Tag Archives: autocracy

L’Etat, Ce Moi

“L’etat, ce moi”–meaning,  “the state, it is me– is a French phrase attributed to King Louis XIV, who probably never said it. Nevertheless, it represents the foundational concept of absolute monarchy, a regime in which the king has total authority over the state. 

I am confident that Donald Trump, the least educated President in history, never encountered the phrase, but its meaning clearly animates his conception of the Presidency. Law–in Trump’s limited and inaccurate view–is whatever he says it is. It certainly doesn’t exist as a separate framework.

In recent articles, the New York Times has outlined how this wholly unAmerican approach to the Presidency is undermining the rule of law, as our would-be monarch decides what rules should be ignored in the corrupt interests of his pocketbook and those of his plutocratic cohorts. 

 The most vicious and far-reaching attempts to thwart the laws of the land have come as part of Trump’s racist efforts to root out D.E.I. and other measures aiming to ameliorate discrimination.  Trump has ordered government offices to simply stop enforcing numerous civil rights provisions. According to a Times  newsletter (link unavailable), the Labor Department will no longer investigate employers who allegedly underpaid women or awarded promotions based on race. The administration has  abandoned hundreds of pending cases under the fair housing law–abandoning efforts to prosecute landlords who keep out gay people or owners who refuse to sell to people of a different faith. Trump has also instructed the government to nix the “disparate-impact” test, which looked at whether minority groups were affected differently by criminal background checks, credit checks, zoning regulations and other facially neutral laws.

And recognizing that direct orders are not the only way to stymie the enforcement of laws on the books, Trump has slashed budgets and head counts, which has a similar effect. As the Times accurately noted, laws work only if people are there to enforce them. So the EPA has been eviscerated under this administration; its ability to enforce environmental measures crippled. Employment at the IRS has been cut, severely limiting the ability of that agency to pursue tax cheats (like the President himself). Etc.

Mainstream media sources routinely describe measures taken by the Trump administration as “authoritarian.” That is, of course, accurate–but it tends to obscure the effects of the measures described above (and the many similar ones)–tends to make the very real harms seem somewhat abstract. (Theoretically, after all, an authoritarian leader could impose measures that advanced the public good–authoritarianism is the process, not the consequence.)

The same problem arises when pundits and bloggers like yours truly bemoan the daily assaults on the rule of law. Rule of law, too, is an abstraction. What isn’t abstract is when ICE thugs ignore the constitutional rights of those they are intimidating and snatching off the streets, or when the administration refuses to comply with the terms of its prior research grants.

A significant body of research confirms that a troubling percentage of the American public actually wants an authoritarian government–a ruler who relieves them of the burden of exercising thoughtful and responsible citizenship. Whether that desire to be ruled rather than governed is a result of inadequate civic education or personal intellectual/emotional deficit is unknown; it is also unknown whether those who prefer a monarchy to a democracy approve of the way the current Mad King and his Congressional enablers/courtiers are conducting–or refusing to conduct– the affairs of state. 

That Times newsletter did readers a favor by discarding the abstractions and pointing out the specifics of an authoritarianism that manifests its contempt for fundamental fairness and the rule of law every day.

MAGA cult members are likely to be surprised when their chosen authoritarian’s “policies” further enrich the plutocrats while tanking the economy, instituting stagflation, closing rural hospitals and throwing grandma off Medicaid. That’s the problem with allowing someone–anyone, but especially this bloated, ignorant and embarrassing buffoon–to believe that he is “the state.”

Comments

Why Research Matters

When I joined the faculty of Indiana University after decidedly non-academic stints as a lawyer, real estate developer and  ACLU executive director, non-university friends would often question the institutional obligation to devote considerable time and effort to research. They questioned the reason so many institutions of higher education pursue a “publish or perish” criterion for  tenure (and a number didn’t understand why we had tenure, either).

