Tag Archives: MAGA

Calling It What it Is

When Trump won a first term in 2016, virtually all pundits and traditional media outlets bent over backwards to give his voters the benefit of the doubt. They mostly attributed his support to economic anxiety, despite the fact that a significant majority of poorer Americans had voted for Hillary Clinton. 

Research in the wake of that election pointed to a very different motive for those votes: racism. Over the intervening years, it has become abundantly clear that what scholars delicately refer to as “racial resentment” is the glue holding MAGA together–and yet, the legacy media still seems reluctant  to call it what it is.

Non-“legacy” sources, however, increasingly point to the elephant in the room. (Pun intended.)

Heather Cox Richardson recently took on Trump’s efforts to cow museums into an alternate view of history, writing

When Trump says that our history focuses too much on how bad slavery was, he is not simply downplaying the realities of human enslavement: he is advocating a world in which Black people, people of color, poor people, and women should let elite white men lead, and be grateful for that paternalism. It is the same argument elite enslavers made before the Civil War to defend their destruction of the idea of democracy to create an oligarchy. When Trump urges Republicans to slash voting rights to stop socialism and keep him in power, he makes the same argument former Confederates made after the war to keep those who would use the government for the public good from voting.

Talking Points Memo has been equally blunt. In a recent Morning Memo titled “Trump Pushes White Nationalist Agenda Across Multiple Fronts,” Josh Marshall wrote that Trump’s anti-immigrant animus is

fundamentally a story about racism, xenophobia, and othering. It’s about preying on our fears, differences, and prejudices to create a villainous foe whom he can easily vanquish in repeated set-pieces. It’s about letting loose the worst of our impulses to heighten and sustain divisions among us.

The mass deportation agenda is just one part of a larger agenda in which white Americans are fronted as the real America and everyone else is second-class, unless they individually demonstrate in lavish ways a high enough degree of fealty to Donald Trump.

And at Lincoln Square, Stuart Stevens was even more direct, writing that Trump is a racist and that fact needs to be called out.

After decades of evidence — the dog whistles, the calls for innocent black men to be executed, the bizarre fixation on the Confederacy, his alliance with known Nazis and White Christian Nationalists — saying these things, that Donald Trump is a fascist, that he is a racist, should be the least controversial thing to say about him….

For seven months, he’s rounded up brown people for deportation, imprisonment, or total disappearance. He’s attempting to convince his base that slavery wasn’t so bad, after all. Some in his orbit are echoing this sentiment, going so far as to claim we shouldn’t actually blame white people for slavery.

He doesn’t like Black or brown people. Nearly every action is motivated by that dislike. Every breath he takes is flush with a fear and hatred of people who are not white.

What would you call that?

Ever since 2016, Americans of goodwill have tied ourselves in knots trying to understand why any sentient person would vote for Donald Trump–an ignorant buffoon with a limited intellect and unlimited self-regard. The answer to that question has always been obvious, despite a well-meaning desire that it not be so. 

James Carville was wrong. It isn’t “the economy, stupid.” It’s the racism, stupid! As my youngest son observed, way back in 2016, only two kinds of people voted for Donald Trump: those who shared his racism, and those for whom it wasn’t disqualifying.

The civil war really never ended. It just morphed.

Comments

A Fascinating Analysis

The other day, I came across a fascinating–and persuasive–analysis of MAGA’s fixation with the Confederacy and other “losing” episodes of American history. The author, Kristoffer Ealy, a political psychologist, did a deep dive into the pathology, and found what can only be considered one of the major wellsprings of the deep resentments that power the MAGA mindset.

What triggered his exploration was a media report about a southern Board of Education voting to restore the name of Robert E. Lee to the area high school.

As Ealy explained, he began his research with the conviction that there had to be a reason for people clinging so frantically to a symbol of defeat. Why, he asked, would people treat defeat like a comfort food? Clearly, this goes beyond mere “nostalgia.” As he concluded, it becomes “victimhood identity.”

