There was no missing the chilling messages delivered by Trump and his supporters at his Inauguration and immediately after, through his Executive Orders.
There’s obviously a great deal that could be said about most of those vindictive and mean-spirited Executive Orders, several of which were of dubious legality. (Overturning Biden’s order reducing the cost of insulin for those on Medicare or Medicaid seemed particularly egregious–surely many of the beneficiaries of that measure are among his voters. But making Big Pharma happy evidently took precedence over Trump’s non-existent concern for the “little people.”)
I will leave discussion of most of these acts of petulance for others to discuss, because most of them were unrelated to the major message conveyed by Elon Musk’s “heil Hitler” salute and Trump’s pardon of the January 6th insurrectionists. The incoming administration is no longer bothering to hide what most of us already knew was the motivating force behind MAGA–racism and general hatred of the Other. After all, the movement has no policy agenda, no coherent ideology–it’s all racism and White Christian nationalism.
The pathetic efforts to excuse Musk’s Nazi salutes (note the “s”–he gave it not once but twice) brought to mind Timothy Snyder’s warning in his book On Tyranny about people who acquiesce to tyrants in advance. I’ve never considered the Anti-Defamation League a particularly effective organization, but the feeble attempt by its spokespersons to suggest that the gesture was somehow an excess of “enthusiasm” should tell us just how feckless it really is. That pathetic effort to ingratiate the organization with the coming administration rang hollow to anyone who saw the videos of Musk rendering that salute (not to mention anyone who has watched him turn Twitter into a Nazi-apologetic site, or noted his recent endorsement of the German far-right.)
Of course, the salute itself pales before the message sent by Trump’s pardons and commutations of the criminals who participated in the January 6th insurrection. As my youngest son said, it was a loud and clear call to Trump’s Brownshirts, a promise that–no matter what they do on his behalf, no matter what heads they crack, what laws they break, what American principles they deficate on–he’ll have their back. Like Trump himself, they will evade any real accountability.
These “patriots” destroyed government property. They assaulted–and killed–law enforcement officers. Those in prison had been found guilty of sedition by judges and by juries of their peers. A significant number had pled guilty, admitting to the charges of serious lawbreaking.
Pardoning people who were willing to jettison their country’s principles and the rule of law for their “dear leader” gives the whole game away.
There were plenty of related messages sent via those Executive Orders. The assault on the Department of Justice, for example, was notable. But none of those other moves was as obvious and horrifying as the explicit approval of violence if it was committed on Trump’s behalf.
Anyone who actually listened to what Trump was preaching to the MAGA mobs already understood that the movement was all–and only–about “recapturing” America for straight White “Christian” men. It was–and is–about fear and hatred of the Other: brown and Black people, Jews, Muslims, Asians, Gays…the vicious anti-immigrant sentiment that Trump rode to the White House has always focused solely on dark-skinned immigrants. Efforts to paint Trump supporters as folks angry about inflation or the economy deliberately ignore the hysteria over “woke-ism” and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion). It isn’t just coincidental that another of those Executive Orders erased diversity training and all governmental DEI programs.
There is no way to put lipstick on this particular pig. There’s also nothing to be gained by “playing nice” with the people who are just fine–indeed, ecstatic– with all of this. The rest of us need to face up to the fact that America has just installed an “out and proud” fascist government, filled with people who no longer find it necessary to pretend otherwise.
It not only can happen here…it is happening. And the worst thing we can do is emulate the “good Germans” who turned their heads and pretended not to see.
According to various media reports, in addition to eying cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the Musk-Ramaswamy proposals to make the government more “efficient,” are focused especially on dramatic cuts to the following: VA Healthcare – $516 billion (100% reduction); the National Institutes of Health – $47 billion (eliminate NIH); Pell Grants – $22 billion (80% reduction); Head Start – $12 billion (100% reduction); the FBI -$11 billion (out of $11.3 billion budget); Federal Prisons -$8 billion (100% reduction) and the SEC – $2 billion (out of $2.1 billion current budget). In other words, the cuts will effectively eliminate the following agencies and programs: VA healthcare, NIH, Head Start, FBI, Federal Prisons, and the SEC.
While it is unlikely that most of these reductions will take place–the “geniuses” who’ve trained their sights on them clearly don’t understand legal or political reality–it is instructive to look at just who would suffer if they were successful: working and middle class people, many of whom comprise the majority of Trump’s base.