I’ll leave my fairly robust defense of tenure for another time, but in the face of Trump’s unprecedented assault on universities, the New York Times recently ran an editorial explaining the critical importance of scholarly research.

The editorial began by explaining that what we are seeing is typical of authoritarianism:

When a political leader wants to move a democracy toward a more authoritarian form of government, he often sets out to undermine independent sources of information and accountability. The leader tries to delegitimize judges, sideline autonomous government agencies and muzzle the media.

One of those “independent sources of information” is, rather obviously, scholarship. As the editorial points out, academic researchers pursue the truth–empirical facts– and that can present a threat to those in authority. Putin and Erdogan have closed universities, Modi’s government has arrested dissident scholars, and Orban has appointed loyal foundations to run universities.

Mr. Trump’s multifaceted campaign against higher education is core to this effort to weaken institutions that do not parrot his version of reality. Above all, he is enacting or considering major cuts to universities’ resources. The Trump administration has announced sharp reductions in the federal payments that cover the overhead costs of scientific research, such as laboratory rent, electricity and hazardous waste disposal. (A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order against those cuts.) Vice President JD Vance and other Republicans have urged a steep increase of a university endowment tax that Mr. Trump signed during his first term. Together, these two policies could reduce the annual budgets at some research universities by more than 10 percent.

There is public dissatisfaction with the very real problems of America’s universities, and the editorial goes into considerable detail about the current deficiencies and problems of those institutions. But as it also notes, just as with Trump’s approach to trade, government waste, and immigration, the administration’s “solutions” won’t ameliorate or address the real problems. It will make things much worse.

The American higher education system, for all its flaws, is the envy of the world, and it now faces a financial squeeze that threatens its many strengths — strengths that benefit all Americans.

Chief among them is its global leadership in medical care and scientific research. American professors still dominate the Nobel Prizes. When wealthy and powerful people in other countries face a medical crisis, they often use their connections to get an appointment at an American academic hospital. For that matter, some of the same Republicans targeting universities with budget cuts seek out its top medical specialists when they or their relatives are ill.

American leadership in medical and scientific research depends on federal money. Private companies, even large ones, typically do not conduct much of the basic research that leads to breakthroughs because it is too uncertain; even successful experiments may not lead to profitable products for decades. Mr. Trump’s planned funding cuts are large enough to force universities to do less of this research. The list of potential forgone progress is long, including against cancer, heart disease, viruses, obesity, dementia and drug overdoses. And there will be costs beyond the medical sector. There is a reason that Silicon Valley sprang up next to a research university.

The Times is right to say that we need to speak–loudly and publicly– about why universities matter, to point to the many ways in which higher education and research promote public health, economic growth and national security. It’s also important to recognize that universities are the largest employers in some regions. And for many Americans, universities have been “an unmatched, if imperfect, engine of upward mobility that can alter the trajectory of entire families.”

Thus far, too many academic officials have been timid and quiet in the face of this assault. That needs to change.

College presidents do not need to become pundits. But they do need to defend the core mission of their institutions when it is under attack. University leaders would help themselves, and the country, by emerging from their defensive crouches and making a forthright case for inquiry, research, science and knowledge.

This administration is waging war on science and knowledge. It’s a war we cannot let them win.

Comments

Preparing To Resist

Important notice: Due to the cold, the rally on January 20th has been moved to Broadway United Methodist Church, 609 E 29th St, Indianapolis. Indoors.

____________________

I have previously posted about the rally being held just two days from now, on January 20th–Inauguration Day–in  Indianapolis.

Reasonable readers might wonder what such a gathering is intended to do. After all, the threats posed by the incoming  administration will manifest in concrete, harmful actions. Should we not be saving our energies to oppose and try to derail those actions, and to help neighbors likely to bear the brunt of the coming assaults?

That question is reasonable, but it misses an important point. Those of us who are dreading what is likely to come, who fear for the country we thought we lived in, need to find and support each other. We also need to mutually reinforce our commitment to that country’s democratic and constitutional traditions, and to its first motto: e pluribus unum.

