Tag Archives: Trump

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

Call It What It Is

Yesterday, I posted about the importance of using accurate language, arguing that the media’s penchant for failing to distinguish between far-right ideologues and genuine conservatives blurs reality and distorts public understanding of where America finds itself.

Today, I want to address another issue of labelling: the common complaint that calling MAGA folks fascist or fascist-adjacent is an unfair aspect of the name-calling that Trump has made a prominent feature of our politics–that use of that label is no different from the claims of those so-called “conservatives” that advocates for national health care are all communists.

Yesterday, I compared the actions and rhetoric of Trump and MAGA to the definition of conservative, and found an obvious mismatch. Today, I want to compare them to the definition of fascist, in order to determine whether that label really is an example of uncivil exaggeration and misdirection, or whether it’s an accurate description of what we are seeing.

I’m not the first to engage in that comparison; The Bulwark recently provided an excellent overview of the similarities that justify the label. (Interestingly, The Bulwark is published by “never Trump” conservatives–actual conservatives who know the difference between conservative philosophy and far-Right radicalism.) The essay began by quoting John F. Kelly, a now-retired Marine Corps general who, for a year and a half during Trump’s first term, was the White House chief of staff.

Shortly before the 2024 election, in a New York Times interview, Kelly was asked whether he thought Trump was a fascist. Kelly began his response by reading a definition of fascism.

Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy.

Kelly then ticked off the ways in which Trump met that definition, concluding that he “certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure. . . . He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government.”

It’s one thing to recognize that Trump himself is a fascist–that’s hard to deny, especially given his ramped-up megalomania since returning to the Oval Office. But what about his base? What about the MAGA movement? The Bulwark article cited a 1995 observation by Italian novelist and critic Umberto Eco, who defined the fascism he saw emerging as “a fuzzy totalitarianism” that he dubbed Ur-fascism. Eco proceeded to outline a list of its characteristics:

The most prominent feature of Ur-fascism, according to Eco, is the cult of tradition and the rejection of the modern world. In the irrational worldview of the Ur-fascist, disagreement is treason. Other prominent features of fascism that Eco detailed included the following:

“Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders.”
“Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.”
“At the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
“The Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo. . . . Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”

The Bulwark article ended with a plea to MAGA folks to recognize these similarities and leave the movement. I’m afraid that such a plea is hopelessly naive. Hard-core MAGA folks are all-in on their ahistorical devotion to “tradition” and their hatred of those “Others” who populate modern societies. They have perfected the informational bubble they inhabit, and far from being appalled by the inhumanity of ICE raids or the anti-Americanism of Trump’s Executive Orders or the damage being done to America’s global stature, they applaud Trump’s increasingly autocratic (and arguably insane) behaviors.

Calling this administration and its supporters fascists is neither an exaggeration nor an inappropriate epithet. It is a word–a label– that accurately describes both Trump and a significant percentage of his MAGA supporters. The rest of us need to acknowledge that, and the fact that most of those supporters are irretrievably lost to the American Idea.

It is up to the rest of us–to the majority of sane Americans– to reject the fascist project and save the Republic. The situation really is that dire.

Comments

Feeling No Shame

I keep thinking about the question that led to the downfall of McCarthy and McCarthyism–at long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?

I doubt that Donald Trump could spell decency, much less define it, but I think there’s another, related question we might pose–although we know the answer: at long last, sir, have you no sense of shame?

I recently looked into the concept of shame and its social utility. It turns out that the ability to feel shame is an essential element of what psychologists and psychiatrists call “pro-social behavior.” It prevents people from damaging their social relationships and reputations, and it warns one of social ostracism or disapproval. Feelings of shame motivate individuals to conform to group norms and expectations, and that helps members of a society function cooperatively.

Although shame can also be toxic, in its healthy form it serves as a natural mechanism for self-control and social regulation, and promotes a shared sense of values and expectations for behavior.  

As we learn daily, Donald Trump and his cast of incompetent clowns and sycophants are incapable of feeling shame or even of experiencing its dimmer cousin, embarrassment. In the wake of one of the most recent exhibitions of Trump’s detachment from reality, Lincoln Square ran an article bemoaning the fact that Trump isn’t simply embarrassing himself, he’s embarrassing America.

The author of that article, Kristoffer Ealy, wrote,

Every time I see a headline or a YouTube video that says, “Trump embarrasses himself by…” it irks me a little. Not because Trump doesn’t make a fool of himself — he always does — but because is it even possible for him to get embarrassed? Embarrassment requires self-awareness. It requires an understanding of social standards, the recognition that you’ve fallen short of them, and the capacity to cringe at yourself.

Trump doesn’t express any of these traits. He barrels through life like a man who believes the world is his open mic, and the crowd is obligated to applaud no matter how stale the jokes are. Embarrassment implies an internal governor that makes you stop and think, “Oh, maybe I shouldn’t have said that.” Trump is missing that chip. He is an indictment on the United States of America, and not just as a president but as a mirror of the worst parts of us — anti-intellectualism, cruelty as entertainment, and the delusion that bluster equals brilliance.

Ealy wasn’t even writing about the latest embarrassment–Trump’s rambling and incredibly inappropriate speech to an assembly of American military leaders. He was reacting to the equally senile and unselfaware word-salad delivered to representatives at the United Nations, which he characterized as “bad improv with nuclear weapons.”

