Tag Archives: GOP

Fascism Versus Market Capitalism

Thomas Edsall’s columns in the New York Times share a consistent pattern: Edsall poses a question or initiates an inquiry, then contacts several experts, posing the relevant questions, and sharing their responses. Most recently, he explored the mechanisms that have characterized the Trumpian replacement of market capitalism with a “bend the knee in order to earn government’s blessing” approach that–like so much of Trump’s administration–is reminiscent of bygone fascist regimes.

It has become common to label Trump’s administration fascist, but usually that accusation arises in the context of ICE thuggery, the attacks on minorities and the evisceration of constitutional rights–actions echoing the Fascist regimes that focused on whitewashed pasts, and claimed traditional class structures and gender roles were essential to the “social order.”

These comparisons are accurate but incomplete; fascism also–and importantly–engaged in a thoroughgoing and intentional subversion of market economics.

Fascism is sometimes called “national Socialism,” but its approach to the economy differs significantly from socialism. The most striking aspect of fascist systems, of course, is the elevation of the nation—a fervent nationalism is central to fascist philosophy. That nationalism accompanies a union between business and the state; although there is nominally private property, fascist governments control business decisions.

In one of his recent columns, Edsall explored the current echoes of that approach, and how dramatically it differs from former Republican agendas and beliefs. As he notes, Trump and his administration regularly apply a “financial and regulatory chokehold” on businesses, corporations and nonprofits that he believes are antagonistic to him, from electric cars and wind energy projects to service-providing nonprofits and television networks.

“The administration has terminated, to use one of Trump’s favorite words, wind energy projects and ended tax and other incentives for electric-powered vehicles, two industries he believes are the creation of Democratic policies.”

As Edsall notes, the Trump administration’s extensive intrusions into the private sector are in direct conflict with traditional Republican and conservative beliefs, which held that government interference with the free market should be limited. Trump, of course, is  neither conservative nor Republican–for that matter, he appears incapable of developing anything remotely like a coherent agenda, economic or otherwise. For him, government regulation is not ideologically an anathema; it is a tool to exercise power and control in his constant pursuit of self-aggrandizement.

Trump is often referred to as “transactional,” but a more accurate description of his corrupt dealings would be “quid pro quo.” Private sector businesses needing government approvals (or needing government authorities to ignore improper activities)  “bend the knee” in exchange for those desired outcomes. In effect, they have acquiesced to the government’s control of business decisions–the sort of control that characterized fascist regimes.

The administration’s growing chokehold on the private sector are also tools allowing Trump and MAGA to pursue their culture-war aspirations. According to an email to Edsall from a political historian at George Washington University,

The president’s use of the government’s power to approve corporate mergers, the fear — and the actuality — of lost research funding and government contracts have enabled Trump to shift the culture in his ideological direction. Social media companies have lifted bans on far-right hatemongers and made X and Facebook more hospitable to pro-MAGA content. Universities such as Columbia; law firms like Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom; and media institutions like ABC News have reached settlements with the Trump administration to stave off existential threats, including canceled licenses, loss of research funding and revoked security clearances.

CBS, once a key source of critical reporting on the Trump administration, has, for example, been taken over by Larry and David Ellison, Trump allies, who put Bari Weiss, the anti-woke publisher of The Free Press (and a former writer and editor for Times Opinion), in charge of the news division.

The takeover of information sources may be Trump’s most politically consequential victory. As Edsall reports, “key platforms and hubs in the social media complex — TikTok, Meta, X — have been taken over by Trump allies or have shifted right to accommodate Trump,” shielding low-information voters from vital information, and spreading bigotry and propaganda.

These incursions haven’t been limited to the private sector; as noted sociologist Kim Lane Scheppele wrote:

The entire nongovernment community (or — as we might say in tax parlance — the 501(c)(3) sector) has been threatened with a combination of loss of tax exemptions, cuts to federal funding and potential investigations.

Some statistics indicate that fully one-third of NGOS incorporated in the U.S. lost funding in the first half of 2025.

As a professor of public policy noted in his email, every part of Trump’s government is intent upon bringing private institutions to heel.

The old GOP is long gone.

Comments

Permit Me To Belabour The Point…

Yesterday’s post focused on a concern with a local government process–the people I cited weren’t opposed to the result, but  to the path chosen to reach that result. Their objection fell into a category that I’ve frequently addressed (okay, belaboured)–a category I call “ends and means.”
Political scientists point to one clear distinction between western constitutional systems and the various dictatorships and theocracies around the globe: the formers’ emphasis on process. We might characterize our Bill of Rights as a restatement of your mother’s admonition that how you do something is just as important as what you choose to do.
“The ends do not justify the means” is a fundamental American precept.
Ask any American if he or she believes we should deport dangerous criminals who are undocumented and the answer will probably be yes. Ask that same American if we should eviscerate the Constitution in the process—hiring masked thugs, arresting people based on their skin color, and jettisoning other basic due process guarantees—and those Americans become far less supportive.