Think of the rally–and the other demonstrations being planned–as a coming together, a communal “kickoff” to the coming resistance.

As Hoosiers4Democracy recently put it, on the 20th, we will not only be commemorating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we will be affirming that we

stand in resistance to the inauguration of a President who promises to unravel the constitution and ignores the rule of law. The rally is an act of love for our constitution and the foundational American values of liberty, equality and justice for all. We know these values are not applied equally, that many in our country are denied basic human and civil rights that others are afforded. We know that these values are under further assault by our incoming state and federal administrations. We stand in resistance to that assault.

In a paragraph explaining why the rally matters, H4D explained:

It is thought that Carrie Chapman Catt, a suffragist and founder of the League of Women Voters, said that ‘democracy is not a spectator sport’. Now is not the time to be a spectator to the spectacle that is happening in our state and our country. Despite our disillusionment, disappointment, despair and heartbreak, we must not allow ourselves to sit on the sidelines of politics. We need to stand up for our Constitution and our commitment to E Pluribus Unum—out of many, one. So join us as we:

Reclaim the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Rebuild a stronger more inclusive society and the democratic institutions that are being threatened
Resist the policies and actions that undermine our freedoms and civil rights.

The missive ended by asking readers to commit “to being an engaged and informed citizen, especially in this perilous moment.”

Put on your coats, boots, mittens, warm hats and join us in song, inspired readings, and a diverse lineup of speakers as we ‘let our hearts speak’ for what we love most about this country. Reclaim, Rebuild, and Resist Rally, January 20, 2025, 10:00am-Noon, University Park, 325 N. Meridian St., Indianapolis.

The rally has several organizational co-sponsors: ACLU Indiana, ReCenter Indiana, Common Cause Indiana, Women4Change Indiana, the Indiana chapter of the American Association of University Women, and the League of Women Voters of Indiana. It will feature musical interludes and brief talks by clergy and civic leaders (and one local blogger, namely me).

I hope that those of you who live in central Indiana can join us as we reinforce our solidarity and prepare for what comes next.

Comments

About Project 2025

This morning, I will speak at the Unitarian church in Danville. I was asked to address Project 2025, Here’s what I will be telling the congregants.

_________

I’ve done a lot of research recently into the emergence of the White Christian Nationalism that forms the basis of the MAGA movement. Project 2025 does a great service for anyone who wants to know what life would be like if the 40% of Americans who identify fully or partially with those beliefs manage to win control of Congress and the Presidency—especially at a time when the Supreme Court has been captured by ideologues who are sympathetic to their aims and apparently unwilling to follow longstanding constitutional precedents.

PROJECT 2025 was produced mainly by the Heritage Foundation, but it had the assistance of over 100 other conservative think tanks. (If you go online, you can find lists of them. They represent a longstanding, well-organized and well-funded effort to claim the country for their particular tribe of White Christian males.) Project 2025 is the product of over 400 contributors and writers, including the 240 former Trump administration authors who wrote 31 of the 38 chapters of the 920 page document.

Despite Trump’s effort to separate himself from Project 2025, it mentions him over 320 times, and in 2023 he referred to it as “great work. Our roadmap.”

Those who produced that “roadmap” claim that it would “restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect children,” “Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people,” and “Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.” What that lovely language really means, of course, is spelled out in the details—and whoever coined the phrase “the devil is in the details” might have been referring to Project 2025.

I don’t have time—and neither do you—to go through a comprehensive list of the regressive, and frankly, insane, proposals in this document, but I will hit some of the highlights (or low lights).

The chapter on “DEFENSE OF AMERICA” proposes to “” Restore warfighting as the military’s sole mission.” It proposes to end what it calls “the Left’s social experimentation in the military” by halting the admission of transgender individuals. It would increase the Army by

50,000, bring overseas troops home, grow the Navy and Air Force, and triple the number of nuclear weapons—while withdrawing America from all arms reduction treaties.

