Category Archives: Random Blogging

An Insider Analysis

America’s “chattering classes”–to use Molly Ivins’ apt phrase for the pundits who pontificate on our social and governmental aches and pains–come in two broad categories: inside and outside.  Commentary by members of both groups ranges from puerile to perceptive, but I think there is a special value in the observations and regrets of former Republicans who belong to the “old too soon, wise too late” category.

Stuart Stevens is one of the “Never Trump” Republicans who have reacted to the current assault on constitutional democracy by reassessing their own complicity with the darker elements of the party’s history. Stevens published a recent essay in Lincoln Square that confronted today’s realities with insights derived from his years as a GOP strategist, and several of those insights speak to many of us who once believed the party’s rhetoric.

Stevens began by posing a question we’ve all asked: How did this happen? How did we get to a place where a major American political party is controlled by one man–a man who doesn’t have to worry about Republicans in Congress exercising their governing prerogatives?

To call it partisanship is to call Ebola an airborne virus like the flu. It’s both true and woefully inadequate. The level of subservience in the Republican Party is unlike anything we’ve known in American politics. Running for office is often humiliating, inevitably exhausting, rarely enjoyable. You must suffer fools to an enormous degree and do so while feigning interest and appreciation. All of these Republican Senators and Congressmen endured the dehumanizing gauntlet of election only to come to Washington and do what? Whatever it is Donald Trump requires.

Stevens looks back at the devolution of the GOP over the decades, and finds a system that increasingly “rewarded compliance and punished independence. The path to advancement was to go along, to wait your turn.” And he acknowledges the party’s growing reliance on racism.

Since the 1960s, the Republican Party has operated as a homogenous white party, with non-college-educated white voters the dominant subgroup…. To win an election, you had one simple task: appeal to white voters. Consider this under-appreciated fact: Over the last fifty years, no Republican has been elected to the House of Representatives, Senate, or won a governor’s race who did not win the majority of the white vote.

One of Stevens’ most perceptive observations is aimed at the numerous pundits and political operatives who constantly bemoan what they see as the Democratic Party’s lack of messaging savvy. As he notes, it’s much easier to message to a monolithic base than to the wildly diverse voters who range from disaffected Republicans to Democratic socialists.

It’s often said that Republicans are better at messaging, but it’s a false standard. It’s easy to stage a successful concert for an audience that likes the same kind of music. It’s much more difficult to do the same for a crowd that enjoys very different types of music.

That homogeneity has allowed the GOP to create what Stevens calls “a top-down hierarchy.”

Like a corporate headquarters laying out a marketing strategy for regional offices, a political party that needed to appeal to the same demographic for victory gave candidates no reason not to echo its message. You were graded within the party on your ability to articulate the proscribed message and penalized for being “off message.”

That process, Stevens writes, “curates a particular kind of candidate.” Those who advance are those who are willing to follow and conform. Deviation was punished.

And what about the values the GOP extolled? Free trade. The importance of character. Family values. A muscular foreign policy. Personal responsibility.

As Stevens and many others have concluded,  those supposed bedrock values turned out to be nothing more than marketing slogans.

When Donald Trump looked at the Republican Party, he saw through the artifice of values and understood it was a party of followers. The soul of the party was conformity, not values. The “family values” party would embrace a three-time married casino owner who talked in public about dating his daughter if he could give them power. The most “conservative” element of the party that was the fiercest opponent to the Soviet Union and an expansive Russian Federation would become the beating heart of the pro-Putin movement in American politics.

So here we are. The GOP has been bleeding non-racists and non-conformists for at least two decades. It is now–as Stevens notes–a homogeneous White cult. The problem is, in a system that privileges two major parties, the intellectual and moral collapse of one of those parties is a big problem.

Comments

The Morphing Of Civil War

Americans who know anything about the country’s Civil War tend to dismiss warnings of a similar eruption. After all, the War Between the States was a war between states, a conflict with antagonists defined largely by geography. Were there Union sympathizers in the South? Pro-slavery citizens in the North? Sure. But the war was largely between Americans who inhabited specific regions of the still-new country. As pundits like to point out, that’s no longer the case; deep Blue cities are located in even the Reddest states, and the nation’s suburbs have been turning purple for several election cycles. That absence of a geographical division means another civil war is somewhere between unlikely and impossible.

