The turmoil and human suffering to come in 2025

The turmoil and human suffering to come in 2025
Bob Sheak December 3, 2025

The Presidential Election

Trump barely won the presidential election in November. Although he claims that his victory gave him a mandate to implement an extreme right-wing agenda, the numbers say otherwise. His margin of victory was the smallest of any presidential election since 1900. And we should bear in mind that Trump’s vote is unfairly buttressed by widespread right-wing gerrymanding in “red” states. James M. Lindsay cites the following “official” numbers in an article for the Council for Foreign Relations (https://cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers).

“Early election coverage described Trump’s victory as a landslide. But whether you go by the Electoral College vote or the popular vote, it was anything but. The 312 Electoral College votes that Trump won are just six more than Joe Biden won in 2020, twenty less than Barack Obama won in 2012, and fifty-three less than Obama won in 2008. Trump’s Electoral College performance pales in comparison to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s landslide victory in 1936 (523 electoral votes), Lyndon Johnson’s in 1964 (486), Richard Nixon’s in 1972 (520), or Ronald Reagan’s in 1984 (525). In terms of the popular vote, more people voted for someone not named Trump for president than voted for Trump in 2024, and his margin of victory over Harris was 1.5 percentage points. That is the fifth smallest margin of victory in the thirty-two presidential races held since 1900.”

Despite such a narrow victory, Trump’s claims he won a massive victory and continues to promise to implement an extreme right-wing agenda once he is in office.


Trump’s top agenda items

They include the following: (1) tariffs, (2) the deportation or detention of all undocumented residents, (3) tax cuts for the wealthy, (4) pardons for many (if not all) who participated in the insurrection, and (5) revenge on his political and media “enemies.” Under the influence of Elon Musk, Trump appears now to be open to allowing some high-skilled foreign workers to enter the country under the H-1B program. The present article will consider #s 1 and 2. But note, first, that he has the support of Republicans, large swaths of the rich and powerful, and his unquestioning base of tens of millions of Americans. But the billionaires play a disproportionate role.

Trump’s inner support team

Trump is being influenced by wealthy advisers and by those who support his right-wing extremism. One of his chief advisers in the presidential transition, ending on January 20, is multi-billionaire Elon Musk. Musk supported Trump’s presidential campaign with contributions of 200-250 million dollars. He is not the only billionaire in Trump’s entourage. New York Time’s journalists, Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, identify “the Silicon Valley Billionaires Steering Trump’s Transition (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/06/us/politics/trump-elon-musk-silicon-vallley.html). The journalists tell us that the “article is based on interviews with more than a dozen people with insight into the transition, including people who have participated in the process. Most spoke on condition of anonymity to preserve their relationships with Mr. Trump.”

Here’s some of what they report.

“The week after the November election, President-elect Donald J. Trump gathered his top advisers in the tearoom at his Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, to plan the transition to his second-term government.

“Mr. Trump had brought two of his most valued houseguests to the meeting: the billionaire Tesla boss Elon Musk and the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison.”

The journalists continue.

“Mr. Trump has delighted in a critical addition to his transition team: the Silicon Valley billionaires and millionaires who have been all over the transition, shaping hiring decisions and even conducting interviews for senior-level jobs. Many of those who are not formally involved, like Mr. Ellison, have been happy to sit in on the meetings.”

“Their involvement, to a degree far deeper than previously reported, has made this one of the most potentially conflict-ridden presidential transitions in modern history. It also carries what could be vast implications for the Trump administration’s policies on issues including taxes and the regulation of artificial intelligence, not to mention clashing mightily with the notion that Mr. Trump’s brand of populism is all about helping the working man.”

“The tech leaders in Mr. Trump’s orbit are pushing for deregulation of their industries and more innovative use of private sector technologies in the federal government, especially the defense industry. About a dozen Musk allies took breaks from their businesses to serve as unofficial advisers to the Trump transition effort.