Project 2025 would withdraw the U.S. from NATO, and expressly disavow NATO’s Article Five, which is NATO’s mutual defense pact. It also proposes to make our Allies pay for any weapons we might provide them.

With respect to Trade and Foreign Assistance, the Project wants USAID to defund women’s rights provisions in foreign aid initiatives, withdraw from all multi-lateral trade agreements, stop providing financial aid to Ukraine, and institute 60% tariffs on Chinese goods and 10% on all other imports. (Every reputable economist—conservative and liberal—has pointed out that tariffs are a tax on Americans, and that imposing them would cost American families thousands of dollars a year and throw the country into recession. If a future administration actually imposed those tariffs, the economy would tank.)

There’s a lot more in this section, but the effect would be to make the world far less safe, and Americans far less rich.

Moving on…

To the extent that the media has reported on Project 2025, it has focused mostly on the Project’s proposed changes to American governance– especially the plan to replace 50 thousand civil service employees with Trump loyalists. I recently read that the Heritage Foundation is currently “vetting” individuals in order to facilitate that replacement should Trump win.

The replacement of civil service workers, however, is only the tip of the iceberg.

The Project also proposes to eliminate or re-write the First Amendment so that the government can operate on what the authors call “Christian Principles.” Those of you in this congregation, and other Christian clergy, might dispute their interpretation of Christian principles….

The media has also reported on the proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, Head Start, Title 1, & school lunch programs. The less-reported portions of their “education” policies are equally regressive: they would eliminate all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, and post the Ten Commandments in all school classrooms (they don’t specify which version…probably the Cecil B. DeMille version). They would eliminate any books addressing race or gender from the nation’s classrooms, withdraw federal funding from any school requiring vaccinations, and require states to provide vouchers for religious schools.

They’d also arm teachers and defund NPR and PBS.

As I said, I can’t go through the entire list of Project 2025’s looney-tunes and profoundly unAmerican proposals, but let me just reference a few more: they’d privatize Medicare and TSA, and entirely eliminate the EPA, OSHA, the EEOC and the FDIC.

When it comes to elections, they’d eliminate mail-in ballots, and require federal elections to be done in one day, on paper, with stringent voter ID requirements.

When it comes to how their proposed government would deal with what the Project delicately calls “minorities,” the bigotries become very visible. They’d begin with the immediate mass deportation of undocumented persons that Trump and Vance have promised, ignoring both the inhumanity and the practical impossibility of conducting such a massive effort. Other measures they propose in connection with immigration include construction of internment camps and limiting lawful immigration to 20,000 annually—good luck to any of you who need to hire people to work in restaurants or pick crops or any other jobs disproportionately done by immigrants. They’d deport all the Dreamers (who came as children with their parents, and most of whom have never known another country). They want to end birthright citizenship—which I note would require amending the 14th Amendment– and ban Muslims and Haitians from entering the country. Lest you wonder where the homophobia and misogyny come in, they propose to roll back gay rights, invalidate same-sex marriages, and outlaw transgender rights and no-fault divorce.

Given our recent experience with hurricanes, I thought I’d just end with the Project’s ”Principles Guiding Climate Decisions.” Those “principles” begin with science denial. I guess their version of God will protect them…

Authors of the Project say—and I quote– the “climate is not changing and schools are not to teach that it is.” Since climate change is just a liberal myth, they would eliminate climate and environmental protections, eliminate the regulation of greenhouse gases, and defund FEMA. (I will note that both Mike Braun and Jim Banks—currently running for Governor and Senator—both recently voted against funding for FEMA.) Project 2025 would return management of emergencies to the states. (I imagine even Ron DeSantis might now disagree with that one…)

Project authors want to dismantle the National Hurricane Center and the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. They would halt all climate research and revoke the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Of course they would once again withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Accords. And they would halt research into electrical vehicles and revoke tax incentives for clean energy.