Losing doesn’t just become part of the deal for MAGA — it is the deal. In psychology this is often called victimhood identity, where people begin to see themselves as perpetual victims of life, defining their entire self-image through the lens of being wronged. They come to expect mistreatment, distrust attempts to help, and use grievances as proof of their own righteousness. That’s why Trump can never just win cleanly — he has to make it a mythical landslide stolen by the “deep state,” because if he simply wins, the grievance-based identity collapses.

Layered into that is the contrarian mindset. You know the type — everyone has that one friend who has to disagree with everything, not because they’ve thought it through, but because their identity is wrapped up in opposition. My MAGA acquaintance is like that: if you ask him why he supports the movement, he can’t give a concrete answer. He’ll just start rattling off disconnected complaints—“woke indoctrination,” “globalists,” “cultural Marxism”—with no context, no follow-up, and no plan. It’s not about what he believes; it’s about making sure he’s on the opposite side of whatever you’re on. It’s conflict for conflict’s sake, and when you mix that reflexive opposition with a deeply ingrained victim identity, you get a worldview where losing isn’t a problem — it’s the whole point.

Another dimension of that victimhood identity is what Ealy calls “glorification of martyrdom” —a tendency to romanticize sacrifice and loss as inherently noble. As he points out, once you glorify a loss, the outcome–the fact that you lost– becomes irrelevant. So to the MAGA mindset, the Civil War wasn’t a bloody, pointless rebellion. It was a heroic last stand. As he writes, “The statues aren’t about historical literacy; they’re altars to a story in which defeat proves righteousness. If the statues come down, the tangible symbols of “our eternal struggle” come down with them — and that’s an existential threat to an identity built on keeping the wound open.”

Given this mindset, facts become irrelevant. Suffering becomes the whole point.

All of this sits on top of an external locus of control — the belief that everything bad happens because of someone else. Nothing is ever the result of their own bad choices or failed leadership. The Confederacy didn’t lose because it built its economy on slavery and overestimated its military; it lost because the North had more resources. Trump doesn’t lose elections because of his rhetoric or policies; he loses because of “cheating,” “the media,” or “corrupt officials.” It’s a worldview where the story always ends with “we were robbed,” never “we blew it.”

This analysis rings true to me. It certainly helps to explain the deep-seated animus toward those the movement labels “other”–non-Whites, women, gay folks. It’s their fault that good “Christian” White guys are losing social dominance. Those good guys are victims of society’s hated efforts at inclusion–efforts MAGA sees not as an attempt to level a tilted playing field, but as attempts to divest them of their rightful place in the social order. As Ealy notes, once you begin to look, you see this victim framework everywhere.

The article is lengthy, with enlightening examples. It explains a lot, and it’s well worth the time to read in its entirety.

Comments

An Inexorable Decline

It gets harder and harder to read (or listen to) the news. Every day, there’s a new outrage–a new front in Trump’s war on reality, a new offense to the Constitution and the rule of law. When federal troops are, in essence, being sent to invade cities with Black mayors, when museums and cultural centers are being stripped of historical facts offensive to the Mad King, when a once-storied and proudly independent Justice Department has been turned into the personal tool of a would-be dictator, when the National Institutes of Health reject sound science in favor of voodoo medicine, when the Presidency has become a mechanism for corruption and graft…When everywhere you turn, something horrific is happening, it begins to seem as if we are all living in a dystopian nightmare.

Given the “firehose” nature of the information we waken to daily, it’s easy to lose sight of some of the most important losses we are suffering, or the thread that connects the assaults. When you stand back, when you try to assess the overall motivation of this retrograde MAGA movement, you do see a pattern. There is, of course, the deep-seated racism that forms the basis of Trump’s appeal and that prompts the administration’s daily efforts to erase information about the contributions and tribulations of women, gay people and Blacks. But MAGA’s animus against social progress is even more deep-seated.

MAGA is an all-out assault on knowledge. “Owning the libs” is shorthand for “we’ll get rid of those smarty-pants elitists who think they’re superior because they know stuff.”

