Category Archives: Random Blogging

A Battle Plan

Twice in the month of April, thousands of people turned out to protest the Trump coup. Here in Red Indiana, thousands gathered on April 5th and again on the 19th, despite cold, rainy weather. They gathered with clever (and not-so-clever) signs, and with determination (some in wheelchairs or with walkers). They came with small children and elderly parents. And they came in surprisingly large numbers.

There are plenty of nay-sayers who dismiss protests of this sort as wasted effort. They’re wrong, for a number of reasons. At the very least, those of us who have participated in these events come away with heightened resolve, recognizing that our concerns and anger are widely shared, that we stand in solidarity with others who are determined to protect what I have called The American Idea.

There are many avenues that citizens can use to resist and hopefully defeat a national turn to autocracy. In a recent Bulwark article, J.V. Last published a “battle plan for dissidents.” That plan was “half mass mobilization and half asymmetric warfare,” in recognition that– during the coming year– such tactics “will matter more than traditional political messaging as it has been practiced here in living memory.”

Last lists eight recommended tactics:

  1. Demonstrate popular power in the provinces through large-scale rallies.
  2. Use these events to organize the resistance into a mass movement that can be called into action.
  3. Direct the mass movement into targeted political strikes: Getting blowout wins in special elections; boycotts of Tesla; etc.
  4. Politicize everything: Attack the authoritarians for every bad thing that happens, anywhere in the world. Flood the zone.
  5. Elevate the corruption/graft in a way that pits the billionaire insiders against the “forgotten man.”
  6. When the moment is right, bring this movement to the Capital for a show of strength.
  7. Use this demonstration as a slingshot to take back legislative power in the 2026 elections.
  8. More importantly, use it to send a message to the institutional actors that people will have their back if they show courage..

While I agree with all eight, it is important to recognize that numbers 1, 2, and 8 are dependent upon the sorts of peaceful mass demonstrations we’re now experiencing. Large turnouts by everyday Americans of the sort we are seeing are a demonstration of power–people who are willing to get off their couches, create signs, gather and march with others are people who will cast ballots in upcoming elections.

The mechanisms used to inform citizens of these upcoming demonstrations will also serve as the initial organizing machinery for further actions–boycotts or strikes, for example. (I will note that those mechanisms need to be greatly expanded; significant numbers of people, many of whom would have been likely to participate, remained totally unaware of April’s protests. As the grass-roots groups sponsoring these events build out their informational webs, that will undoubtedly change.)

But Number 8 is by far the most important of the three identified purposes of these mass protests.

We would not be in the position we’re in if the GOP invertebrates We the People have elected to Congress were doing their jobs. Granted, some of these officials are as bigoted and ignorant as the current administration. Some are “out and proud” White Christian Nationalists rejecting modernity and enthusiastically applauding the destruction of the federal government. (Here in Indiana, that cohort includes Senator Jim Banks.) But a significant number of those elected officials have placed their ability to retain their positions–and escape the ire of the would-be King–over their obligations to the Constitution and fidelity to their oaths of office.

It is that latter group of “institutional actors” that can be moved by mass public demonstrations–by evidence that large numbers of their constituents will “have their backs” if they oppose the ongoing coup, but will vote against them if they continue to cower. (Are you listening, Senator Young?)

There is one other value to these gatherings that the essay failed to note, probably because it is hard to document, and that’s the informational value inherent in such events. In a world where people get their information from wildly disparate sources, significant numbers of Americans remain unaware of the actions of this administration and the very dangerous implications of those actions. When fellow citizens protest in great numbers, some of the uninformed will encounter information they didn’t previously have.

For that matter, protestors angered by specific issues are frequently unaware of the full range of Trump’s bad actions, given their rapidity and number. The speeches and signs at mass events expand participants’ understanding of the threats we face.

Education occurs in many venues. Protests are one of them.

Comments

Defending The Rule Of Law

As the Trump administration careens drunkenly from outrage to outrage, laying waste to the American Idea, there is one “through line” to the Dear Leader’s petulant and bizarre Executive Orders and (ungrammatical) pronouncements: virtually all of them violate the laws of the land. (My husband will read of some Trumpian action and ask me, “Can he do that?” and my response is usually, “It’s against the law, if that matters.”)

The Constitutional crisis we are currently experiencing is Trump’s disregard–not just for the laws he is ignoring–but for Court orders requiring him to obey them.

