Tag Archives: Trump

Who Do You Distrust?

In 2009, I wrote a book titled “Distrust, American Style.” The publisher’s blurb summed up its theme: “When people wake up every morning to a system that doesn’t respond to their efforts or accomodate their most basic needs, it should not be surprising that they don’t face the day with an abundance of trust.”

Declining trust has ominous implications for something that sociologists call social capital--the relationships among members of society that facilitate individual and/or collective action. The term refers to networks of human relationships that are characterized by reciprocity and trust. As one scholarly paper has put it, social capital is the lubricant that facilitates getting things done, that allows people to work together and benefit from social relationships. It is absolutely essential to the internal coherence of society– the “glue” that facilitates social and economic functioning.

It isn’t really necessary to understand the functioning and varieties of social capital to understand the importance of trust. Think about your daily activities: you drop your favorite sweater off at the cleaners, trusting that it will be returned–clean. You deposit your paycheck in your bank, trusting that the funds will be credited to your account and available to spend. You  pick up a prescription, trusting that the medication has been properly prepared and is safe. At the grocery, you trust that food you buy is safe to eat. You board a plane, trusting that it will not crash into another mid-air.

You get the picture. In the absence of trust, society and the economy cannot function. And an enormous amount of that trust is based upon effective and competent government regulation of banks, food processors and air traffic (among other things).

In my book, I examined the decline of social trust, and the theories being offered for that decline. Robert Putnam suggested that growing diversity had eroded interpersonal trust; my own research pointed to a different culprit: the prominent failures of religious,  business and governmental institutions. When I wrote the book, America was in the midst of widely-reported scandals: Enron and other major companies engaging in illegal activities, sports figures taking performance-enhancing drugs, the Catholic Church covering up priestly child molestation, and several others. We were just emerging from an Iraq war widely understood to have been waged on specious grounds.

My conclusion was that fish rot from the head–that when a citizenry is no longer able to trust its economic and governing and religious institutions–especially its governing institutions– that lack of trust threatens essential elements of social functioning.

In the years since, our entire environment has become rife with distrust. White Christian Nationalists suspect and reject most elements of modernity; we’re faced with the enormous gap between the rich and the rest (and evidence that not all the rich amassed those fortunes ethically or legally); we have a rogue judiciary, a castrated Congress, and most recently a federal coup by mentally-ill autocrats intent upon destroying the government agencies that have been most effective at earning citizens’ trust.

A recent Gallup Poll surveyed the trust landscape, to determine who we still trust–and who we don’t.

Three in four Americans consider nurses highly honest and ethical, making them the most trusted of 23 professions rated in Gallup’s annual measurement. Grade-school teachers rank second, with 61% viewing them highly, while military officers, pharmacists and medical doctors also earn high trust from majorities of Americans.

The least trusted professions, with more than half of U.S. adults saying their ethics are low or very low, are lobbyists, members of Congress and TV reporters.

Of the remaining occupations measured in the Dec. 2-18, 2024, poll, six (including police officers, clergy and judges) are viewed more positively than negatively by Americans, although with positive ratings not reaching the majority level. The other nine, notably including bankers, lawyers and business executives, are seen more negatively than positively, with  more than 50% rating their ethics low.

That poll was conducted before the takeover of our government by Trump and Musk, before the clearly illegal, unethical and untruthful activities that have–in Steve Bannon’s immortal words–“flooded the zone with shit.” Even before that assault, Gallup reported that there had been a serious long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in U.S. institutions. Trust in Judges, police and clergy has plummeted.

In that 2009 book, I wrote that the trustworthiness of business and nonprofit enterprises depends on the ability of government to play its essential role as “umpire,’ impartially applying and reliably enforcing the rules. When government is not trustworthy, when citizens cannot rely on the Food and Drug Administration, the FAA or the Social Security Administration, among others, trust and social capital decline.

We’re back to Hobbes’ state of nature.

Comments

A Functional Media?

Research strongly suggests that Americans are split between an informed electorate and those delicately referred to as “low information voters” (also known as “MAGA”). As I’ve pointed out repeatedly on this blog, our current information environment reinforces misinformation and disinformation, catering to those who simply want their prejudices confirmed. The Internet has proved to be a warm and fuzzy place for those whose “research” is confined to searches for confirmation of their pre-existing biases.

That reality allows Trump to engage in fact-free bloviating–also known as lies–secure in the knowledge that a multitude of propaganda sites will obediently echo them, no matter how ridiculous or easily and repeatedly debunked.

A recent essay from the Bulwark posits that today’s media falls into roughly three categories:

There’s the state media—Fox, Newsmax, the Federalist, HughHewitt.com—which have become pure propaganda outlets.

