Tag Archives: Trump

A Visual Representation

A recent newsletter focusing on a conversation between Charlie Sykes and Adam Kinzinger opened with a list of Trump’s  offenses against the rule of law (and arguably, sanity…) during just one week.

Posted a video of “King Trump” dumping feces on fellow Americans.
Announced that he is completely demolishing the East Wing of the White House to make room for his sh*tty ballroom.
Demanded that the DOJ cough up $230 million in taxpayer dollars to salve his wounded ego.
Murdered two more people on the high seas, without providing either due process or actually any evidence at all.
Presided over the explosion of the national debt to $38 trillion.
Screwed over America’s farmers as he bailed out his buddies in Argentina.
Commuted the sentence of chronic fraudster, fabulist, and MAGA lickspittle George Santos; even as we learn that one of the J6 rioters pardoned by Trump was arrested for plotting the murder of a top congressional Democrat.
Failed to end the killing in Gaza or the war in Ukraine. Failed to reopen his own government.
Declared that he — Donald J. Trump — is greater than either George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.

And that was just one week! 

Each of these offenses warrants an in-depth discussion. Some of them are additional evidence–as if additional evidence were needed–of his accelerating mental decline; others demonstrate his utter lack of qualifications for any public office, let alone the highest office in the land. But I want to focus in on what might seem like the least consequential of these assaults on decency and respect for the rule of law–the demolition of the East Wing of the People’s house.

That demolition is a metaphor for the entire Trump Presidency–not only because it is vivid, but because it demonstrates Trump’s inability to understand the office he holds.

In a very real sense, Presidents are tenants–entitled to reside in the White House during their terms of office. We the People are the landlords. Our tenants can make alterations if they are properly approved by the agencies entrusted with those decisions–a process that Trump has contemptuously ignored. 

Not only has Trump destroyed part of a historic structure that is not his, he is proposing to construct a gaudy and inappropriate “ballroom” that will extend over the site and dwarf the rest of the White House. And as Paul Krugman has explained, the fact that the proposed addition is gaudy and tasteless reinforces our understanding of Trump’s mentality.

Why, you might ask, at a moment of national crisis am I writing about Trump’s bad taste?

Masked government agents are snatching people off the street. The National Guard has been sent into major cities on the obviously false pretext that these cities are in chaos. The U.S. military is essentially murdering people on the high seas. Huge tariffs are, in addition to their economic costs, undermining a system of alliances former presidents spent generations building. Green energy is being eviscerated, vindictive prosecutions are the norm, and many millions are on course to lose their health insurance. So why do I want to talk about Trump’s appalling design sense?

But these aren’t separate issues, because tackiness and tyranny go hand in hand. Yes, Trump has terrible taste and probably would even if he didn’t have power and, thanks to that power, wealth. But the grotesqueness of his White House renovations is structural as well as personal. For the excess and ugliness serve a political purpose: to humiliate and intimidate. The tawdry grandiosity serves not only to glorify Trump’s fragile ego, but also to send the message that resistance is futile.

Trump’s tastelessness has long been the subject of derision. (The interior of his New York apartment–with its gold toilet, overscaled rooms, and inaccurate historical detailing has been widely mocked.) But as Krugman notes, the ballroom isn’t simply one more sign of Trump’s personal vulgarity. “Trump is turning the people’s house into a palace fit for a despot partly because that’s his taste, but also to show everyone that he can.” 

There’s an old adage to the effect that a picture is worth a thousand words. The photos of the East Wing’s destruction will test  the accuracy of that adage.

Citizens who are unaware of the administration’s assaults on democratic processes and the rule of law–people whose “information bubbles” don’t include the appalling behaviors of the incompetent clowns Trump has installed, or the video of Trump dumping shit on the American public– may nevertheless react to the visual evidence that this man is both mentally ill and exceptionally dangerous.

Not to mention vulgar and trashy.

Comments

There’s A Lesson Here

A recent Vox article focused on a question–perhaps the question–that consumes most sentient Americans these days, especially the seven million of us who turned out for the No Kings protest: can America recover, or have we lost representative government forever?

As the article began,

The president of the United States is deploying masked troops to the streets of blue cities, working to put friendly billionaires in charge of the media environment, and attempting to jail his personal enemies.

Can any democracy come back from this?

There is relevant research on that question, and the article cited two papers published earlier this year that seemingly came to opposite conclusions. In both, researchers examined what are called “democratic U-turns.” Those are situations in which  a country that begins as a democracy subsequently moves toward authoritarianism, but recovers in relatively short order. The first research team’s conclusions were optimistic. “They identified 102 U-turn cases since 1900 and found that, in 90 percent of them, the result was “restored or even improved levels of democracy.”

The second team, however, focused on 21 of the most recent cases and concluded that “nearly 90 percent” of alleged U-turns were “short-lived mirages.”