It’s equally instructive to note that the “savings” generated by these cuts are intended to make up for diminished revenues anticipated from Trump’s intended tax cuts for the very rich.
What has become very clear as Trump has assembled his “team” is that plutocrats have purchased America’s government.
President-elect Trump has assembled an administration of unprecedented, mind-boggling wealth — smashing his own first-term record by billions of dollars.
That’s even without counting the ballooning fortunes of his prized outside adviser and the world’s richest man: Elon Musk.
Why it matters: It’s not hyperbole to call this a government of billionaires. Whether it acts as a government for billionaires — as Democrats argue is inevitable — could test and potentially tarnish Trump’s populist legacy.
The big picture: Besides Trump, Musk and his fellow Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Vivek Ramaswamy, at least 11 billionaires will be serving key roles in the administration.
Please note that this is without counting Trump, Musk or Ramaswamy. The Axios article has a comprehensive list of the appointees and the net worth of each of them.
The dominance of the super-wealthy and their eagerness to ignore the needs and/or well-being of the rest of us may shed some light on why Congressional Republicans are engaged in an effort to teach a skewed form of civics.
Republican Congressmen have introduced a bill to support the teaching of civics in the nation’s high schools. This would ordinarily be great news, if the measure contemplated the teaching of actual Civics–a curriculum like “We the People,” for example. This proposal, however–H.R.5349, the “Crucial Communism Teaching Act”– has been described as “a government mandated curriculum requiring all schools to teach the evils of Communism.” When Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern asked why the bill made no mention of the dangers of Fascism, Republicans refused to answer what certainly seems to be a pertinent question: Why are we teaching kids Communism is bad but failing to teach them about the historic failures (not to mention the deaths) caused by Fascism?
When Rep. McGovern offered an amendment to the Bill to add Fascism to the civics bill, every Republicans voted against that amendment.
Although the most striking aspect of fascist systems is a fervent nationalism–it is characterized by a union between business and the state– in most fascist systems, the uber-rich control the government. Fascist regimes tend to be focused upon a (glorious) past, and to uphold traditional class structures and gender roles that are believed necessary to maintain the social order–a social order that facilitated the acquisition of wealth by those same uber-rich.
The three elements commonly identified with Fascism are 1) a national identity fused with racial/ethnic identity and concepts of racial superiority; 2) rejection of civil liberties and democracy in favor of authoritarian government; and 3) aggressive militarism. Fascists seek to unify the nation through the elevation of the state over the individual, and the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training. (Think Nazi Germany.)
When people are being trained to focus on the glory of the state (America First), they are more easily distracted from other concerns–like the takeover of their governments by billionaires intent upon protecting their conflicts of interest and special prerogatives at the expense of the masses they disdain.
Wouldn’t want to teach the kids about that…..they might notice some disquieting similarities….
The essay is lengthy; it includes several examples from around the globe and from history–examples that suggest productive ways to respond and resist. The subheading counseled that the key to taking effective action is to avoid perpetuating the autocrat’s goals of “fear, isolation, exhaustion and disorientation.”
I found the following paragraphs particularly helpful.
Under a Trump presidency, there are going to be so many issues that it will be hard to accept that we cannot do it all. I’m reminded of a colleague in Turkey who told me, “There’s always something bad happening every day. If we had to react to every bad thing, we’d never have time to eat.”
An elder once saw me trying to do everything and pulled me aside. “That’s not a healthy lifelong strategy,” she said. She’d been raised in Germany by the generation of Holocaust survivors who told her, “Never again.” She took it personally, as if she had to stop every wrong. It wracked her and contributed to several serious ongoing medical conditions. We can accept our humanity or suffer that lack of acceptance.
Chaos is a friend of the autocrat. One way we can unwittingly assist is by joining in the story that we have to do it all.
So–as we select our paths, what are our options? The author lays out a number of them, beginning with “Protecting People.” especially those who are being directly targeted– trans people, folks choosing abortions, immigrants.
Another is“Defending Civic Institutions,” and yet another is “Disrupt and Disobey.” The elements of each are discussed. My own choice was the last:“Building Alternatives.”