There’s the “neutral” media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, CNN—which believe that politics should be covered as a sport with reports about who’s up and who’s down. Extraordinary efforts are made by these institutions to present both sides of every question, even if it means presenting the case for illiberalism or platforming people who the media orgs know are lying to their audience.

Finally, there’s pro-democracy media—outlets which understand that America is experiencing an ongoing authoritarian attempt and that they must stand on the side of small-l liberalism.

The author believes that maintaining these categories is unsustainable-that the three spheres will soon “collapse into just two: Media organizations that oppose authoritarianism and media organizations that accept it.” He quoted an editorial from a technical publication–Techdirt— which recently made a surprising announcement:

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had a few people reach out about our coverage these days . . . [and about] how much we were leaning into covering “politics.”

When the very institutions that made American innovation possible are being systematically dismantled, it’s not a “political” story anymore. It’s a story about whether the environment that enabled all the other stories we cover will continue to exist. . . .

We’re going to keep covering this story because, frankly, it’s the only story that matters right now, and one that not everyone manages to see clearly. The political press may not understand what’s happening (or may be too afraid to say it out loud), but those of us who’ve spent decades studying how technology and power interact? We see it and we can’t look away.

So, here’s the bottom line: when WaPo’s opinion pages are being gutted and tech CEOs are seeking pre-approval from authoritarians, the line between “tech coverage” and “saving democracy” has basically disappeared. It’s all the same thing.

Digital illiterate that I am, I had never heard of Techdirt. But the quoted language confirms something that most political scientists know instinctively: at base, everything is politics. The people who refuse to follow the news of what government is doing, who claim that they “aren’t political,” are kidding themselves.

When the federal government stops funding cancer research, when Social Security checks fail to appear in a timely manner, when government operatives are erasing efforts to counter discrimination (or, as they currently are, reinstating discriminatory messages and behaviors)–when federal officials are telling states to handle their own fires and floods, and threatening your employees with deportation, when insane policies are threatening to tank the economy and erode your retirement–it is no longer possible to tell yourself that “politics” is irrelevant to your life.

The article suggests that tech outlets are among the first to speak out because “they have specialized knowledge—and because they don’t have relationships with people in politics to tend to.”  They are able to see clearly what is happening and willing to speak out against it.

We have seen the exact same thing with some specialized legal publications. Lawfare and JustSecurity.org were once destination sites for law nerds. Today they have become two of the most essential media organizations in America.

Why? Because since these people specialize in the law they know exactly how serious Trump’s attack on the rule of law is—and how dangerous it is.

Like Techdirt and Wired, serious people in the legal space are being radicalized—democracy pilled?—because they understand that this isn’t a game and that the liberal press does not have an obligation to present illiberalism as a point of view worthy of consideration.

The people in pro-democracy media understand that liberalism has a moral obligation to take its own side.

“Fair and Balanced” was never accurate, because “balance” by its very nature/definition cannot be accurate. And stenography–he said/she said–isn’t journalism.

Comments

When People Have No Idea what They’re Doing

Simon Rosenberg recently explained what even minimally-informed people know: mass deportation–if it occurs– will raise prices for Americans, disrupt businesses and slow growth. (Of course, growth is already tanking as a result of Trump’s on-and-off tariffs. When even the Wall Street Journal calls a GOP economic policy “stupid,” you can pretty much assume widespread agreement among people who can spell “economics.”) Rosenberg noted that even the threat of deportations is having its effect; victims of crime and witnesses aren’t showing up for court dates because they are afraid ICE will seize them. “That means cases can’t be prosecuted and that means criminals stay free to commit more crimes. Party of law and order my sweet Aunt Annie.”

Speaking of “law and order,” there are reports that the administration is considering a pardon for Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd on camera. Such a pardon would be further evidence of the GOP effort to return the U.S. to the days of Jim Crow.

Let’s be candid. The daily havoc being applauded by Trump supporters demonstrates the profound ignorance of the MAGA cult–as does their rejection of expertise as “elitist,” and their inability to recognize the all-too-obvious effects of Trump/Musk actions.

Research confirms that the polarization that characterizes our politics is largely between the informed and uninformed. (For confirmation, you can review the occasional comment from trolls on this blog.) 

The monumental ignorance shown by those cheering Trump and Vance’s thuggish behavior toward Ukraine is a perfect example. In a recent post to The Bulwark, Jonathan Last wrote.

Donald Trump and Republicans explain their worldview by calling it “America First.” That’s a lie.

