Tag Archives: MAGA

Another Year Is Gone…

It’s New Year’s Eve. Another year is over.

And what a year! Not only did America not make progress, we woke every day to the rantings and transgressions of a profoundly ignorant, senile, mentally-ill maniac who–to our everlasting national shame–occupies the Oval Office.

The good news is that the Resistance grew stronger throughout the year. Seven million genuine patriots turned out for No Kings Day, and smaller protests around the country have continued weekly. The lower federal courts have continued to block the unconstitutional efforts to turn America into a fascist state. Jimmy Kimmel is still on the air, thanks to the millions of Americans who expressed their displeasure by dropping their Disney subscriptions. Democrats over-performed dramatically in virtually every election held in 2025, from school boards to governors. Law firms that “bent the knee” lost partners and clients to those that refused to do so. Even Rightwing pollsters show Trump’s approval far, far underwater–and continuing to decline. And the MAGA movement’s bigots are fighting each other.

All of that is good.

If we can hang on, minimize the ongoing, daily damage being done by this inept, lawless administration (and avoid a “wag the dog” war with Venezuela) maybe we can make it to the midterms and a big Blue wave. As we enter 2026, I’ve got my fingers crossed, hoping for an even more robust resistance. (Not just my fingers; I bought a voodoo doll…)

In what I think is a good sign, the Chattering Classes are beginning to focus on the “after”–on the reforms that will be necessary when this period of insanity is over. I think it’s another good sign that the conversation isn’t about returning to an admittedly non-ideal status quo. After all, if America hadn’t had genuine problems with our governance, if we hadn’t closed our collective eyes to the glaring evidence of economic unfairness, if we hadn’t ignored the growing lack of civic literacy and engagement, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have been elected.

If we are very fortunate, and we emerge from the current nightmare having learned some valuable civics lessons, there will inevitably be arguments about what the necessary reforms should be. There is some uniformity on the structural side–guaranteeing the right to vote, overturning Citizens United, and getting rid of gerrymandering, the filibuster and the Electoral College, for starts.

And perhaps–just perhaps–we will have been sufficiently chastened by this current, profoundly embarrassing interregnum to admit to ourselves that America is far from “Number One” in social policy, and that we could learn a lot from those “high tax” countries whose citizens regularly rank as far happier than we are.

A resident of one of the Scandinavian countries was recently quoted pointing out something I’ve frequently noted: our fixation on “low taxes” ignores what he called the “real life” tax. As he said, when you add what we pay in taxes to what we pay for health insurance (and copays), college tuition and daycare (all of which are “free” in his country, in the sense that they are benefits paid for through their taxes), Americans not only end up paying considerably more than the citizens of those “high tax” countries, but our access to medical care, college and daycare is unequal. (When it comes to health care, our fragmented system also loses the substantial economies of scale–which is why we pay far more for far less than any other first-world country.)

Right now, of course, Americans aren’t debating policies, governmental or social. Right now, we’re just hoping to emerge from this cold civil war with enough of our constitutional infrastructure intact to make reform possible. So here’s my wish for the coming year: that the resistance continues to grow, that there is a huge Blue wave in November, and that an re-invigorated House and Senate discharge their constitutional duties of oversight and impeachment.

(Meanwhile, witch that I am, I’ll keep sticking pins in that voodoo doll…)

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

Rejecting “It Depends”

When I was teaching, I had a standard “introduction” lecture that I’ve referred to several times on this platform: I would tell my Law and Public Policy students that, yes, they would find me opinionated, but no, a difference of opinion would not affect their grades–that my goal was not to change their opinions or policy preferences, but to ensure that they left my class using two phrases more frequently than they had before: “it depends” and “it’s more complicated than that.”

In other words, I saw it as my job as a college professor to encourage increased recognition of complexity and ambiguity–to discourage knee-jerk ideology in favor of thoughtful exploration. In my opinion–then and now–education is the process of inquiry. The educated individual is aware of what s/he doesn’t know. Education–again, in my view–is vastly different from rote learning. Teaching is not a process of transmitting “givens” to receptive vessels–it consists of introducing students to the process of critical thinking and dispassionate analysis of what constitutes probative evidence and what doesn’t.

There isn’t a lot of critical thinking–at least, as I describe it– going on in America’s political life these days. I recently came across an essay in the New York Times that helped me understand the roots of the rigidity that permeates our national conversations. It was titled “The 77-Year-Old Book That Helps Explain the MAGA New Right.”

The essay focused on a 1948 book by one Richard Weaver, whose argument–according to the essay–laid the foundation, or basic contours, of the New Right’s closed approach. The book was titled, “Ideas Have Consequences,” an observation that has  become a popular catchphrase on the Right.

Dr. Weaver didn’t have just any old ideas in mind: The ideas he was concerned with were distinctively modern ideas, and the consequences of these ideas were devastating. They had caused nothing less than “the dissolution of the West.”