We can’t just be stuck reacting and stopping the bad. We have to have a vision. This is the slow growth work of building alternative ways that are more democratic. It includes grounding and healing work, rich cultural work, alternative ways of growing food and caring for kids, participatory budgeting or seeding constitutional conventions to build a majoritarian alternative to the Electoral College mess we’re in.
As I have previously argued, our goal should not be a return to the status quo–elements of which facilitated the electoral rejection of American principles of liberty and civic equality. When Trumpism collapses (a collapse that those on the resistance paths can hasten), we need to be ready with a vision for an improved social infrastructure–one more firmly based on America’s unrealized aspirations.
First, the old order broke because it failed to keep its most important promise: that a rising tide lifts all, or even most, boats. At the most basic level, a successful and enduring political system must be able to provide for its people.
Second, most of the media has focused on Joe Biden and “Bidenomics” in its narrative about today’s economy. But the reasons we find ourselves in this most perplexing moment, with the economic successes of the last four years frustratingly muted, go well beyond the policies of the last four years. To understand our moment, we must look further back in time and also imagine further into the future.
And third, even amid today’s confusion, we can sense convergence on the outlines of a new political order—but some versions of our shared future are far better, while some are far worse.
As Wong reminds us, successful political orders must deliver a reasonably good life for most people. Neoliberalism fails to do that.
People have different talents, different skills, different time constraints. As we proceed to choose our resistance paths, we need to consider where we are likely to be most effective. Many of you will choose to work through the already burgeoning network of grassroots organizations. Others will focus on what the essay calls “performative” aspects of resistance–what I might call “educational” efforts to draw lines between Trumpism and its inhumane and damaging consequences.
We’ve just had a crushing blow to our belief in American goodness. Like many of you, I am frantic not for myself–I’m 83, and my likely duration in the Dark Ages won’t be long. But I have children and grandchildren, who are suddenly faced with a world far more precarious than the one we all thought we occupied.
I’m fortunate that one of my sons lives in Amsterdam, and one of my granddaughters lives in England. While the wave of fascism that is sweeping the globe will undoubtedly affect them to some extent, and the global consequences of electing an ignorant lunatic as U.S. President will be significant, their prospects aren’t as bleak as they would be here over the next years.
Or as daunting as the landscape that faces the rest of the family.
My youngest son–parent of the younger two grandkids–has taken what I believe to be the only rational position available to those of us who still occupy a sane and humane America. With his permission, I’m sharing the message he sent to his son and daughter, both of whom are currently in college, and both of whom were blindsided by the (previously) unthinkable results of the election.
Kids, I’m still struggling to process the election results and to contextualize it in a way that is not entirely negative. I keep coming back to a handful of facts and themes. First, WE (our family) are likely to be OK. While we are psychologically traumatized by the implications of the election — and the thoughts of how bad Trump might be for vulnerable people, minority communities, and non-citizens — our daily lives are unlikely to be directly or irreparably affected by Trump’s election. In saying this, I am not discounting the genuine risk to women — particularly young women of childbearing age — but WE are fortunate enough to have resources and options that likely mute those direct threats.
Second, and really based on the first point, WE now also have a greater obligation to help those who aren’t as fortunate as we are. I don’t know how or in what ways those opportunities will present themselves, but we have an obligation to help those who are going to be attacked or adversely impacted by Trump and Trumpism in the years to come.
Finally, as horrible as many people have shown themselves to be, know that OUR community is still OUR community, and made up of all the same loving, caring, funny, positive-values-holding people. I am trying to focus on these facts in the days, weeks, and years ahead… OUR community will help us weather the dark storms ahead, and we must do our part to help our family and friends weather it as well.
I love you! We will be OK, even if we are currently suffering deep psychological wounds from this election and its implications.
I can’t add to that.
I think that message sums up both the challenge we face and the obligations we must now assume. The challenge is a concerted effort by a cohort of people who believe Hitler “had some good ideas” to remake the United States into a 21st-Century fascist state. There are far more people in that cohort than most of us recognized or still want to believe.
Our obligation is twofold: first, to resist that transformation with every fiber of our beings, with every tool we can muster, with every grassroots organization we can create or support; and second, for those of us who are privileged, who are fortunate that our circumstances (or religions or skin colors) buffer us from the full effect of authoritarian animus, to work wherever and whenever we can to ameliorate the adverse impacts on those less fortunate.