If even a small portion of this truly insane wish list became reality, the America we inhabit would disappear. Unfortunately, we’d take most of the world down with us.

In my blog, I keep warning readers about the threat posed by a well-organized, well-financed theocratic movement. The small dip into Project 2025’s 900 pages that I’ve just shared should illuminate that threat.

I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that these people hate the America we inhabit. They love an America that existed only in their fevered imaginations. This is a very scary time.

Comments

The Stakes II

A couple of days ago, I considered the stakes of this year’s election choices, and speculated about whether and to what extent the abortion issue will drive both turnout and results. What I failed to explain ( thanks to the word limit I have self-imposed for these daily rants) is why the debate about reproductive choice is in reality about far more than a woman’s right to control her own reproduction, important as that is.

The deeply dishonest Dobbs decision struck at a fundamental premise of America’s Constitution, as we have come to rely upon it– the belief in limited government.

When politicians talk about “limited government,” they generally focus on the size of government, but the U.S. Constitution defines those limits in terms of authority, not size. What is to be limited is the power of government to prescribe certain decisions that should be left to the individual. In the original Bill of Rights, the federal government was forbidden to censor speech, prescribe religious or political beliefs, and take other actions that were invasions of fundamental rights–rights for which early Americans demanded recognition.

Over the years, those limitations on federal government power were imposed on state and local government units, and evolving cultural and social norms prompted a fuller understanding of what sorts of decisions individuals are entitled to make without government interference. I frequently cite what has been called the Libertarian Principle, because that principle undergirds America’s particular approach to government. The principle is simple: Individuals should be free to pursue their own ends–their own life goals–so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of someone else, and so long as they are willing to accord an equal liberty to their fellow citizens.

The gender of your chosen mate, your adherence to a non-Christian religion (or your utter rejection of the notion of divinity), your choice to reproduce or not, and a number of other life choices are simply none of government’s business. (As Jefferson is often quoted, such decisions “neither break my leg nor pick my pocket.”)

The Libertarian Principle was central to the original Bill of Rights, and its application has  extended as “facts on the ground”–scientific and cultural–have changed. Ever since 1965, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Griswold v. Connecticut– informing the Connecticut legislature that a couple’s decision to use contraceptives was none of government’s business–the belief that there are areas of our lives where government simply doesn’t belong has been absolutely central to Americans’ understanding of liberty.

When I was much younger, the importance of limiting government to areas where collective action was appropriate and/or necessary—keeping the state out of the decisions that individuals and families have the right to make for themselves– was a Republican article of faith. It was basic conservative doctrine. Ironically, the MAGA folks who inaccurately call themselves conservative today insist that government has the right—indeed, the duty– to invade that zone of privacy in order to impose rules reflecting their own particular beliefs and prejudices.

It’s critically important to understand that what is really at stake in what we shorthand as the “abortion issue” is that fundamental Constitutional premise. Forcing women to give birth, denying medical care to defenseless trans children or forbidding school children to read certain books are not “stand-alone” positions. They are part and parcel of an entire worldview that is autocratic and profoundly anti-American.

I used to point out that a government with the power to prohibit abortion is a government with the power to require abortion. (As an ACLU friend used to say, poison gas is a great weapon until the wind shifts.)

The issue at the heart of the Bill of Rights–as I interminably repeated to my students–isn’t what decision is made. The issue is who gets to make it. In the government system devised by our Founders, certain decisions are simply off-limits to government. I may disagree with your religious beliefs or political opinions; I may disapprove of your choice of marriage partner or your selection of reading material–but I cannot use the government to countermand your choices and require behaviors more to my liking.

It is that fundamental premise that is at stake in this year’s elections, which will pit the MAGA theocrats and autocrats against those of us who want to preserve America’s hard-won civil liberties and individual rights.

The abortion issue is about so much more than abortion, and I have to believe that, at least at some level, most Americans realize that.

Comments