I don’t know how this crisis will turn out. I have hopes that the increasing numbers of protests will encourage at least some Republican Senators and Representatives to re-grow their spines (although here in Indiana,  Senator Jim Banks–a dim, smug self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist–is beyond hope). In the meantime, there are emerging signs that the legal community is prepared to defend the rule of law against our Mad King and his merry band of lunatics.

I was particularly pleased to read a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, because it confirmed a point I’ve repeatedly made on this site: whatever descriptors you want to apply to Trumpism and MAGA, “conservative” isn’t one of them.

As Josh Marshall wrote at Talking Points Memo 

If you had told me in 2005 that 20 years hence federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III would be writing a paean to our lost liberties and freedoms under a Republican president, I may have politely suggested you seek some help.

The entire order is worth reading. Wilkinson clings to the hope that the judiciary’s “brethren in the Executive Branch” will recognize that the rule of law is “vital to the American ethos.”

Wilkinson’s defense of the rule of law is being joined by individual lawyers. R. William Jonas, Jr., a partner in a law firm in Mishawaka, Indiana, recently shared the following letter he’d written to the Indiana Bar Association.

I write today as a member and Past President of the Indiana State Bar Association, and as an officer of the court who swore on Oct. 9, 1981, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana. To fulfill my oath, I write today in the wake of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit attached here.

The U.S. government “snatched” Kilmar Abrego Garcia from his home state of Maryland, and, in utter disregard of his constitutional right to due process and a specific court order, and transported him to an infamous prison in El Salvador where it is now claimed that he is beyond the power of our courts. We know from reading the Fifth Amendment that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” And “no person” means exactly that – it includes everyone from Jesus Christ and the twelve disciples to Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy or Gertrude Baniszewski.

 It is the duty of the Indiana State Bar Association, to speak in support of the opinion of the court and the right of due process which is at the very heart of the rule of law. Some might say that we should be silent because we shouldn’t be taking political positions or because it might cause people to terminate their memberships. To these folks, I say that we all have sworn to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. This association is rightly proud of its efforts to promote leadership through the Leadership Development Academy and civic education through the Indiana Bar Foundation’s civic education program “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.” If we remain silent, what message do we send about leadership? About civic duty? If not us, who? If not now, when?

              Judge Wilkinson wrote

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but itmay present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believeour good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

Now is the opportunity for the ISBA to speak up in support of the right to due process and the rule of law, and to urge the local bars of Indianapolis, Evansville, Allen County, Lake County and St. Joseph County to take similar action. It is an opportunity to urge the faculties of Indiana’s law schools to join the chorus – as Judge Wilkinson says “while there is still time.”

Now is the time for all of us to speak up–and resist.

Comments

The Root Of The Problem

I know, I know…I’ve repeatedly opined that the “root of the problem” is racism (defined as fear and loathing of all “Others”–including not just anti-Black and anti-Jewish animus, but the White Christian Nationalist effort to put women back in the kitchen and send immigrants with less than alabaster skin tones back to the “shithole” countries from which they came.) And I stand by that allegation.

That said, the current eruption of those long-simmering hatreds has been enormously facilitated by the information environment we inhabit.

In one of his daily newsletters, Robert Hubbell shared an observation that struck me as very true: he noted that, for MAGA Republicans, “truth is a pesky annoyance to be circumvented.” But government and the rule of law are dependent upon a polity that shares a “common view of facts rooted in reality.”

The Internet has been an incredible boon to humanity; it has allowed people to access virtually all of the information produced by mankind. It has made our lives more convenient–whatever one thinks of Jeff Bezos, old folks who can’t get out to shop, people who for one reason or another cannot drive, can order needed goods with a click and have those goods delivered to their doors, an enormous benefit. (Note: that online ordering need not be confined to Amazon.) 

The Internet has also enhanced free speech in a number of ways. For one thing, it frustrates efforts at censorship–as the scolds who try to remove books from school libraries have found. (Tell a teenager “you can’t read this book” and more often than not, you’ve piqued her interest in that book, which she can access easily enough via the Internet.) 

I could go on enumerating the positives of our new human connectivity. But like almost every aspect of human progress, there are downsides, and one of the most concerning is the immense growth of what we politely call “disinformation,” and what is more accurately called lying. Conspiracy theories. Propaganda. 

Let’s be honest–the Internet has made it possible to live in a chosen bubble, to inhabit an information environment that has been carefully curated to reinforce what a particular individual wishes to believe. That ability is steadily eroding the importance of empirical fact.