Speaking of community: I’ve been doing this blog for several years, and have been gratified by the genuine sense of community that has grown up among the regular commenters, few of whom know each other personally. With the exception of a couple of trolls who weigh in now and then, you disagree with civility, share your knowledge freely and offer each other–and me– much needed moral support. You are one of the communities my son referenced in his text to my grandchildren.
Like many of you, I am still in shock. But when we emerge, we need to figure out how to save our world–how to gift our children and grandchildren with an America that is recognizable and future worth inhabiting.
Last week, I spoke to the Shepherd’s Center at North United Methodist Church. I had been asked to address the differences between capitalism and socialism. Here’s what I said. (Warning: it’s longer than my usual posts.)
_____________________________
We are in a hot and heavy political season, facing an extraordinarily important election. The outcome of that election will depend, in large part, on the ability of voters to understand the foundational premises of American government –to have what I define as a minimum level of civic literacy—and an understanding of the essential elements of America’s economic system.
Why is agreement on definitions and documented facts important? Look at the interminable debates about the Affordable Care Act—aka “Obamacare”—as an example. People may have very different opinions about the wisdom of the policy choices involved, but a decision to repeal, implement or amend the Act depends upon understanding what it actually says and does—not on hysterical accusations that it constitutes a “socialism,” that is always, and presumably self-evidently, a bad thing.
Or take the ongoing battles over religion in the nation’s schools. There are genuine arguments to be made about the proper application of the Establishment Clause in the context of public education. But we can’t have those reasoned disputes with people who insist that the First Amendment doesn’t require separation of church and state.
Basing our arguments on verifiable fact and accepted history actually helps people make more persuasive cases for their own points of view. We all encounter people who have a legitimate point worth considering, but who—because they are basing their argument on erroneous facts or demonstrating a lack of understanding of important basic concepts—get dismissed out of hand. Credibility requires verifiable evidence. You might want to use that perfect quote from Thomas Jefferson that you saw on the Internet, but if it is bogus, you’ve just undermined your own position. Defending alternate realities is like arguing about whether a fork is a spoon—it doesn’t get you any closer to a useful resolution.
A few years ago, I wrote a brief pamphlet called “Talking Politics” that contained basic facts about the U.S. Constitution, economic concepts and systems, and the nature of science and the scientific method—basic facts that every citizen should know, and that should serve as solid starting points for reasoned arguments. Among other things, that booklet defined government, the provisions of the Bill of Rights, and the major differences between economic systems. It was the elements of those economic systems that I was asked to address today—especially what we mean when we talk about the differences between capitalism and socialism.
Capitalism is defined as an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are primarily controlled by private owners for profit. It is characterized by free markets, where the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand, rather than set by government. Economists often define the ideal free trade as a transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller, both of whom are in possession of all information relevant to that transaction.
Understanding the importance of free trade to capitalism is important, because it defines the proper role of government in a capitalist system—as an “umpire” or referee, ensuring that everyone plays by the rules. For example, Teddy Roosevelt reminded us that monopolies distort markets; if one company can dominate a market, that company can dictate prices and other terms with the result that those transactions will no longer be truly voluntary. If Manufacturer A can avoid the cost of disposing of the waste produced by his factory, by dumping it into the nearest river, he will be able to compete unfairly with Manufacturer B, who is following the rules governing proper waste disposal. If Chicken Farmer A is able to control his costs and gain market share by failing to keep his coops clean and his chickens free of disease, unwary consumers will become ill. Most economists agree that if markets are to operate properly, government must act as an “umpire,” assuring a level playing field.
This need for government regulation is a response to what is called “market failure.” There are three primary situations in which Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” doesn’t work: when monopolies or corrupt practices replace competition; when so-called “externalities” like pollution harm people who aren’t party to the transaction (who are neither buyer nor seller); and when there are what we call “information asymmetries,” that is, situations where buyers don’t have access to information they need to bargain in their own interest. Since markets don’t have built-in mechanisms for dealing with these situations, most economists—conservative and liberal alike– argue that regulation is needed.
Economists and others will often disagree about the need for particular regulations, but most agree that an absence of necessary regulatory activity undermines capitalism. Unregulated markets can lead to a different system, sometimes called corporatism. In corporatist systems, government regulations favoring powerful corporate interests are the result of lobbying by the corporate and monied special interests that stand to benefit from them. You might think of it as a football game where one side has paid the umpire to make calls favorable to that team.