That deep-seated resentment against scholarship and knowledge–against things like evidence and fact and the scientific method–is what has motivated the war on America’s universities. And if that war is successful, America’s decline will be inexorable.

A recent article from Time Magazine was prophetic. It was written by an academic who is leaving an America that is no longer hospitable to intellect and sound research.

I was returning from Marseille, France after participating in a workshop in March that I co-organized at the Iméra research institute on climate change and religious conflict during the Little Ice Age. The topic is now effectively banned from federal funding after the Trump Administration stripped support for scientific research that mentions the word “climate,” amid a broader purge of “woke” keywords in the federal government….

For months, I have watched coordinated attacks on the National Endowment for the Humanities, Smithsonian Institution, Institute for Museum and Library Services, Fulbright Program, Woodrow Wilson Institute, U.S. Institute of Peace, Kennedy Center, USAID, Department of Education, National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other federal agencies that support academic research and education.

As the author notes, when politicians—rather than professionals— select the research to be funded, the entire pursuit of knowledge is corrupted.

So when Aix-Marseille Université (amU) decided to launch a “Safe Place for Science” program, I became one of the 298 researchers who applied. After all, I was already due to spend one year there as a visiting professor, and the initiative promises three years of research funding. The university has invested €15 million for the program and is lobbying the French government to match that amount, so it can double its planned hires to 39 people.

Europe has seen an opening and is taking advantage of it. The European Commission recently unveiled a €500 million program to make the continent a “safe haven” for researchers. France has committed another €100 million. And American scholars–including many of our very best– are applying in large numbers. As the author writes,

Packing up and relocating to France, or any other country, will be an adjustment. But it is clear that an era of U.S. brain drain is beginning, as researchers and scientists seek opportunities in places where academic freedom and research are still valued.

If MAGA’s war on knowledge continues–if it succeeds in ridding this country of those detested “elitists”– America’s decline will be irreversible.

Comments

When Data Can’t Be Trusted

In the wake of the last report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics–a report reflecting the effect of Trump’s insane approach to economic matters–the Mad King responded by firing the chief labor statistician, Erika McEntarfer, a highly respected expert.

Trump has now nominated one EJ Antoni to be the chief labor statistician for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

Robert Hubbell reports that Antoni would be leaving his job at the arch-conservative Heritage Foundation, “where he specialized in generating economic propaganda that had only a passing acquaintance with economic reality. In other words, he is a perfect candidate to create fake reports about the imaginary performance of the US economy.” As Hubbell notes, although it’s rare for members of a profession to criticize one another publicly, Antoni has been an exception; he’s drawn withering criticism from numerous respected members of the economic community. 

Should average Americans care who heads up the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Or for that matter, which government pooh-ba is put in charge of determining whether government should fund development of a vaccine against, say, bird flu? How much are our everyday lives affected by obscure government agencies that are charged with determining the outlines of our shared reality? 

That seemed like a good question to ask Chatgpt, so I did. The AI pinpointed a number of consequences, including misguided monetary policy, with the Fed raising or lowering interest rates inappropriately, risking recession or runaway inflation.
Also, in normal times, Congress and the White House rely on BLS data to design stimulus programs, tax changes or spending cuts. (These, of course, are not normal times. Bad numbers lead to bad decisions, and we can expect some terrifyingly bad decisions as a result of this latest attack on facts and real-world evidence.)

The AI also noted that it isn’t just government that relies on the data generated; private companies use BLS data to forecast demand for their products, to set wages and to make hiring and location decisions. 