This administration’s disregard for the rule of law and its multiple deviations from the constraints of the Constitution have been particularly shocking, because its contempt for the rules is so blatant, but a glance back through history yields other examples of  administrations pursuing arguably reasonable ends by questionable or improper means. (There is, for example, the relatively recent example of the Iraq war. As I noted at the time, reasonable people might have agreed that ridding the world of Sadaam Hussain was a positive, even if it turned out that he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Many of those same people, however, quite properly condemned the dishonest process through which the Bush administration led us into that war.)

As I have often noted, in governance, there are two basic questions: What and How. Ends and means. Our current political polarization is between the MAGA/Project 2025 ideologues who are focused solely on the “what,” and those of us who are intent upon protecting a Constitutional order prescribing “how.” That’s a critical difference.

Some twenty-plus years ago, Rick Perlstein made a point about the political parties that has only gotten more apt.

We Americans love to cite the “political spectrum” as the best way to classify ideologies. The metaphor is incorrect: it implies symmetry. But left and right today are not opposites. They are different species. It has to do with core principles. To put it abstractly, the right always has in mind a prescriptive vision of its ideal future world—a normative vision. Unlike the left (at least since Karl Marx neglected to include an actual description of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” within the 2,500 pages of Das Kapital), conservatives have always known what the world would look like after their revolution: hearth, home, church, a businessman’s republic. The dominant strain of the American left, on the other hand, certainly since the decline of the socialist left, fetishizes fairness, openness, and diversity. (Liberals have no problem with home, hearth, and church in themselves; they just see them as one viable life-style option among many.) If the stakes for liberals are fair procedures, the stakes for conservatives are last things: either humanity trends toward Grace, or it hurtles toward Armageddon…

For liberals, generally speaking, honoring procedures—the means—is at the very core of being “principled,” of acting with legitimacy. Today’s conservatives, however, fight for desired outcomes—the ends, and they are very willing to do so at the expense of what they dismiss as “procedural niceties.”

For example, in a constitutional democracy, the franchise is first among the means. Democrats generally understand the electoral system to be one in which citizens demonstrate their preference for “ends”–for policies–at the ballot box; accordingly, they believe that the more extensive the turnout, the more legitimate the ensuing legislative mandate.

Republicans–focused on ends–disagree.

Red states like Indiana try to eliminate as many urban and minority voters from the rolls as possible–efforts that make all kinds of sense to people who believe they are on a mission to save civilization from an Armageddon where “those people” will replace the good White “Christian” men that their God wants in charge. Those Republican officeholders agree with Machiavelli, who said “We ought to see clearly that the end does justify the means…If the method I am using to accomplishes the goal I am aiming at, it is for that reason a good method.”

The problem is, when an end is achieved by an improper means, it is illegitimate. Even a good end achieved by an illegitimate means undermines the rule of law and threatens social peace.

That’s a lesson Trump is incapable of learning. I’ll belabor that point tomorrow when discussing Venezuela.

Comments

Why The GOP Is No Longer A Political Party

I have repeatedly insisted that the MAGA cult currently operating as the Republican Party isn’t just a far cry from the party of Lincoln, but an equally far cry from the once-respectable political party of my younger days. As regular readers of this blog know, I spent some 35 years in that earlier GOP–met my husband and made many lifelong friends while serving in a Republican administration, and won a Republican Congressional primary with an agenda that included support for reproductive choice and gay rights.

I still have that husband and those friends. None of them vote Republican these days. All of them are appalled by the racism and viciousness of what has replaced a once-respectable political agenda.

Recently, the Contrarian focused on the vast differences between the MAGA/Trump cult and the political party it has displaced. The article began by agreeing that today’s GOP is more properly seen as a cult than a political party, finding it composed of “Trump idolaters, followers, zealots, sycophants, or devotees” who lack not just a concrete policy agenda “but all other fundamental elements of a political party.” Today’s iteration is “an empty political shell based exclusively on fidelity to a decrepit, unhinged autocrat.”

A political party is properly defined as a group of persons “organized for the purpose of directing the policies of a government”. As the article asserts–and as any sentient American can see– the GOP members of Congress have shown zero interest in discharging their constitutional duties or entering into serious debates over policy.

What about a governing agenda? The article notes the complete absence of a consistent ideology.