After contacting both teams of researchers, the author concluded that the seemingly opposed findings weren’t actually inconsistent —and that the implications for the United States are both hopeful and disturbing.

Both research teams used a “democracy score” that takes into account how free the press is, whether elections are free and fair, and other accepted markers of democratic societies. A U-turn is defined as the country’s democracy score rebounding after a recent decline — and the data suggests that such U-turns are very common, that over half of all countries that have experienced a slide toward autocracy have also experienced a U-turn. And the research found that those U-turns have typically been very successful.

Good news, right? But as we know from differences in poll results, results will vary depending upon who you ask and how you frame the question.

The second group of researchers focused their analysis on twenty-one cases of democratic U-turns that occurred post-1994.  The authors then looked to see how many of those countries maintained their higher, post U-turn democracy scores. Their analysis extended to the years following those that the first team analyzed–looking to see whether the gains of a country’s U-turn were sustained. The findings on that score give us little cause for optimism; “out of the 21 cases, 19 countries experienced another decline in their democracy score within five years of the seemingly successful U-turn.”

Both teams of researchers emphasized that their findings were not in tension. For one thing, modern autocratization differs from the historical pattern. “Before the 1990s, democracies tended to be toppled by coups or revolutions — unmistakable uses of force that ended the current regime and replaced it with naked authoritarian rule.”

Nowadays, thanks in large part to democracy’s increasingly dominant ideological position around the world, the threat tends to come in a more subtle and hidden form — what scholars call “democratic backsliding.” In these cases, a legitimately elected government changes the laws and rules of the political system to give itself increasingly unfair advantages in future elections. The ultimate aim is often to create a “competitive authoritarian” regime, where elections are not formally rigged but take place under such unfair conditions that they can’t truly be considered democratic. That’s what Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party did in Hungary, and what PiS tried to do in Poland.

And–rather obviously–what Trump is trying to do in the U.S.

As the article notes, because elected authoritarians were elected, they often represent a real constituency–one that is often large enough to make it impossible for their opponents to defeat them permanently and democratically illegitimate for those opponents to outlaw them entirely. Just because you have a democracy doesn’t mean you have a stable democracy. As the article concludes:

Even if America experiences a U-turn upon Trump’s departure, the country may not be out of the woods. The forces that made Trump possible in the first place will still remain, open to exploitation by any political leader with the requisite savvy and shamelessness.

“There is a reason why Trump came to power, and there is a reason why he won those elections… If you don’t solve the underlying reasons, then of course democracy will still be at risk.”

I am increasingly convinced that the U.S. will oust Trump and his band of wildly incompetent White Christian Nationalists–that we will experience a U-turn. I am far less sanguine about our ability to address those “underlying reasons.”

Comments

Forget Dog Whistles

In the ten-plus months of this horrific excuse for a federal administration, the racism that powers the MAGA movement has become impossible to ignore or minimize. Trump and his sycophants aren’t even trying to mask their hatreds–they have withdrawn funding from universities and other organizations that engage in even the most modest efforts to level the playing field for minorities; waged war against (their version of) DEI; fired competent Black officials and replaced them with manifestly unqualified White ones; sent masked goons into Blue cities to kidnap Brown people…the list goes on.

Now, several media outlets report that the FBI has officially abandoned what has for years been its top domestic terrorism concern: White nationalism. The agency has cut its ties with two major civil rights watchdogs, yielding to pressure from MAGA influencers and Donald Trump’s FBI Director Kash Patel.

The FBI has abruptly ended long-standing partnerships with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), organizations that for years have provided the agency with significant assistance in tracking hate groups. Not only has the FBI ended its relationship with those organizations, figures in the administration have libeled them. Kash Patel called the SPLC a “partisan smear machine,” and Elon Musk labeled it an “evil” source of “hate propaganda.”

The animus aimed at SPLC was evidently prompted by that organization’s Hate Map, which identifies White Nationalist, anti-government, and other extremist groups, and which includes Turning Point USA as one of  those anti-democratic, hard-right groups.

The FBI also ended its partnership with the ADL, which for years has trained agents to recognize antisemitism and hate crimes. (Patel mocked former FBI Director James Comey for praising the ADL, sneering: “That era is OVER.”) As one media source reported (link unavailable),

In 2017, then–FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress the agency had about 1,000 open domestic terrorism investigations, many linked to white nationalism. A 2021 GAO report backed that up: domestic terrorism cases surged 357% since 2013, with white supremacists responsible for the majority of deadly attacks.

But under Trump and Patel, the FBI is turning its back on civil rights, and walking away from groups that helped prevent homegrown hate.