“Broadly, the group is pushing for less onerous regulation of industries like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence, a weaker Federal Trade Commission to allow for more deal-making and the privatization of some government services to make government more efficient. Mr. Musk himself has called some executives at major public companies and asked how the government is thwarting their business — and what he can do to help.”

“These tech leaders have played a far broader role than simply contributing to the nascent Department of Government Efficiency — the Musk-led effort, abbreviated as DOGE, that is intended to effectively audit the entire government and cut $2 trillion out of federal spending. Mr. Musk’s friends are also influencing hiring decisions at some of the most important government agencies.”

“Inside the Trump transition team’s headquarters in West Palm Beach, Fla., the billionaire Marc Andreessen, a tech investor who decades ago founded one of the first popular internet browsers, has interviewed candidates for senior roles at the State Department, the Pentagon and the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Jared Birchall, the head of Mr. Musk’s family office with no experience in foreign affairs, has interviewed a few candidates for jobs at the State Department. Mr. Birchall has been involved in advising the Trump transition team on space policy and artificial intelligence, helping to put together councils for A.I. development and crypto policy.”

“Shaun Maguire, another Musk friend, is now advising Mr. Trump on picks for the intelligence community. Mr. Maguire, a brash Caltech Ph.D. in physics who is an investor at Sequoia Capital, has been a staple of the Trump transition over the last month, including interviewing potential candidates for senior Defense Department jobs.”

These examples represent just a small slice of Trump’s rich supporters.

“The transition offices have been crawling with executives from defense tech firms with close ties to Mr. Trump’s orbit, such as Palantir, which was co-founded by Peter Thiel, and Anduril, the military technology startup led by Palmer Luckey. Several SpaceX executives have been asking questions about matters that go well beyond space policy, and interrogating federal spending across government agencies, people with direct knowledge of the talks say.”

1 -Trump on tariffs

DeArbea Walker, assistant editor at Forbes, reports on Trump’s proposed tariffs and their effects on consumers (https://forbes.com/sites/dearbeawalker/2024/12/26/how-consumers-can-prepare-for-trumps-new-tariffs).

Walker writes that “A tariff is a tax on imported goods that companies pay to the government when they import products to the U.S….”

“‘That extra cost has to get covered one way or another, either by coming out of the importing company’s margins or by being passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices,’ Forbes contributor Joe Moglia says. ‘If the tariffs are too high, there may be no choice other than raising prices.’

Trump’s tariff proposals

Tariffs on China,, Canada, and Mexico

“Trump has proposed 25% tariffs on all goods coming from Mexico and Canada, to stop the flow of fentanyl and migrants across the U.S. borders.

“During the presidential campaign, Trump said he’d impose at least a 60% tariff on imports from China. After the 2024 election, he said he’d add 10% “above any additional tariffs” on all goods coming from China until they stop fentanyl production.”

“Trump’s rationale for his proposed tariffs includes restoring manufacturing jobs in the U.S. and, some experts say, using tariffs as a trade negotiating tool. In addition to the economic motivations, Trump cites security: He has insisted that Mexico and Canada stem the flow of illegal drugs and migrants over the border.”

Tariffs on EU

“Trump recently threatened nonspecific tariffs against the European Union if the trade bloc didn’t step up U.S. oil and gas imports.”

Effects of tariffs on consumers

“Weekly grocery bills are likely to get more expensive if President-elect Donald Trump follows through in imposing tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada and China. Everything from avocados to garlic will go up.

“That new car you’re eyeing—or even your next grocery run—could cost more after President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20. Trump plans to sign an Executive Order on day one that would impose 25% tariffs on goods from Mexico and Canada, and threatens additional tariffs on products from China and elsewhere.” He initially claimed that domestic consumer prices would not go up, but later acknowledged they could (https://truthout.org/articles/trump-reneges-on-promise-that-tariffs-wont-raise-costs-for-consumers).