“States rights”? Well, they rail against federal regulatory overreach, but they condone federal troops’ invasion of U.S. cities. Indiana’s right-wing governor has threatened his own Republican state lawmakers for not capitulating to Trump’s gerrymander demands, just as MAGA Texas Governor Greg Abbott leaned on his state legislators (at Trump’s behest) to pass a redistricting grab that Texas lawmakers disliked. And while the MAGA contingent nominally supports “law and order,” it cheers the pardon of Jan. 6 felons and the dismissal of those who prosecuted them. Invariably, policy inconsistencies (e.g., America First but start a war with Argentina, fiscal hawkishness but run up the debt) swallow any cogent dogma. The only consistency is subservience to Trump. (Recall that the “party” platform boiled down to “whatever Trump wants.”)

Likewise, unlike normal political parties, the MAGA crew has no minimum standards for membership. Racists, misogynists, xenophobes, conspiracy mongers, criminals, antisemites, insurrectionists, and adjudicated sexual assaulters are all welcome—indeed, they can rise to highest rungs of the party! The days when conservatives ejected the John Birch Society are long gone.

The article went on to describe the party of Lincoln, and the historic elements of the party platform–especially a provision in the platform of 1856 pledging to uphold the principles of the Constitution and the rights of the States–and contrasted that agenda with today’s Trumpers who have essentially signed on to “anything Trump wants,” irrespective of constitutional constraints.

Today, the formerly Grand Old Party has substituted White nationalism for the Declaration’s “all men are created equal.” It no longer respects the limits on executive power extolled in previous platforms. The party that decried “judicial activism” now celebrates a corrupt Supreme Court. The party of free markets has abandoned competition and genuine capitalism for corporatism and crony capitalism. And the party that once opposed Russian aggression cheers as Trump betrays our allies, commits war crimes and makes the world more dangerous.

I know that several of my more partisan readers will post comments to the effect that the GOP was always on the wrong side of liberty and equality. They’re wrong. As the linked article notes,

Let’s face it, the current crowd bears no resemblance to the party with a policy legacy that includes such achievements as the Emancipation Proclamation, the post-Civil War amendments, the Land Grant Colleges and Homestead Act, civil service reform, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the National Park system, the first food and drug safety act, the interstate highway system, the EPA, the peaceful integration of Germany at the end of the Cold War, and the Americans With Disabilities Act. Indeed, no doubt Trumpists would condemn all that as part of a “woke,” communist agenda.

We need to face the fact that America does not currently have two political parties. We have the Democrats and today’s iteration of the KKK.

Comments

My Mother Was Right

I was the product of a mixed marriage. My mother was a Republican and my father a Democrat–although they did hammer out their differences before most election days, in order to avoid, as my mother put it, “cancelling each other out.” 

My mother’s identification with the GOP was based almost entirely on her fiscal conservatism, and she frequently expressed concern about what was then the “crazy fringe” of the party, which she accurately saw as racist and anti-Semitic. She worried about what would happen if the fringe became more powerful, more a part of the party’s mainstream.

She was right to worry.

The party with which my mother and I once identified is long gone, subsumed into that angry and hate-filled fringe. And now, as the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost. Republicans who still retain the ability to understand that blatant bigotry isn’t a good look are reacting to the public anti-Semitism of some of the MAGA movement’s most prominent members.

As Charlie Sykes put it, the MAGA Right sowed dragon’s teeth for years, and is now horrified to discover they have grown an actual dragon.

Sykes was addressing what has been termed a MAGA “civil war” over the increasingly open and vicious right-wing antisemitism of the Trumpian Right. That warfare increased when Kevin Roberts, the current president of the Heritage Foundation, announced that the Foundation was standing by Tucker Carlson, who had just platformed neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes.

As some of us warned a decade ago, the problem of Donald Trump was not merely Trump himself, but the mouth-breathers he was bringing with him — the winking permissions he granted to the movement we once called the Alt-Right. For ten years, he’s brought them into the mainstream; applauded them, encouraged them, dined with and defended them. He shattered the guardrails; dismissed the gatekeepers; and opened the sluices of bigotry.

That reality is what frightened my mother so many years ago, and it’s what makes so much contemporary political debate irrelevant. That irrelevance is especially notable in the constant hand-wringing over whether the Democratic Party should be “centrist” or “progressive.” What that debate ignores is the nature of the center in today’s political world.

A perceptive essay from Lincoln Square honed in on that question.

Where, though, is the center between right-wing authoritarianism and freedom and democracy? As the “Republicans” careen ever farther off the pavement, across the right shoulder, through the guardrail, into the ditch off the right side of the road, the “center,” if that is taken to mean the midpoint, is pulled from the middle of the road ever farther to the extreme right. Should Democrats, then, seek to be in the center by offering “Fascism Lite” as an alternative to full-blown fascism?

The essay quoted Yeats’ famous poem, asserting that “the “rough beast” Yeats envisioned has already been born. “It could not be clearer that “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”  “Where is the center in such a time?”