There was a lot more, but the bottom line was that “inaccurate BLS data can ripple from policy boardrooms to factory floors, from Wall Street to Main Street, and from short-term market moves to long-term structural harm. Even though BLS regularly revises its data to correct errors, the damage from bad initial reports—especially in fast-moving markets or politics—can’t always be undone.” In other words, even good-faith efforts by competent analysts will sometimes generate inaccurate results, and those errors can damage the economy. How much more damage can fanciful numbers manufactured for political reasons do? (Don’t look now, but we’re about to find out…)

Trump’s assault on the Bureau of Labor Statistics is consistent with MAGA’s other frantic efforts to ignore and reject much of contemporary reality. Unfortunately for these angry, unhappy people, replacing accurate economic data with propaganda will not magically usher in a more robust economy, just as jettisoning sound science will not make Americans healthier, and rewriting American history will not return White “Christian” men to social dominance.

It will simply destroy the American experiment.

If I decide that gravity is just a “theory” and jump off a tall building, my rejection of that “theory” won’t save me. Fudging the numbers at the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t help Americans find jobs or afford groceries. No matter how desperately MAGA folks want to bend reality to their will, it just doesn’t work that way.
 
 
 

 

Comments

They Are Representative

A long time ago, when I was serving as Corporation Counsel in the Hudnut Administration, I had a conversation with an active Republican friend that I’ve long remembered. I don’t recall the issue, but at one point she offered an observation that has proved all too true: The problem with too many of our elected officials is that they are representative.

The clown car that is the Trump administration wouldn’t be possible but for the 40% of Americans who–polling tells us–approve of our would-be king and his demented court.

That figure absolutely terrifies me. How is it possible that some forty percent of our fellow citizens look at the daily disasters–the assault on reason, on education, on accurate history, on science–and disregard the effects of monumental ignorance and incompetence on their own daily lives? How do they look at nutjobs like RFK, Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard and so many others and say, yep, those are our guys?

I recently came across two unrelated articles that raised that question once again. TNR recently profiled a new official hired by the odious and entirely unfit Pete Hegseth.  It noted that Hegseth is taking his cues from even-nuttier precincts.

Far-right extremist Laura Loomer says that she is now working with the federal government to identify individuals within the Department of Defense who are leaking information to the press.

Speaking with CNN in an interview published Monday, Loomer claimed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had personally turned to her for help quieting down the noise coming from his department. The self-appointed “loyalty enforcer” has had enormous success influencing the Trump administration from the outside: An analysis by The Daily Beast found that at least 16 individuals were fired from the federal government after Loomer singled them out.

And who did he replace them with? According to the article, Hegseth trusts only his wife and a small inner circle. (America feels safer already…)

Talking Points Memo has highlighted another “qualified” appointment.

It’s almost hard to be shocked anymore by the characters Trump has tapped for top positions in federal agencies, but at Puck News, this Julia Ioffe profile of Lew Olowski, who is running human resources for the State Department, is a stunning cascade of bizarre revelations.

Once a member of the legal team for convicted Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadžić, Olowski had been a first-tour foreign service officer since 2017 when Marco Rubio summoned him to Washington from an overseas assignment in January. He alarmed department veterans by giving weird speeches about God, prayer, the Bible, and dolphins.

“He quickly made a name for himself at Foggy Bottom by marching into the office of the ombuds and telling everyone that they were being put on administrative leave, and that their office was being dissolved,” Ioffe writes. “The office’s employees later discovered that they had been transferred to the Office of Civil Rights, whose chief counsel was Heather Olowski, Lew’s wife, and the minister of a church that the couple runs.” From there, Olowski set about rooting out all supposed DEI “by changing the way the State Department recruits and promotes people, including by introducing the concept of ‘fidelity’ as an attribute that diplomats should be graded on.” Fidelity to Trump, that is.

These examples bring me back to my unanswerable question: how did we get to the point where forty percent of Americans are satisfied with the appointments of these ignorant and deranged individuals–perfectly happy to place the prospects of this country in the hands of people lacking any expertise or qualifications?

I’m pretty sure that most of them are Fox viewers blissfully unaware of the situation, but that simply raises a somewhat different question: what explains the gullibility and the chosen ignorance of so many of our fellow citizens? Is the obvious answer–the virulent racism– that widespread?

Forty percent…..

Comments