Weaver’s target was a philosophical concept called nominalism. Nominalism, which Weaver attributed to philosophers like Hobbes, Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers, rejects the existence of absolute truths — including transcendental moral truths. Nominalists rejected Plato’s notion of a universal objective moral reality.

Dr. Weaver insisted that nominalism was the source of all our woes. He wrote that, by challenging the idea of universal objective moral reality, “modern man had succumbed to individualism, relativism, materialism, historicism and politics as will to power.” Weaver–and today’s intellectuals of the Right–insist that, as a consequence, modern thought is inherently corrosive, and that we must restore a “transcendental moral orthodoxy” to our politics.

They seem quite sure that any “moral orthodoxy” will mirror their own “objective” conclusions…

As the essay points out, adopting Weaver’s approach would rather “obviously legitimate the repression of anyone who thinks about truth differently.” We can draw a straight line from Weaver to MAGA’s belief that “heritage Americans”–i.e. White Christians– who evidently are seen as having some sort of genetic access to those immutable “truths,” are the only people who can be “real Americans.”

As the author of the essay notes, there’s nothing wrong or anti-American about holding strong convictions grounded in tradition or religion. But–as she also reminds us– the American system was based upon the Enlightenment belief that “citizens are entitled to shape their own conceptions of the world.”

Genuine conservatives understand and respect the First Amendment’s commitment to the freedom of the individual conscience. They accept that religious freedom means living in a country where different people hold different beliefs, and that a commitment to free speech allows people to voice opinions contrary to their own.

MAGA folks are not conservative.

There’s general understanding that Trump and MAGA are authoritarian, but less recognition of how profoundly unAmerican that authoritarianism is.  MAGA folks approve of Trump’s approach to governing because it is consistent with what the essay calls a “closed philosophical mode” of “radical anti-modernism and moral and political absolutism.”  MAGA’s contempt for liberal democracy is rooted in its belief that they–and only they– are arbiters of Truth, and they see America’s constitutional commitment to pluralism and tolerance as threats to that Truth.

They are incapable of recognizing that discerning a truth (lower case) requires understanding that the world is complicated, and that what constitutes any given truth often depends upon recognizing and accounting for the multiple facts in which that “truth” is embedded.

MAGA folks firmly believe that they are in possession of immutable Truths; the only open question is how they are going to make the rest of us bend to their Truths.

Dialogue with such people is unlikely to be productive.

Comments

An Immoral Slum Of An Administration

I’ve posted several times about the misuse of political labels and the unfortunate effects of that language misuse. It is especially misleading to call MAGA and Trump “conservative.” They are the antithesis of genuine conservatism, and the ranks of the Never Trumpers are filled with pundits and political figures who are conservative, just not neo-Nazis.

If you need any confirmation of that assertion, read this recent column by George Will.

I almost never find myself in agreement with Will. I not only disagree with a majority of his policy prescriptions, I’m put off by the arrogance and pomposity of much of his writing. That said, when a Republican administration has lost George Will, they’ve lost any connection to intellectually respectable conservatism.

Will doesn’t pull any punches. His first sentence is: ” Secretary Pete Hegseth seems to be a war criminal. Without a war. An interesting achievement.” And he proceeds from there. After repeating the facts that have emerged, he writes that “the killing of the survivors by this moral slum of an administration should nauseate Americans. A nation incapable of shame is dangerous, not least to itself. As the recent “peace plan” for Ukraine demonstrated.”

Will then turns to the “peace” proposal that Trump demanded Ukraine accept, noting Rubio’s initial confession that the proposal had been delivered to an American official by Russia–and that he told members of the Senate that the proposal didn’t represent America’s peace plan. Mere hours later, he reversed himself, taking to social media to assert that the United States had “authored” the plan.

Two weeks ago, the chief of staff of the French army said: “We have the know-how, and we have the economic and demographic strength to dissuade the regime in Moscow. What we are lacking … is the spirit which accepts that we will have to suffer if we are to protect what we are. If our country wavers because it is not ready to lose its children … or to suffer economically because the priority has to be military production, then we are indeed at risk.”

Putin has surely savored the French recoil from these words. And he has noticed that, concerning Ukraine and the attacks on boats near Venezuela, the Trump administration cannot keep its stories straight. This probably is for reasons Sir Walter Scott understood: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave,/ when first we practise to deceive!” Americans are the deceived.

If there was any doubt of the accuracy of Will’s analysis, publication of the 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) should confirm it. As Heather Cox Richardson has written, it represents a dramatic retreat from the foreign policy goals the U.S. has embraced since World War II.

After a brief introduction touting what it claims are the administration’s great successes, the document begins by announcing the U.S. will back away from the global engagements that underpin the rules-based international order that the World War II Allies put in place after that war to prevent another world war. The authors of the document claim that the system of institutions like the United Nations, alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and free trade between nations that established a series of rules for foreign engagement and a web of shared interests around the globe has been bad for the U.S. because it undermined “the character of our nation.”

And the document makes it very clear what this administration believes is the true “character of our nation.”