It isn’t just the FBI. And it goes further than an administration that is “turning its back on civil rights.” This is an administration that absolutely revels in parading its bigotries. Actually, we shouldn’t be surprised by the degree to which its hatreds are being openly expressed–as the Brookings Institution, among others, has documented, racism has always been Trump’s not-so-secret sauce. In 2019, the Institution reported (emphases mine),

Donald Trump’s support in the 2016 campaign was clearly driven by racism, sexism, and xenophobia. While some observers have explained Trump’s success as a result of economic anxiety, the data demonstrate that anti-immigrant sentiment, racism, and sexism are much more strongly related to support for Trump. Trump’s much-discussed vote advantage with non-college-educated whites is misleading; when accounting for racism and sexism, the education gap among whites in the 2016 election returns to the typical levels of previous elections since 2000. Trump did not do especially well with non-college-educated whites, compared to other Republicans. He did especially well with white people who express sexist views about women and who deny racism exists.

Even more alarmingly, there is a clear correlation between Trump campaign events and incidents of prejudiced violence. FBI data show that since Trump’s election there has been an anomalous spike in hate crimes concentrated in counties where Trump won by larger margins. It was the second-largest uptick in hate crimes in the 25 years for which data are available, second only to the spike after September 11, 2001. Though hate crimes are typically most frequent in the summer, in 2016 they peaked in the fourth quarter (October-December). This new, higher rate of hate crimes continued throughout 2017.

What is so depressing is the “in your face” evidence that Americans haven’t come very far since the Civil War, that a significant percentage of White Americans continue to hate and fear people who are different. White Christian Nationalism is, in a number of ways, a continuation of the worst of the Confederacy, and it is still as fundamentally unAmerican as it was then.

Trump and MAGA are tearing down more than the East Wing of the White House. That destruction is symbolic of the arrogance with which they are trying to destroy the very fabric of a nation trying to live up to the principle that all people are created equal. 

Comments

What Can Be Repaired? What Can’t?

Just a quick note before today’s post: my husband and I attended the No Kings protest in Indianapolis, and were blown away by the size, composition and positivity of the crowd. (I think my 93-year-old hubby may have been the oldest attendee, but there were lots of older folks–as well as younger and middle-aged ones.) The thousands of attendees were upbeat, entirely peaceful, and the numerous signs they carried weren’t just clever–they were patriotic in the best sense of the word.

_______________________________

When I try to find cause for optimism, I tell myself that–while the incredible destruction being wreaked by Trump and his merry band of morons, misfits and clowns is horrific–a lot of government systems had become calcified and overly bureaucratic, and that once this despicable crew has left, we can (to use Joe Biden’s term) “build back better.”

Unfortunately, reality then kicks in.

A while back, Thomas Edsall addressed that reality in a New York Times op-ed. The title was “What Can’t Trump Wreck?” and the column distinguished between the kind of damage that can be redressed relatively quickly and the damage that can’t.

Edsall began by reminding readers that Trump’s inhumane cuts to USAID are predicted to result in more than 14.05 million all-age deaths by 2030– a number that includes the death of 4.54 million children younger than age 5 years. Rather obviously,  lives lost remain lost.

We can count the dead. We can assess–at least approximately– the damage done by ICE’s thuggish behaviors– the human costs of its indiscriminate kidnapping, the social costs of its undermining of the rule of law, and the economic losses to farmers deprived of workers to pick their crops.

What we can’t quantify are the immense consequences that flow from a lack of institutional memory and expertise. Edsall quoted Sam Issacharoff, a law professor at N.Y.U., who wrote:

Government stretches the time frame for decision making. Long-term investments, collective needs like roads and defense, these are all matters that require long-term investment and expertise. Experience creates what the Swedish political scientist Bo Rothstein calls “knowledge realism,” the know-how created by experience and repeat efforts.

The dismissal of career experts, the dismantling of long-horizon science projects are examples of what cannot be recreated. What happens if tensions resurface between North and South Korea or between India and Pakistan? Who guides policy if the State and Defense Departments lose their experts? This is something where the next administration cannot simply reopen the spigot and recreate. Expertise is long to create and fast to destroy.

Ordinary citizens are likely to bear the brunt of the administration’s assaults on medical science and research, its destructive incursions into agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the withholding of  billions of federal dollars that had been awarded to medical researchers.

 “Federal funding for biomedical research is central to health care innovation,” David Cutler and Edward Glaeser, economists at Harvard, wrote in “Cutting the N.I.H. — The $8 Trillion Health Care Catastrophe,” published in May in The Journal of the American Medical Association. “More than 99 percent of all new drugs approved from 2010 through 2019 had some antecedent research funded by the N.I.H.”

Another study documented the administration’s withholding of financing and undermining of government oversight in multiple areas, including long-term care, scientific research and vaccination policy. The administration’s budget proposals and “Big Beautiful Bill” include severe reductions in health care access, including the outright termination of services for immigrants and gender minorities. Its mass layoffs of scientific and regulatory specialists will be difficult to reverse.