The word socialism, on the other hand, simply means the collective provision of goods and services. The decision whether to pay for certain services collectively rather than leaving their production and consumption to the free market is based upon a number of factors. First, there are some goods that free markets simply cannot produce. Economists call them public goods and define them as both “non-excludable” –meaning that individuals who haven’t paid for them cannot be effectively kept from using them—and “non-rivalrous,” meaning that use by one person does not reduce the availability of that good to others. Some examples of public goods include things like fresh air, knowledge, lighthouses, national defense, flood control systems and street lighting. If we are going to have these things, they have to be supplied by the whole society, usually through government, and paid for with tax dollars.
Of course, not all goods and services that we socialize—that we provide collectively– are public goods. Policymakers often base decisions to socialize services on other considerations: we socialize police and fire protection because doing so is generally more efficient and cost-effective, and because most of us believe that limiting such services only to people who can afford to pay for them would be immoral. We socialize garbage collection in more densely populated urban areas in order to prevent disease transmission.
Getting the “mix” right between goods that we provide collectively and those we leave to the free market is important, because too much socialism hampers economic health. Just as unrestrained capitalism can become corporatism, socializing the provision of goods that the market can supply reduces innovation and incentives to produce. During the 20th Century, many countries experimented with efforts to socialize major areas of their economies, and even implement socialism’s extreme, communism, with uniformly poor results. Not only did economic productivity suffer, so did political freedom, because when governments have too much control over the means of production and distribution, they can easily become authoritarian.
Virtually all countries today—including the United States– have mixed economies. The challenge is getting the right balance between socialized and free market provision of goods and services.
In our highly polarized politics today, words like Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism and Communism are used more as insulting labels than descriptions. There are numerous disagreements about the essential characteristics of these systems, probably because the theories underlying them were so different from the actual experiences of the countries that tried them.
Socialism is probably the least precise of these terms. It is generally applied to mixed economies where the social safety net is much broader and the tax burden somewhat higher than in the U.S.—Scandinavian countries are an example.
Communism begins with the belief that equality is defined by equal results; this is summed up in the well-known adage “From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs.” All property is owned communally, by everyone (hence the term “communism”). In practice, this meant that all property was owned by the government, ostensibly on behalf of the people. In theory, communism erases all class distinctions, and wealth is redistributed so that everyone gets the same share. In practice, the government controls the means of production and most individual decisions are made by the state. Since the quality and quantity of work is divorced from reward, there is less incentive to innovate or produce, and ultimately, countries that have tried to create a communist system, like the USSR, have collapsed or, like China, moved toward a more mixed economy.
Fascism is sometimes called “national Socialism,” which is confusing, especially because people throwing these terms around rather clearly don’t understand them. Actually, fascism differs significantly from socialism. The most striking aspect of fascist systems is the elevation of the nation—a fervent nationalism is central to fascist philosophy. There is a union between business and the state; although there is nominally private property, government controls business decisions. Fascist regimes tend to be focused upon a ( supposedly glorious) past, and on the upholding of traditional class structures and gender roles, which are thought to be necessary to maintain the social order.
Understanding the differences among these different political philosophies is important for two reasons: first, we cannot have productive discussions or draw appropriate historical analogies if we don’t have common understandings of the words we are using. Second, we cannot learn from history and the mistakes of the past if the terms we are using are unconnected to any substantive content.
When activists accuse an American President of being a Fascist or a Communist simply because they disagree with a position that President is taking, it trivializes the crimes committed by the Nazis and the Soviets and it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to engage in reasoned discussion about—or persuasive criticism of—whatever the President is doing that led to the charge.
On the other hand, when we fail to see very real analogies between American political actors and the fascists who ushered in very dark historical eras, we run the risk of falling into a similar abyss. I believe it was Santayana who said “Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it.”
As I said in my opening remarks, we live in a pivotal time. We can choose to educate ourselves and choose to embrace the philosophy of America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. We can continue to fine-tune our mixed economy in response to the evolution of new technologies, or we can do what so many seem to do: forego fact-checking and education, and just find sites on the Internet that confirm our existing biases.
That’s the thing about liberty and democracy. We have a choice. I’m not usually a praying person, but I’m praying that Americans choose the Constitution and democracy when they go to the polls next month.