Over the long haul, it is likely that choosing to live in a world where “facts” are irrelevant is risky. Individuals who prefer to believe RFK, Jr’s fact-free animus toward vaccination die more frequently than those who accept medical science. Those who reject the humanity of people who are “different” live more fearful and far less interesting lives than the people who embrace diversity and learn from it.

If the negative outcomes were limited to the people making fact-free choices, the rest of us could shrug and leave them to their own (constricted) worldviews. After all, there have always been people who live in fantasies of their own construction, always been conspiracy theorists and science deniers. As a doctor/cousin of mine likes to say, there’s always been a market for snake oil.

But the Internet has vastly expanded the availability and reach of that snake oil. It has enormously facilitated the ability to inhabit a bubble that confirms one’s desired reality. In an increasingly complicated world, the temptation to retreat from that complexity also becomes greater. (Nor is that temptation limited to low-information citizens.)

For all my adult life, I have been a firm and vocal supporter of free speech–not because all speech is valuable, but because allowing government (or any authority) to decide what speech is allowable would be far–far–more dangerous than stupid, false, obscene or incendiary speech itself. The advent of the Internet and thousands of sites promoting propaganda and worse hasn’t changed my analysis. But it is impossible to ignore the fact that “alternate realities” available online do vastly greater damage than similar fantasies peddled via pamphlets or even by radio “personalities.”

Ultimately, the only counter-measure I can envision is better education. Better civic education, better instruction in logic, more instruction in how to determine the credibility of Internet reports. But that’s “ultimately.” I don’t know what we do today to counter the vast amounts of (excuse my language) horse-shit coming from MAGA and Trump and the Christian Nationalists. 

Let’s face it: the people who voted for Donald Trump do not occupy a fact-based reality. And thanks in large part to a vast Right-wing information ecosystem, there were enough of them to plunge America into the dark age we are experiencing.

We can only hope that when reality bites, it will be hard enough to waken enough of them…

Comments

It Can Happen Here…

In fact, it’s happening.

I’m old enough to remember learning of the death camps in Nazi Germany, and feeling grateful that I was safe in a good country–a country established on the premise that all men were created equal. Even at that young age I was aware that the United States hadn’t always lived up to its principles, but–like most Americans–I viewed those times as regrettable lapses that we were outgrowing, not as warnings that we, too, harbored many damaged and destructive people intent upon dominating and demeaning those they consider “Other.”

Much as we might wish it, we can no longer pretend that America isn’t in the middle of a coup engineered by oligarchs determined to jettison the Constitution and spit on the rule of law. (Those motives impel the attacks on universities and law firms–they quite correctly see education, law and legal ethics as threats to their ambitions.) Trump and Musk have two main motivations: more rewards for the rich– which requires plundering the nation for the benefit of the “already haves”–and restoring the social and legal dominance of White Christian males.  

The assault on America’s already-inadequate social safety net is intended to move even more wealth to the billionaire class via tax reductions. The effort to restore White “Christian” male supremacy requires a more multi-faceted assault–from demands to rid schools and businesses of DEI and similar demands, none of which the administration has the legal authority to make, to the purging of websites that accurately show contributions made by women and minorities–especially Black people–to efforts to disenfranchise millions of women voters via the Save Act.

As the Center for American Progress has explained,

This legislation would require all Americans to prove their citizenship status by presenting documentation—in person—when registering to vote or updating their voter registration information. Specifically, the legislation would require the vast majority of Americans to rely on a passport or birth certificate to prove their citizenship. While this may sound easy for many Americans, the reality is that more than 140 million American citizens do not possess a passport and as many as 69 million women who have taken their spouse’s name do not have a birth certificate matching their legal name.

Because documentation would need to be presented in person, the legislation would, in practice, prevent Americans from being able to register to vote by mail; end voter registration drives nationwide; and eliminate online voter registration overnight—a service 42 states rely on. Americans would need to appear in person, with original documentation, to even simply update their voter registration information for a change of address or change in party affiliation. These impacts alone would set voter registration sophistication and technology back by decades and would be unworkable for millions of Americans, including more than 60 million people who live in rural areas. Additionally, driver’s licenses—including REAL IDs—as well military or tribal IDs would not be sufficient forms of documentation to prove citizenship under the legislation.

This attempt may be too blatant to pass the Senate, but the mere fact that the MAGA cult is willing to propose so anti-democratic and anti-woman a measure is stunning–and illuminating.

And then there’s the growing Rightwing radicalization of the military.