“Tariffs on raw materials like steel or aluminum could send the prices of cellphones and laptops through the roof, according to True Tamplin, a Forbes personal finance contributor. A 10 percent tariff on a $1,000 laptop would add $100 to its prices.”

Walker also refers to a list of goods compiled by Forbes contributor Frank Holmes, that could become more expensive as a result of Trump’s tariffs.

“Groceries, like avocados, tomatoes, garlic, and other produce from Mexico.
Electronics and appliances, including washing machines, laptops, phones and TVs, which are made from imported parts from Canada and China
Clothing, shoes and other everyday goods made abroad
Home improvement supplies like wood, steel and paint
Cars like the Nissan Sentra and Mercedes-Benz GLB are assembled in Mexico.”

In addition, Walker writes, “Industries with lots of exposure to imported goods—retail, electronics and even agriculture—could face significant headwinds.”

Spillover effects

Walker notes, “There’s also the risk of the spillover effect. Retailers importing the goods will increase the price to absorb the cost of the tariff, however, domestic producers, who aren’t impacted by the tariffs, will feel emboldened and may raise their prices too.” This was the case during Trump’s first term when dryers, not subjected to tariffs, rose 12%.

On balance, tariffs are costly for domestic residents and businesses. Mark Williams summarizes this point (https://bu.ed/articles/2024/would-trumps-tariffs-send-prices-soaring).

“Tariffs increase the cost of imported goods, temporarily protecting domestic markets, and they can raise incentives for onshore manufacturing and sales. Short-term, there could be some production gains. However, as Trump proved during the 2018 tariffs on imported steel, they did little to materially increase the number of jobs in US steel plants. Moreover, once tariffs were slapped on China, they quickly retaliated by making many US products more expensive; this eventually led to a reduction in the number of US export jobs.”

Tariffs are not popular among Americans

In a Newsweek magazine article, Suzanne Blake reports that a majority of Americans do not like tariffs, specifically Trump’s proposal (https://newsweek.com/donald-trump-bad-news-tariff-plan-inflation-poll-2001523). Here’s the crux of what she writes.

“A majority of Americans are bracing themselves for President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs, according to a poll that was published on Monday.

“In a WalletHub Fed Rate survey of 200 Americans this month, 74 percent of Americans said Trump’s possible tariffs would likely lead to more inflation down the line as it remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target.”


2 – The deportation or detention of all undocumented residents

Trump’s plans for his first day in the White House includes the mass deportation or detention (and eventual deportation) of virtually all eleven plus million undocumented residents. Here are some facts from Pew Research (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us).

“Unauthorized immigrants live in 6.3 million households that include more than 22 million people. These households represent 4.8% of the 130 million U.S. households.

“…some facts about these households in 2022 [the latest available]:
 In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant.
 Almost 70% of these households are considered “mixed status,” meaning that they also contain lawful immigrants or U.S.-born residents.
 In only about 5% of these households, the unauthorized immigrants are not related to the householder or spouse. In these cases, they are probably employees or roommates.”

“Of the 22 million people in households with an unauthorized immigrant, 11 million are U.S. born or lawful immigrants. They include:
 1.3 million U.S.-born adults who are children of unauthorized immigrants. (We cannot estimate the total number of U.S.-born adult children of unauthorized immigrants because available data sources only identify those who still live with their unauthorized immigrant parents.)
 1.4 million other U.S.-born adults and 3.0 million lawful immigrant adults.”

Clarissa-Jan Lim considers Trump’s plans for day one of his presidency in an article for MSNBC, Dec 27, 2024 (https://msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-day-one-deportations-jan-6-pardons-tariffs-rena185019). Here’s some of what she reports on Trump’s “immigration” plans.

One of Trump’s most extreme campaign promises was to carry out “the largest mass deportation program” in the country’s history beginning on Day 1 of his presidency. It’s unclear how such a such a large-scale operation could be executed, but immigration officials have said it would be a huge logistical and financial effort. Economists have also warned that such a program would cause an “economic disaster” for the U.S., which relies heavily on migrant labor.