A book titled “The Next Civil War” begs to differ.

Lincoln Square recently interviewed the author, Stephen Marche. Marche’s essential thesis was that our notion of what constitutes “war” is outdated.

What counts as civil war isn’t cannons at Gettysburg but something closer to “Ireland in the Troubles,”…. Low-level clashes, targeted killings, the steady presence of fear — these don’t come with banners or declarations, but they tear at civic trust all the same. That’s why the term “political violence” undersells what’s underway: It’s governance by threat, a society reshaped by intimidation. Once fear becomes the organizing principle, there’s no real boundary left between war and politics.

Stuart Stevens, who conducted the interview, noted that Marche had documented the steady “sorting” that has given us two diametrically opposed “armies.” He began with a telling statistic: the party that once competed for nearly 40 percent of the Black vote under Eisenhower, now hovers at eight percent under Trump. Over the years, the GOP purposely collapsed its coalition, abandoning a “big tent” and diversity in favor of loyalty. Partisan rewards now go to those most willing to comply, and as Stevens writes–and as we can now all see– the result is a hollowed-out political class.

In the Republican Party, competence has been traded for obedience.

Blue state governors resisting the authoritarianism of MAGA and the Trump administration are–at least in Marche’s telling–engaging in what has been dubbed a “soft secession.” The result is an emerging patchwork that signals national fragmentation.

Marche reminds readers that authoritarian regimes around the globe provide ample evidence that control doesn’t equal competence. Meanwhile, democracy is fading every day, despite the lack of a formal death notice. More troubling, politically motivated violence is rising.

Reviewers have described “The Next Civil War” as a “chilling and deeply researched work of speculative nonfiction.” Marche conducted nearly two hundred interviews with experts—civil war scholars, military leaders, law enforcement officials, secret service agents, agricultural specialists, environmentalists, war historians, and political scientists–in order to produce a book predicting a terrifying collapse of the America most of us have inhabited. Marche also interviewed soldiers and counterinsurgency experts, asking what it would take to control the population of the United States, and he tells us that “the battle plans for the next civil war have already been drawn up. Not by novelists, but by colonels.”

Thanks in large part to a fragmented, partisan information environment that facilitates misinformation and propaganda, promotes conspiracy theories, and deepens suspicions and bigotries, MAGA Republicans inhabit a vastly different reality than the one Democrats and Independents occupy. Our divisions go deeper than geography. Marche concludes that the United States as we’ve known it is coming to an end, with the only question being “how,” and in his book, he offers several scenarios to illustrate the possibilities.

I’m not convinced.

Granted, America has never been Camelot. Our elected officials have always included grifters and blowhards and outright criminals; our public policies even today fall far short of the lofty–“woke”– aspirations of the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This country has always been an experiment, and people like  Marche have evidently concluded that the experiment is failing.

Marche’s book is part of a burgeoning industry of doom and gloom. Although it’s important to understand where these predictions of disaster are coming from–important to recognize the severity of the threats to our always-fragile union– it would be a mistake to give in to those predictions, to give up in advance.

Remember, those “woke” abolitionists won the last Civil War–and although it won’t be easy, We the People significantly outnumber the Trumpers who want to turn America into a White Christian Nationalist autocracy. We can win this one too.

Comments

Call It What It Is

Yesterday, I posted about the importance of using accurate language, arguing that the media’s penchant for failing to distinguish between far-right ideologues and genuine conservatives blurs reality and distorts public understanding of where America finds itself.

Today, I want to address another issue of labelling: the common complaint that calling MAGA folks fascist or fascist-adjacent is an unfair aspect of the name-calling that Trump has made a prominent feature of our politics–that use of that label is no different from the claims of those so-called “conservatives” that advocates for national health care are all communists.

Yesterday, I compared the actions and rhetoric of Trump and MAGA to the definition of conservative, and found an obvious mismatch. Today, I want to compare them to the definition of fascist, in order to determine whether that label really is an example of uncivil exaggeration and misdirection, or whether it’s an accurate description of what we are seeing.

I’m not the first to engage in that comparison; The Bulwark recently provided an excellent overview of the similarities that justify the label. (Interestingly, The Bulwark is published by “never Trump” conservatives–actual conservatives who know the difference between conservative philosophy and far-Right radicalism.) The essay began by quoting John F. Kelly, a now-retired Marine Corps general who, for a year and a half during Trump’s first term, was the White House chief of staff.

