raise an interesting point about different stories because, in my opinion, one of the biggest obstacles to creating a true bipartite dialogue is the fact that there are two different stories. One side believes a story and the other, a story incompatible in many ways. It sounds like you think there should be some attempts to reconcile these stories or at least to build bridges, but how do you get there?

I mean that's the old question. For me, I always felt that … look, I'm not a politician. I think I showed that I could not be one, so my failure was really too honest and probably too honest about the situation, so it's unacceptable to people. They would prefer the lies, the rotation and all the nonsense that goes on inside Washington, and I have all that. I've always thought that the most successful politicians would take a saying of what Harry Truman said about himself. "Listen, I'm a lobbyist, and it's my job to represent all Americans, whether they voted for me or not," and that's the role of the president.

I would like to see more of this and less of the identity politics. Now, to be fair to the president, you would probably say, "Well, it's happening on both sides, so I'm just reacting to the way they're acting." Then they would say, "Well, we're answering the way he acts. Then, I would say, "OK, why do not we make the necessary connection and focus less on what is left about the situation or left and right politics, and more about law or law? bad policy. "

By the way, you know, and I know, if governments did that, the polls would go up, but the reason they did not do that was that they found a way to get rid of the rights of the middle roadsters. . the middle roadsters are like: "Okay, that sucks. I am disaffecting the system. Do not go to vote. People of the extreme left vote, and those of the extreme right vote, and it is perfect for the system, because it is so that these guys, if you will, can keep their power during 10, 20, 30 or even 40 years.

Frankly, it would be better for our society if we voted in a mandatory way, because if the Republicans went nuts saying, "Oh, there are too many Democrats, they would invade us", but you know what, so change your politics, # 39; right? There are many Democrats who do not like certain democratic policies. There are many Republicans who do not like certain Republican politics. If we impose mandatory voting, you force this duopoly, this very powerful corrupted duopoly, to change if you wish, and go in the middle and come up with better ideas for America.

D & # 39; agreement. I have two last questions for you. The first is: do you know if Trump himself, or other members of the Trump administration, will follow your book and will focus primarily on the curiosity you express in your book about Trump, many of which is it relevant to what he is currently living under his presidency?

I do not know. I hope so, but I do not know. I mean, I'm not one of those guys who claims to be so close to the president … I left with a pretty good report. He has a very difficult job. I'm not happy with the way I got fired. I think I have articulated very well on this subject. I do not think you'll shoot a guy like me after all the work I've done for you. By the way, no problem to be fired. I do not think you need to separate me from the White House this way and create a useless show. That said, I'm better for that.

Since you've been reading the book, I've written a whole chapter on what you need to do on day 12, when things are not going as planned, on how you should adjust your attitude and your personality. But for me, I'm mad. I am a fairly honest person and so if they read it and love it, it's great. If they read it and do not like it, I'm mad. I mean I'm happy to let the book and the words that I wrote in the book defend themselves. The one who loves him likes him who does not do it does not do it.

D & # 39; agreement. My last question is this: If you had been in your office since the beginning of the month, that is for more than a year, what are the main things you would have done differently in terms of Trump communication?

The good question is: how long do you think you could have implemented your plans? The answer is that it would have been up to the president. If the president liked my ideas of opening to places such as Salon, as to CNN. Do not forget that my press conference was 40 minutes, but I very deliberately looked for CNN. Sean Spicer, who called them for six weeks. I went to get them and sent them an olive branch, so I would have said, "We are open to business."

I believe in the 1st amendment. I think people in power should be held responsible because power is corrupt. That's what our founders felt. Open the press platter, open the lights, turn on the cameras, and tell the president, "You're a TV star. You spent 15 years in a highly rated TV show. There are people out there who do not like you, but you should go meet them. Even though he says, well, they're not going to shake me, so what?

We are in a society where society is totally transparent. People can read through the falsities of a society. Someone goes on a left site, they may see some lack of sincerity, in the same way as on a website right.