“Trump told NBC News in November, Lim notes, that there would be ‘no price tag’ for his mass deportation plans.” That is, Trump insists he will have the government spend as much as it takes to effectuate his mass deportation plans.

Trump wants to end “birthright citizenship”

Lim continues. “In a move that could face a prolonged legal fight, the president-elect has also said that he wants to end birthright citizenship through executive action on his first day to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Birthright citizenship is a protection enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, but Trump has said that he would consider changing the Constitution to rescind the rule.” It will take more than Trump’s assumption that he, as president, can change the constitution. Why? Amending the Constitution is a power that lies with Congress, not the president. Trump’s plan would result in children being separated from their parents or, in some cases, ending up in the foster care system, in the care of other family members, or even incarcerated.

Using the military to assist in mass deportation

Nonetheless, Trump seems determined to push ahead on mass deportation, even to use the military in such a massive effort.

Charlie Savage and Michael Gold report on Trump’s plan to use the military to assist in the deportation (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/16/us/politics/trump-military-mass-deportations.html). They report as follows.

“President-elect Donald J. Trump confirmed on Monday that he intended to declare a national emergency and use the U.S. military in some form to assist in his plans for mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

“On his social media platform, Truth Social, Mr. Trump responded overnight to a post made earlier this month by Tom Fitton, who runs the conservative group Judicial Watch, and who wrote that Mr. Trump’s administration would ‘declare a national emergency and will use military assets’ to address illegal immigration ‘through a mass deportation program.’”

According to Savage and Gold, “In interviews with The New York Times during the Republican primary campaign, described in an article published in November 2023, Mr. Trump’s top immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said that military funds would be used to build ‘vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers’ for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries.

“The Homeland Security Department would run the facilities, he [Miller] said.
One major impediment to the vast deportation operation that the Trump team has promised in his second term is that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, lacks the space to hold a significantly larger number of detainees than it currently does.”

The Trump team believes that such camps could be built expeditiously and thus enable the government to accelerate deportation process of undocumented people who fight their expulsion from the country. The assumption is that more people would voluntarily accept removal instead of pursuing a long-shot effort to remain in the country if they had to stay locked up in the interim.

“Hard-right members of Congress and staunch supporters of Mr. Trump have expressed broad support for his proposal for mass deportations. Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama, chimed in on social media on Monday to back using the military for such an effort, saying Mr. Trump was ‘100% correct.’
Mr. Miller has also talked about invoking a public health emergency power to curtail hearing asylum claims, as the Trump administration did during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Deportation without Congressional action

“Mr. Trump’s team said it had developed a multifaceted plan to significantly increase the number of deportations, which it thought could be accomplished without new legislation from Congress, although it anticipated legal challenges.
Other elements of the team’s plan include bolstering the ranks of ICE officers with law enforcement officials who would be temporarily reassigned from other agencies, and with state National Guardsmen and federal troops activated to enforce the law on domestic soil under the Insurrection Act.

“The team also plans to expand a form of due-process-free expulsions known as expedited removal, which is currently used near the border for recent arrivals, to people living across the interior of the country who cannot prove they have been in the United States for more than two years.

“And the team plans to stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents in a bid to end birthright citizenship.

“Mr. Trump has already signaled his intent to follow through on his promises with personnel announcements. He named Mr. Miller as a deputy chief of staff in his administration with influence over domestic policy. And Mr. Trump said he would make Thomas Homan, who ran ICE for the first year and a half of the Trump administration and was an early proponent of separating families to deter migrants, his administration’s ‘border czar.’”