American foreign policy has always put America first. That’s what nations do. It’s axiomatic. Why did the United States do Lend-Lease with Britain before we entered World War II and bankroll the Marshall Plan afterwards? Why did we airlift supplies into West Berlin? Why did we spend trillions of dollars on nuclear weapons that have never been used? Why do we police the global shipping lanes and ensure stability in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East?

It’s not because we’re nice.

It’s because these actions further our interests. They make America safer and wealthier. They check the rise of rival powers. They put America first.

I urge you to read Last’s entire essay–especially his explanation of “Pax America.”  As he writes, for 75 years after the Second World War, the U.S. was the dominant global power. No country, anywhere on earth, could act without considering our interests.

The relationships in NATO, and among the Five Eyes, and with America’s other really close allies—Japan, South Korea—aren’t merely military agreements. They’re kinships. They transcend peace and war; they’re diplomatic, political, cultural, and economic.

Again: This is leverage. It means that when we go to war, we bring a huge crew with us. Other countries are willing to expend resources, and even shed blood, to stay aligned with us. Even for a contentious war like Iraq, we got nearly 40 countries to participate in some way or another.

This makes things cheaper for us. The Soviet Union and China and Iran have to spend money to dominate and subjugate their clients. Our allies spend money on our behalf, pursuing our interests, because we have shaped them in our image.

As Last writes, no country has ever been more globally dominant–and that dominance has largely been a function of our wealth–our ability to spend money.

Here is the thing you must understand: America will win any contest determined by the ability to spend money.

Rightly understood, this is just another example of how America created rules to benefit ourselves: Of course the richest country in history would build a system in which it could exert influence on the global order by spending money: Because the ability to spend money is one of our key advantages.

And yet today’s “America First” class thinks that spending money in order to shape the world is some kind of weakness…

Why do we spend $10 billion a year fighting HIV/AIDS in foreign countries? I have to keep saying this: It’s not because we’re nice.

We spend that money in order to stabilize the global order. If AIDS runs wild in one country, that creates ripple effects. It destabilizes the local economy, risking political instability, which in turn risks regional instability. All of which poses some small danger to the established order which—QED—benefits America.

We spend that $10 billion to preserve the system that benefits us.

That’s what soft power is.

When people in charge are clueless about how the world works, the world no longer works for us. Thanks, MAGA….

Comments

Good-By To The Constitution

As some of you may have noticed, I’ve been providing “Constitutional Minutes” to Women4Change; for the past few weeks, I’ve been sending a brief description of a constitutional provision, and an explanation of how Trump is violating it, to the organization for posting on its webpage. It occurs to me that I should share a couple of those explanations here, in support of my assertion that we are in the midst of a grand-daddy of a Constitutional crisis.

Let’s look, for example, at Trump’s attack on birthright citizenship.

Section One of the 14th Amendment reads as follows: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Trump’s Executive Order, in pertinent part, reads: It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons:  (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.

The law is clear. A president cannot repeal part of the Constitution by executive order. Congress cannot repeal a Constitutional provision by passing a new law. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and subsequent ratification by three-quarters of the states.

Or let’s look at Elon Musk’s rampage through the federal government.

In our constitutional system, power comes from We the People. Only officials selected through constitutional methods may wield power in our name. Past Supreme Court cases have make it clear that individuals who serve in “continuing” positions and who exercise “significant authority” on behalf of the United States must be appointed consistent with Article II’s  Appointments Clause. That clause sets forth two methods to appoint “officers of the United States.” “Principal” officers must be nominated by the president and are subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

With respect to “inferior officers,” the Constitution allows Congress to give the appointment power to the president, to the head of a department, or to the courts. However, inferior officers must be subject to the supervision of someone other than the president. Those who report directly to the president are by definition principal officers.

The Appointments Clause subjects individuals wielding significant authority — principal officers —   to Senate confirmation. Elon Musk is clearly wielding significant power (as evidenced by growing references to him as a “co-President.”) His activities through DOGE—a “department” that does not exist—are wreaking constant havoc with the operations of critical government agencies, threatening everything from FEMA’s responses to South Carolina’s fires to the timely delivery of Social Security checks.

There are at least two pending lawsuits alleging that Musk’s power cannot be squared with the Appointments Clause—that to exercise the authority he is exercising, he must be appointed as provided by the Constitution. (One such case, in Maryland, was filed by current and former federal employees and contractors; another, in Washington, D.C., was brought by a number of states.) The judge in the Maryland case said that he was “highly suspicious” of the administration’s (phony) explanation for Musk’s role. The judge in the Washington case has found that  Musk has “rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the executive branch,” with no apparent “source of legal authority” and that his actions appear to describe “precisely the ‘executive abuses’ that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent.”