William Galston, a prominent social scientist, weighed in, writing that there has been “irreparable damage” on both the home front and in foreign relations. He cited the “destruction of America’s reputation as the best place in the world for the most promising scientists and innovators of various kinds to conduct research. The evisceration of funding for basic research will be hard to reverse without restoring some bipartisan agreement about the importance of knowledge and expertise. I’m not holding my breath.”

Galston argued that irreparable harm has been done to America’s relations with the rest of the world. Trump hasn’t simply upended the longstanding system of multilateral trade relations that this country created, but he has destroyed the “trust the United States built up over decades as the guarantor of European security, of support for democracy and human rights and provider of global public goods such as freedom of the seas.”

Edsall’s op-ed enumerates a number of areas where rebuilding will be difficult, if it can be done at all, very much including Trump’s assaults on the civil service–from the firing of thousands of workers (many of whom had irreplaceable expertise)  and turning thousands more into “at will” employees, to efforts to politicise the federal workforce in continued defiance of the Hatch Act.

A Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution called the Trump administration “the political-societal equivalent of a neutron bomb, and predicted that, even if Democrats take over, it will take far more than the next four years to rebuild it.

He isn’t wrong.

Comments

Losing The Rule Of Law

It isn’t just the loss of due process (yesterday’s lament).

The Bulwark recently published an essay comparing the rule of law to the rule of Trump which is displacing it. You will not be shocked by the article’s conclusion that the two are incompatible. Under the rule of law, for example, certain specified persons are empowered to use force on behalf of the state in specified circumstances against persons engaged in specified activities. The rule of law does authorize state violence, but only under the enumerated circumstances–and other laws restrain government officials from engaging in such activities.

Under the rule of Trump, inevitable conflicts between public safety officials and people with whom they engage become conflicts “between angels and demons.” In Trump’s mind (I use the word “mind” hesitantly), “military police are heroic patriots by virtue of being in his military police.” Criminals are people who anger or cross him, or object to Trump’s will. By definition, they are dangerous insurgents who must be rooted out.

In other words, criminals are whoever Trump says are criminals, including the invented rioters and murderers in his fanciful descriptions of the horrors of life in Blue cities–descriptions so at odds with reality that they confirm his mental derangement.

The New York Times recently interviewed  50 members of the Washington, D.C. legal establishment, men and women who had worked as high-level officials for every president since Ronald Reagan. The group was evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. All of them were appalled.

One former official who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations–including Trump’s first term–was quoted as saying “What’s happening is anathema to everything we’ve ever stood for in the Department of Justice.” There was a near consensus among the officials surveyed “that most of the guardrails inside and outside the Justice Department, which in the past counterbalanced executive power, have all but fallen away.”

The indictment of James Comey, the former F.B.I. director who was charged only after Trump fired the prosecutor who refused to do so and installed a pliant operative in his place, represents a misuse of power that several respondents said they had never expected to see in the United States.

The survey found a “collectively grim state of mind.”

All but one of the respondents rated Trump’s second term as a greater or much greater threat to the rule of law than his first term. They consistently characterized the president’s abuses of power — wielding the law to justify his wishes — as being far worse than they imagined before his re-election.

And every single one of the 50 respondents believe that Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, have used the Justice Department to go after the president’s political and personal enemies and provide favors to his allies.

At the end of his first term. Trump pressured the Justice department to investigate obviously “fact-free” claims. Bill Barr, who was attorney general at the time, had been a close ally of Trump, arguably subverting DOJ independence on Trump’s behalf in several matters. But when Trump pressured him to pursue allegations that Joe Biden had won the 2020 presidential election because of voter fraud, Barr wrote in his memoir that it was an ask too far, and he resigned rather than give in. Other top officials also threatened to resign rather than use the department in a dishonest effort to overturn the election.

Because of the lawyers in the room, the safeguards held. But if such a scenario were to play out in Trump’s second term, the same result is “unthinkable,” said Peter Keisler, who was an acting attorney general under President George W. Bush.“No one in the room now will say no,” said the Justice Department official from Trump’s first term. The lesson Trump drew from his first term, the former official continued, is that the lawyers who talked him out of “bad ideas” were the wrong kind of lawyers. “The president has set it up so that the people who are there are predisposed to be loyalists who will help him do what he wants.”

The dismantling of the rule of law began immediately after Trump assumed office the second time, with his shocking grant of pardons and commutations to the Jan. 6 rioters. It has continued with innumerable other examples, many of which were enumerated in the Times article.

It was significant that all 50 respondents faulted Congress for doing little or nothing to fulfill its role of restraining the president–and a majority also faulted the rogue Supreme Court. When checks and balances no longer check and balance, autocracy flourishes. 

RIP rule of law…..

Comments