Following the January 6 insurrection on Capitol Hill, investigations revealed that at least 151 of the insurrectionists had a military background. In response, the Pentagon issued a historic stand-down order and created a working group on extremism.

In December of 2021, that working group released new policies, defining what constitutes extremist activities, and policing how soldiers behave on social media, including affiliations with extremist organizations. This February, the Department of Defense issued a memo halting efforts to to root out white nationalists and other far-right influences. The reason given was that such efforts were “not in line with Donald Trump’s executive orders.”

That would be the same Donald Trump who asserts his authority to arrest and deport immigrants, green card holders, and for that matter, American citizens who oppose him–without due process, and in defiance of court orders. 

I’m quite sure our would-be autocrat knows no history and has never heard of Louis XIV (although he seems to have adopted that monarch’s over-the-top decorating style.) He’s also adopted a sentiment attributed to him– “L’état, c’est moi” (I am the state). Louis XIV saw himself as the embodiment of the French nation, and believed his decisions and desires were the law of the land.

Trump actually has more in common with Louis XVI, who was executed for treason in 1793.

In the absence of a guillotine, I hope to see you all at the protest this Saturday. 

Comments

Hayek’s Warning

Among the many–many–frustrating elements of today’s political discourse is the media’s insistence on characterizing MAGA and the Trump administration as “conservative.” That consistent misuse of language is right up there with the persistent sanewashing of what any sentient American recognizes as insanity coming from he whom a friend recently called “that malignant moron.”

There are multiple ways in which today’s GOP is dramatically inconsistent with genuine conservatism. At the very least, people with a conservative philosophy are notable for wishing to conserve elements of society that have value. Indeed, one of the historic differences between conservatives and liberals has been the reluctance of conservatives to endorse social and institutional changes when the status quo has rather clearly outlived its usefulness.

Conservatives have also been believers in free trade–a belief endorsed by the Republican Party of the past.

True conservatives are thus appalled by the Trump/Musk radical destruction of America’s constitutional and legal framework–and by the incredible and destructive economic ignorance displayed by Trump’s fixation on tariffs.

One of the historical icons of genuine conservatism was Frederich Hayek; back when I was a Republican (and Republicans were largely conservatives, not ignorant racists), Hayek’s Road to Serfdom was required reading for conservative intellectuals, so I was interested to read a recent Bulwark column by Charlie Sykes, in which he noted that Hayek had addressed the reasons for the periodic emergence of Trump-like figures.

Sykes quoted Roger Kimball, for a 2016 essay titled “How Hayek Predicted Trump With His ‘Why the Worst Get on Top’.” (Sykes notes that Kimball has subsequently joined those who fawn over “Dear Leader.”)

The Austrian-born economist and classical liberal, who played such a central role in the emergence of American free market conservatism, had a keen understanding of the temptations of authoritarianism. That’s what makes his warnings seem so prescient. “’Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded,” he wrote. Hayek’s chapter on “Why the Worst Get on Top” in his classic work, The Road to Serfdom, diagnosed the populist impulse that would lead to the demand for ceding power to a “man of action.” This is “the position which precedes the suppression of democratic institutions and the creation of a totalitarian regime.” At some point in a political or economic crisis, there “is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation, dissatisfaction with the slow and cumbersome course of democratic procedure which makes action for action’s sake the goal. It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough ‘to get things done’ who exercises the greatest appeal….”

Hayek described several preconditions for the rise of a demagogic dictator, including a dumbed down populace, a gullible electorate, and scapegoats on which that demagogue can focus public enmity and anger.

Hayek thought that the more educated a society was, the more diverse members’ tastes and values would become, and the less likely they would be to agree on a particular hierarchy of values.  He observed that the desire to create a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook in society requires descending “to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and ‘common’ instincts and tastes prevail.”

But in a modern society, potential dictators might be able to rely on there being enough of “those whose uncomplicated and primitive instincts,” to support his efforts. As a result, Hayek said, he “will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed.” Here is where propaganda comes into play. The “man of action,” Hayek wrote, “will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.”

Hayek predicted MAGA in his description of the third and most important element of demagoguery: the need to identify an enemy. It is easier, he noted, “for people to agree on a negative programme, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they”, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action.” If you want the “unreserved allegiance of huge masses” you must give them something to hate.

There are some things our “malignant moron” knows instinctively…

There are a number of labels we might apply to Trump’s supporters. “Conservative” isn’t one of them.

Comments