The first gem was his declaration that other nations are going to hell. That’s not analysis; that’s Shao Kahn from Mortal Kombat mixed with Jimmy Swaggart. If the goal was to sound like a dictator moonlighting as a televangelist, mission accomplished. He said it with the same flourish that Swaggart used to beg for donations, except instead of promising salvation he was predicting damnation. Imagine sitting in that room as a world leader and hearing the U.S. president channel both an arcade boss fight and a disgraced preacher. That’s not foreign policy—it’s fan fiction written by a crank.

Then came his insistence that climate change is a hoax. This is where roasting almost feels too easy, because it’s not just dumb — it’s dangerous. Trump is proof of how far the Republican Party has fallen. I would never call George W. Bush a champion for climate action, but even Bush had the baseline sense to acknowledge that climate change exists. 

That embarrassing performance has been eclipsed by the more recent–and more shameful–display to America’s military leadership. (The overall reaction to both Trump and Hegseth was summed up in an Atlantic headline: “Hundreds of Generals Try to Keep a Straight Face.”)

Trump’s obvious inability to understand when he is making a fool of himself, his utter imperviousness to feelings of shame or embarrassment, are indicators–according to the psychiatric literature–of psychological conditions like narcissism and psychopathy. An inability to feel shame also accompanies a lack of empathy and a lack of self-awareness.

That lack of self-awareness must also be a characteristic of Trump voters, who evidently view his ongoing clown show and decline with equanimity, and seem perfectly okay with his demonstrable inability to govern, not to mention his destruction of America’s global status…

They’re shameful.

Comments

Data? What Data?

It’s bad enough that a substantial percentage of our fellow Americans reject probative evidence that is inconsistent with their preferred realities. What is arguably worse is the administration’s effort to erase such evidence–its conduct of a war on data that might undercut Trump’s fantasy realities.

The New Republic recently focused on that war.

Trump has always made things up. Remember that he entered politics promoting the hoax that Obama wasn’t born in the United States. But what’s new about Trump’s second presidency is that not only have his lies escalated in dimension and scope, becoming increasingly brazen and weird—London is under sharia law!—but he’s also waging a concerted all-out war on facts that contradict his narrative, which is to say, all reliable sources of data.

As the article notes–and as most academics know–for many years, the government has been one of the best sources of data available; not only has it been an important source of probative, vetted information, it has made that information easily accessible to journalists and citizenry alike.  That informational history is under attack by Trump, who–as the article notes– doesn’t want any facts to get in the way of his made-up stories.

To declare that Trump has been right and the scientists have been wrong about climate change is so counterfactual that it requires a massive suppression of available data. Good thing Trump has thought of that. Through a combination of layoffs and weird directives, his administration has dramatically reduced its ability to collect data on industrial pollution that causes climate change, extreme weather caused by climate change, greenhouse gases contributing to climate change—really any facts related to the climate crisis. To take just one example, an effort launched by the Biden administration to collect emissions data was canceled by Trump on his first day in office. The same could be said about his Tylenol claims; lucky for him he has made significant cuts to autism research.

What about the autism claims unsupported by any credible medical research? Or the wild and dangerous claims from Trump and RFK Jr. about vaccines? As the article points out, those vaccine claims will be insufficiently challenged since he has cut vaccine research by more than half a billion dollars.

It goes on. And on.

Trump’s commitment to falsehood—and to eradicating facts at their roots—is not limited to science and public health. This summer he claimed that his policies were leading America into “another golden age” and that economic growth under his presidency “shatters expectations.” The data said otherwise: Whether you’re talking about job growth, inflation, or just about any other measure, the numbers did not chart in a direction favorable to the president. Here again, Trump is not willing to tolerate the facts: When the Bureau of Labor Statistics last month reported numbers that contradicted his sunny narrative, he fired the head of the agency.

Trump constantly says bizarre and unsupportedd things about crime–at least, in cities run by Democrats. He claims violence is surging although it’s  decreasing, actually, in some places, at historic rates,  He constantly blames immigrants, although relatively little crime is committed by immigrants, and he and MAGA are now trying to blame mass murders on transgender Americans, despite the fact that only 0.1 percent of mass shootings are committed by transgender people—and very few murders of any kind.

Are these and multiple other assertions inconsistent with the data? Well, there’s an easy “fix” to that–stop gathering and reporting the data.

Trump’s Agriculture Department cut its annual food insecurity survey, so Americans won’t know how many people are going hungry as a result of Trump’s cuts to food stamps and his inflationary tariffs.

We also won’t know how children are doing in school after his massive cuts to K-12 education, since the administration gutted the Department of Education’s research offices and the National Center for Education Statistics.

States, universities, and other nonprofits are trying to make up for the loss of the data, but in many cases the information provided by the federal government was irreplaceable.

When every day brings a new assault on our constitution and the rule of law, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that data, research, and facts are dangers to authoritarian regimes. Trump doesn’t know much, but he does understand that “data provides the basis for arguments, and he does not want any arguments. He also understands that facts and knowledge can only be nourished and sustained by institutions and experts, so he is destroying those institutions and pink-slipping those experts.”

If and when we rid ourselves of Trump and the MAGA plague, rebuilding and restoration will take many years…..

Comments