Their vision of “our country’s inherent greatness and decency,” requires “the restoration and reinvigoration of American spiritual and cultural health,” “an America that cherishes its past glories and its heroes, and that looks forward to a new golden age,” and “growing numbers of strong, traditional families that raise healthy children.”

Observers referred to the document as National Security Council Report (NSC) 88 and noted that it could have been written in just 14 words. White supremacists use 88 to refer to Adolf Hitler and “fourteen words” to refer to a popular white supremacist slogan…

The document is a White supremacist manifesto. It rejects immigration, denounces “the disastrous ‘climate change’ and ‘Net Zero’ ideologies” that it claims have harmed Europe, threatened the United States, and operated to subsidize our adversaries. It further distances the U.S. from NATO.

The upshot is that the document “reorients the U.S. away from traditional European allies toward Russia.” It characterizes Europe’s current course as one leading to “civilizational erasure” and calls for reassertion of “Western identity,” (by which it clearly means White.)

It may be the most shameful document produced by this “Immoral slum” of an administration.

Comments

Bring Me A Pitchfork

A recent, lengthy screed from Lincoln Square argued that voters in 2024 had “signed up for the myth of the businessman president,” an assertion with which I take issue. I do, however, agree with the ensuing observation that what those voters got was the guy who “bankrupted casinos and decided the solution for a hurting country was to blow up the economy for a jacked-up economic theory from the 17th century, build a ballroom, and hide the books.”

I also agree that Trump’s economic incompetence is enraging voters, and that “None of the culture war crap, the performative yelping about the Deep State, the liberal media, or whatever else tickles MAGA Twitter’s happy place” will save Republicans in 2026, when they will encounter “the oldest rule in politics and business: eventually, the mark realizes he has been conned.”

And when that happens, it is not just the con man who pays the price. It is everyone foolish enough to stand next to him when the lights come up, and the check arrives.

Trump is too old to pay that bill…and doesn’t pay his bills in any case.

But the MAGA GOP sure as hell will. That sound they hear in the distance is a mob, hungry and furious, approaching their palace.

With pitchforks…

I am increasingly convinced that the author is correct about voters’ current fury, but I am equally confident that Trump’s narrow victory in 2024 was not founded on his economic promises. Political science research overwhelmingly points to a different–and very depressing–reason people voted for Trump: racism.

Adam Serwer addressed that racism in the Atlantic, in an article titled “Why Doesn’t Trump Pay a Political Price for His Racism?” The article was triggered by Trump’s publicized rant, during a Cabinet meeting, calling Somali immigrants “garbage” that we don’t want in our country. Serwer noted that no one in the Cabinet reacted negatively to this latest expression of gutter racism, and worse, that “Vice President J. D. Vance enthusiastically banged on the table.”

This expression of animus toward all Somali immigrants came in response to the shooting of two National Guard officers by a Somali, and a fraudulent episode involving some Somalis living in Minneapolis. Rather than decrying the criminal actions of those individuals, Trump reacted with his usual racist stereotyping.

Serwer points to the obvious: we don’t hold White Americans as a whole responsible for Trump’s dismantling of the federal  capacity to fight white-collar crime and corruption, for his “doling out of pardons for people who donate money or commit crimes on his behalf, or his scandalous profiteering.” Most Americans don’t look at Donald Trump or the collection of clowns and grifters with whom he’s surrounded himself and conclude that their behaviors are due to something inherent in White culture. We simply–accurately–see them as reprehensible individuals.

Watching Trump’s repeated attacks on Somalians—the latest group of Black immigrants to be targeted by the president—I can’t avoid the conclusion that the government of the United States of America is in the hands of people who believe that they can apply a genetic hierarchy to humanity, and that American laws and customs should recognize and serve that hierarchy…

The logic of this racism is relatively simple—the individual bears the guilt of the whole, and the whole bears the imprint of some alleged crime that deserves collective punishment. Blaming the egregious behavior of men such as Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on their German or Norwegian backgrounds would sound comical to the same people who treat the president vomiting out similar generalizations about Somalis as sound observation.

This reaction is consistent with Trump’s constant Hitler-like accusation that immigrants with “bad genes” are “poisoning the blood” of the nation. As Serwer concludes, the fact that he’s paid virtually no electoral price for his very overt racism says something shameful about today’s America.

The U.S. abolished immigration restrictions based on nationality in 1965, recognizing that such restrictions were inconsistent with who we purport to be as a country. Until that change, promising scientists from Asia would be rejected in favor of illiterate farmers from Germany, because immigration laws considered race, national origin and culture to be immutable traits inherent in the populations of entire countries. Accordingly, entire (usually non-White) nationalities were deemed unfit for American citizenship.

Trump wants these racist (and ridiculous) assumptions to once again govern U.S. immigration policy, and his MAGA voters enthusiastically agree.

I’m ready to buy my pitchfork and march on the castle. Metaphorically speaking, of course…

Comments