Where is the center between the First Amendment and a government that seeks to control speech, assembly, and the media and is filled with Christian nationalists who want to establish a state church? Between the rule of law and a president who asserts, “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States”? Between protecting the right of all citizens to vote and seeking to repeal the Voting Rights Act and gerrymander to an absurd degree? Between consumer protection, environmental protection, scientific and medical research, and countless other government functions and maintaining the social safety net created in the 1930s, 1960s, and since and striving to “Take America Back” to the 1920s, the first Gilded Age in the late nineteenth century, or even farther? Between a president ordering the prosecution of anyone he does not like and equal application of the law? Between corruption on a previously unimaginable level and honest government? Between a fact-based examination of our history and making up a past to suit the ruler? Between government of the people, by the people, and for the people and government of the people, by an unchecked leader, and for the billionaires? 

As the essay concluded, the center is not always in the middle. The GOP fringe has been planning the current takeover since the 1970s. And as it has moved the party farther and farther to the right, the center— the midpoint between two ends — moved in the same direction.

Today, to be “progressive” is to be “woke” to that reality–and to refuse to move to that far-right midpoint.

Comments

Will We See A Dummymander?

I have a theory. Bear with me…

Trump is clearly concerned that Republicans will lose the House–and even, possibly, the Senate–in the 2026 midterm election. Because he’s Trump–aka stupid– and because he always opts to cheat rather than compete, he is pressuring Red state Republicans to engage in mid-cycle gerrymanders that he believes will add “safe” districts in those states and protect Congress from a Blue midterm victory.

My theory is that–rather than a traditional gerrymander–we may see what has been dubbed a “dummymander.”

Let’s look first at Texas, where state officials who bow to every Trumpian command have already completed their obedient mid-cycle redistricting. Several observers have pointed out that those revisions incorporate assumptions based upon data from the 2024 election–an election in which a larger number of  Latino voters than expected supported Trump. Current polling suggests that those voters have changed their minds–and that far from building on that incursion, Trump is now deeply underwater with Latinos in Texas. Republicans in that state are now worried that the new districts that mapmakers drew to be “safe”–based in large part upon data reflecting that unusual (and fleeting) Latino vote– are actually likely to make several existing districts competitive. 

Here in Indiana, the reluctance of several Republican lawmakers to engage in a mid-cycle gerrymander has been attributed to integrity (stop laughing!)– to the acknowledgement of those lawmakers that doing Trump’s bidding would constitute a wrongful and arguably unlawful “rigging” of the electoral system. Perhaps some of the members of Indiana’s pathetic super-majority do actually have consciences, but I think their reluctance is more likely based upon a recognition that Indiana’s extreme gerrymandering has already reached its demographic limit.

What do I mean by that?

After the last legitimate redistricting, I had coffee with a political science colleague who had examined the data the Republicans had used to draw their district lines. He noted that they hadn’t added any new safe districts, and attributed that decision to the fact that the populations of rural Indiana–the source of GOP dominance–have been thinning out. As a result, there simply weren’t enough reliable Republican voters to support creation of an extra “safe” district–doing so would endanger incumbents in the current districts.

The emptying out of rural Indiana has continued.

Furthermore, there’s another defect in the data our Republican overlords use to draw those district lines. As I’ve frequently noted in these posts, gerrymandering is first and foremost a voter suppression tool. The current, presumably “safe” districts are home to a number of Democrats, Independents and unhappy Republicans who simply haven’t been voting–they’ve been convinced that their votes wouldn’t make a difference, a conclusion supported by the lack of a Democratic candidate in many of those districts. (Disengagement from the democratic process isn’t unique to Indiana–the number of Americans who failed to vote in the last Presidential election was larger than the numbers who voted for either candidate–a shameful statistic.) A new gerrymander would begin with the use of data incorporating the absence of those disaffected voters from the polls.

But as investment advisers like to remind us, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

In this case, thanks to the Trump administration’s ongoing war against democracy and the Constitution, millions of Americans have become newly engaged. Indeed, evidence of that sizable public blowback is what has prompted Trump’s gerrymander push.  The millions of protesters insisting that America has “No Kings”–see you there tomorrow!– and the millions of Americans who participate in the growing number of weekly spontaneous protests aren’t likely to stay home next November. Assuming Democrats and Indiana’s newly active Independents give them a choice, a lot of those so-called “safe” districts won’t be safe.

My theory is that even the dimmer members of Indiana’s GOP super-majority have figured this out, and that their reluctance to do a mid-cycle redistricting isn’t just based upon the likely negative public reaction to such in-your-face cheating, although that does worry some of them.

It’s based upon a recognition that–as they say in those rural precincts–pigs get fed, but hogs get slaughtered.

 My theory (and yes, my hope) is that a mid-cycle redistricting, if it occurs, will turn out to be a dummymander.

Comments