Shortly before the 2024 election, in a New York Times interview, Kelly was asked whether he thought Trump was a fascist. Kelly began his response by reading a definition of fascism.

Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy.

Kelly then ticked off the ways in which Trump met that definition, concluding that he “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. . . . He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

It’s one thing to recognize that Trump himself is a fascist–that’s hard to deny, especially given his ramped-up megalomania since returning to the Oval Office. But what about his base? What about the MAGA movement? The Bulwark article cited a 1995 observation by Italian novelist and critic Umberto Eco, who defined the fascism he saw emerging as “a fuzzy totalitarianism” that he dubbed Ur-fascism. Eco proceeded to outline a list of its characteristics:

The most prominent feature of Ur-fascism, according to Eco, is the cult of tradition and the rejection of the modern world. In the irrational worldview of the Ur-fascist, disagreement is treason. Other prominent features of fascism that Eco detailed included the following:

“Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.”
“Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.”
“At the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
“The Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo. . . . Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”

The Bulwark article ended with a plea to MAGA folks to recognize these similarities and leave the movement. I’m afraid that such a plea is hopelessly naive. Hard-core MAGA folks are all-in on their ahistorical devotion to “tradition” and their hatred of those “Others” who populate modern societies. They have perfected the informational bubble they inhabit, and far from being appalled by the inhumanity of ICE raids or the anti-Americanism of Trump’s Executive Orders or the damage being done to America’s global stature, they applaud Trump’s increasingly autocratic (and arguably insane) behaviors.

Calling this administration and its supporters fascists is neither an exaggeration nor an inappropriate epithet. It is a word–a label– that accurately describes both Trump and a significant percentage of his MAGA supporters. The rest of us need to acknowledge that, and the fact that most of those supporters are irretrievably lost to the American Idea.

It is up to the rest of us–to the majority of sane Americans– to reject the fascist project and save the Republic. The situation really is that dire.

Comments

Why We Must Resist

In a recent newsletter, Simon Rosenberg summed it all up.

First, let’s talk about Trump. That he is a wrecking ball, in clear physical and cognitive decline, and a wanna be dictator – not a President – has become impossible to ignore. In just a few months he has re-ignited inflation, slowed the economy, exploded the deficit, torched our alliances and damaged America’s standing throughout world. He is wrecking our health care system, attacking our world leading scientific and medical research centers, laying siege to the farm economy, throwing innocent people into foreign gulags without due process, invading our cities, recklessly walking away from the global consensus on climate change, leading an extraordinary coverup of a prolific sex trafficker and pedophile, enriching himself and his courtiers, and is now using the government to lawlessly pursue and silence his domestic opposition.

America under Trump has become less prosperous, less safe, less healthy, and less free, a far weaker nation. His regime represents a profound and historic betrayal of America and everything that has made us great, and the most powerful nation in history. All of this has also made him extraordinarily unpopular as the American people wake up to the destruction he is causing, wake up to that he really is pursuing an agenda of “more for me, less for you” now.

For sentient Americans, that summary is impossible to rebut. The obvious question, however, is: what can genuine patriots do about it? How can ordinary citizens who are horrified by the daily news (much of which might be introduced under the heading “what fresh hell is this?”) resist? More to the point, how can we come together to create a mass resistance movement?

I wish I had a snappy answer to that question. I don’t. But I do believe that massive participation in the upcoming No Kings protests will be essential. We need to turn out many millions of Americans who are ready and willing to send a. message of non-compliance, who publicly reject the lawlessness and the utter stupidity of the bigots who currently control the government–and not just in Washington, but in Red state capitols like Indianapolis.

Survey research tells us two things: one hopeful, one depressing. It’s hopeful that polling uniformly shows that a majority of Americans loath Trump and oppose virtually everything his administration is doing. It’s depressing that the minority is so large–depending upon the poll, somewhere between 37% and 42% of us still approve of him.

It’s hard for me to get my head around the fact that so many of our neighbors are perfectly willing to support a lawless and increasingly vicious regime, willing to ignore or excuse or even support the reality of the summary with which I opened this post. Many of them, no doubt, are unaware of much of it–they live in bubbles, getting their “information” from Fox and multiple other propaganda sites. To the extent that they are aware, they are evidently supportive of what they see as an exchange of constitutional civic equality for the White Christian male dominance they would prefer.