Over the past few weeks, I’ve identified several other obvious and egregious violations of America’s founding charter. There are numerous lawsuits pending, and growing public anger, but there is no guarantee that Trump will obey the courts, and thus far, no indications that Congressional Republicans will locate their spines.

Meanwhile, Trump and Musk are busy destroying the federal government’s ability to operate domestically, and betraying our allies abroad.

As the saying goes, we aren’t in Kansas anymore….

Comments

The Evidence Mounts

Remember The Manchurian Candidate? The story centers on a Korean War veteran who is part of a prominent political family. He’s brainwashed by communists after his Army platoon is captured, and when he returns home, he becomes an unwitting assassin in an international communist conspiracy. 

I’m beginning to see uncomfortable parallels with that fictional plot.

I’m loathe to give credence to the longstanding assertion that Trump is a knowing Russian asset–after all, it’s improbable that this pathetic bundle of ego and ignorance is a “knowing” anything. A recent article from the Kviv Independent does make that case, however, the author writing

Questions about U.S. President Donald Trump’s possibly shady relationship with Russia and the country’s security services have long swirled, even culminating in a special counsel investigation during his first term in office.

Though that investigation found evidence of “extensive criminal activity” by Trump, his associates, and some of his family members, it found no evidence that he was working for, or had ever been recruited by, Russia’s security services.

Yet despite this, the topic refuses to go away — most recently in a viral Facebook post from a former Kazakh security official that claimed Trump was recruited by the Soviet Union’s spy agency, the KGB, in 1987 and given the code name “Krasnov.”

Craig Unger, an American journalist and writer who has written two books on Trump’s connections to Russia’s security services and the Russian mafia stretching all the way back to the 1980s, says he is “absolutely certain” that the U.S. president is a Russian asset.

You can click through and read Unger’s arguments, but just as the central figure in the Manchurian Candidate was unaware of his brainwashing, I think it unlikely that Trump is consciously pursuing his pro-Russian, pro-Putin, anti-American rampage.

That, of course, doesn’t make his actions any less destructive. And it does raise a question about the operatives he is installing in various agencies of the federal government. Among the clowns, predators and preening incompetents, there are clearly some who are knowingly–and purposely– acting as Russian agents. Talking Points Memo recently reported on one of them.

Before Peter Marocco was selected to dismantle America’s entire foreign aid sector on behalf of President Donald Trump, he was an official with the State Department on a diplomatic mission.

During Trump’s first term, Marocco was a Trump appointee tasked with promoting stability in areas with armed conflict. In 2018, he made a two-week trip to the Balkans in what was advertised as an effort to counter extremism and strengthen inter-religious dialogue.

American diplomacy is carefully prescribed, identifying both the people officials should meet and those they should avoid.  On that 2018 visit to the Balkans, Marocco secretly met with officials, including Milorad Dodik, whom the American government had determined were off-limits: Bosnian Serb separatist leaders who had been working for years to undermine the American-backed peace deal and to promote a Christian Bosnian Serb state….

At the time, Dodik was under U.S. sanctions for actively obstructing American efforts to prevent more bloodshed. Dodik has since described himself as “pro-Russian, anti-Western and anti-American” in a meeting with Putin. Nevertheless, Trump has named Marocco to a senior post at the U.S. Agency for International Development, where he’s attempted to halt dozens of programs. Former colleagues describe his agenda as “overtly militaristic and Christian nationalist.” 

Trump has made Marocco the director for foreign assistance at the State Department, and deputy administrator of USAID —  the two agencies that previously rejected him. “And unlike last time, Marocco is now without strictures and answers to few in the executive branch besides Trump himself.”

Immediately after the inauguration last month, Marocco drafted the order shutting down all of USAID’s programs and freezing foreign aid. He’s led the efforts to place nearly all of the agency’s staff on administrative leave, though the courts have temporarily lifted many of those. Much of USAID’s work has not resumed, according to interviews with dozens of government employees and nongovernmental organizations, despite the State Department’s claim that waivers allow work involving “core lifesaving medicine, medical services, food, shelter and substance assistance” to continue.

The article has much more detail about Marocco’s past activities–all of which raise the question why he has been empowered to orchestrate the Trump administration’s foreign aid policy.

TPM also reports that Rubio and Marocco have now

completely ended nearly 10,000 aid programs — including those they had granted waivers just days earlier — saying the programs did not align with Trump’s agenda. The move consigns untold numbers of the world’s poorest children, refugees and other vulnerable people to death, according to several senior federal officials. Local authorities have already begun estimating a death toll in the hundreds of thousands.

It hardly matters whether Trump is a knowing Russian asset….

Comments