Historians tell us that the effort to turn America into a Christian theocracy–an effort summarized and documented in Project 2025– began decades ago. Normal Americans have largely been unaware of that effort as they’ve gone about their daily lives.  It’s understandable that the majority are only now waking to the magnitude of the threat. (The pace of that recognition has actually been abetted by the sheer buffoonery and incompetence of the Trump administration.) 

There are a number of signs, large and small, that the majority is finding its voice: the increasing number of spontaneous protests; the huge Jimmy Kimmel response; the efforts by lower court judges to hold the constitutional line and protect the rule of law… and the fact that Amazon is selling lots of pre-made protest signs, suggesting there’s a substantial market.

In the future, it may be necessary to mount massive boycotts of the companies bending the knee to our wanna-be autocrats. It may be necessary to participate in a national strike, or take other measures to resist the destruction of the America most of us love. But right now, No Kings Day is our vehicle, and we need to ensure that it demonstrates an enormous resistance by millions of citizens ready, willing and able to retake our country.

See you on OCTOBER 18TH.

Comments

Teams Versus Tribes

I generally hate sports metaphors, but sometimes they are too apt to ignore, so bear with me…

I recently had a conversation with a friend who–like me–remembered the “old” days of politics, when Republicans and Democrats differed on some issues and agreed on others, and when those conversations and debates were about policy.

When I served in Indianapolis’ City Hall (I know, a zillion years ago), city leaders often met with the state legislators elected from Indianapolis. Some were Republican, some Democrat, and while they reflected the priorities of their opposing caucuses on most issues, they frequently came together to support the priorities of the city. They worked with the Mayor on initiatives that would be good for Indianapolis.

Back in that day, Republicans and Democrats were two teams. The thing about teams is that they are playing the same game and obeying the same rules. That political “game” was governing, and the goal was to score policies that benefited your constituency. (Yes, both teams had players who were all about themselves, or in the pocket of some moneyed interest, or embarrassingly dumb, but those were the exceptions. The majority really did care about legislating policies they believed were sound, even if they disagreed about what those policies were.)

Those days are over.

Over the intervening years, the “Red team”–the Republican team I played on back then–has morphed into a tribal cult. Its more liberal, moderate and thoughtful members have been ejected, leaving virtually everyone unwilling to accept the new tribal identity without a team. Some of us became Democrats, others, disenfranchised Independents.

The problem with that change from teams to tribes should be obvious. While teams are competing to win the same game, tribes aren’t interested in either competition or the game–instead, they are intent upon clearing the playing field of those despised “others.” Rather than engaging in policy debates–the “game”–or concerning themselves with issues of governance, they are focused on defeating those not in their. tribe. They are intent upon establishing dominance.

In other words, today’s tribal folks aren’t interested in governing or in the relative merits of policy A or B–their goal is much simpler: to own the “libruls” and put those uppity Blacks, women and gays back in their proper, submissive place.

Historically, tribal bonds were crucial for survival. Membership in a tribe offered deep psychological and social connections, and contributed to  human well-being and achievement. However, as we are seeing, the persistence of strong group loyalties based upon identity can foster extreme attitudes, undermine democratic principles, and inculcate an “us versus them” worldview that is deeply corrosive. When tribes are based upon racial and religious homogeneity, rather than common values and aspirations, there is no middle ground.

So here we are.

The White “Christian” Nationalist tribe that has “evolved” from the once-respectable GOP is uninterested in anything but regaining social and political dominance. They are unconcerned with the Trump administration’s destruction of our federal government and its flouting of the constitutional rules of the game and unperturbed by Trump’s embarrassing and damaging international antics– because governing in the national interest isn’t the “game” they’re playing. The tribe believes that making America “great” means putting them in charge.

It’s no wonder the Democrats are at odds over how to proceed in this new environment. Most Democratic politicians still think of themselves as members of a team that is concerned first and foremost with matters of public policy, and they’re ill-equipped to face opponents whose “policy” preferences are limited to eradicating opponents and establishing White “Christian” Nationalist dominance.

I have no idea how we extricate the country from this mismatch. If this sports analogy is right, pious exhortations to find “common ground” are unrealistic, to put it mildly. Americans will simply have to choose between the team and the tribe.

Comments