“Mr. Homan told The New York Times in 2023 that he had met with Mr. Trump shortly after the now president-elect announced that he would seek office again. During that meeting, Mr. Homan said, he ‘agreed to come back’ in a second term and would ‘help to organize and run the largest deportation operation this country’s ever seen.’ In response to a question on the problem of separating children from their parents, Homan said parents who lose their immigration cases “are going to have to make a decision what you want to do: You can either take your child with you or leave the child here in the United States with a relative.”
That is, if there is a relative available and one who can afford the responsibility of caring for an additional child or children.

Questions about Trump’s deportation plan

“Asked about the proposal, Sabrina Singh, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon, declined to comment, calling it ‘a hypothetical.’ In general, she added, such a plan would typically undergo ‘a rigorous process’ before being enacted, but she declined to elaborate.”

Critics

Savage and Gold cite immigrant advocates who have assailed Trump’s deportation plan, raising alarms about the potential fallout.

“‘President-elect Trump’s dystopian fantasies should send a chill down everyone’s spine, whether immigrant or native-born,’ said Karen Tumlin, the director of the Justice Action Center, an immigrant advocacy organization. ‘Not only is what he is describing in all likelihood illegal, this move would be the exact opposite of the legacy of service in which my family members were proud to participate.’”

“Robyn Barnard, the senior director of refugee advocacy at Human Rights First, asserted that the consequences would be far-ranging. ‘Families will be torn apart, businesses left without vital employees, and our country will be left to pick up the pieces for years to come,’ she added.

“Congressional Democrats responded with a similar level of incredulity, asserting that such a move was all but certain to violate federal laws preventing the use of the military on American soil.

“‘We’re pursuing whatever we can do to make clear that the Insurrection Act should not permit that use of the military,’ said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, referring to the 1807 law that grants presidents emergency power to use troops on domestic soil to restore order when they decide a situation warrants it. Under that law, ‘if there is no threat to public order of a fundamental, far-reaching kind, it would be illegal,’ he added.”

Separations

Jacob Soboroff, who visited detention sites during Trump’s first presidential term, published his finding in a book titled Separated: Inside an American Tragedy. Here is part of an article reviewing the book on July 7,2020, by Kirkus Reviews (https://kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/jacob-soboroff/separated-tragedy).

“Separating migrant minors from their families has been a hallmark of the current administration—and, writes the author, ‘an unparalleled abuse of the human rights of children.’ His narrative begins in June 2018 in Brownsville, Texas, where he toured a former Walmart that had been converted into a ‘shelter’ to house some 1,500 migrant boys, many of them caught with their families trying to enter the U.S. By virtue of the administration’s vaunted ‘zero tolerance’ policy, these children represent what Soboroff calls ‘an avoidable catastrophe.’ His sketches of the detention centers are consistently affecting and haunting. As he noted at the time, ‘this place is called a shelter, but effectively these kids are incarcerated.’ The policy of separation was foreshadowed in Trump’s blustery rhetoric during the 2016 campaign—but more by his lieutenant Stephen Miller, who loudly voiced ‘vitriol for undocumented immigrants.’ It was up to Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen to enact it, even after she was warned that family separations would constitute a violation of the constitutional principle of fair treatment. Miller’s faction won the day, and family separation became policy. Startlingly, when a federal judge ruled against the policy and ordered the government to reunite detained families, Customs and Border Patrol admitted that it had planned to separate ‘more than 26,000 children between May and September 2018’ alone. Naturally, the administration has denied the policy even as, Soboroff notes, the principals involved who remain in the administration are now the very people who are coordinating the government’s bungled response to COVID-19. And even though the policy has theoretically been terminated by executive order, thousands of migrant children are still detained in tent cities and other facilities across the border, in some cases without their families for years.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump wants to transform the US in ways that will give him incomparable presidential power. However, his plans, flawed and undemocratic as they are, will generate opposition as well as support. Who knows which side will prevail. But his ambitions are inherently flawed and, if implemented, likely to cause economic chaos and suffering among large segments of the population. The big question is whether such effects will lead to the buildup of opposition forces strong enough politically to prevent Trump from succeeding in pushing his extreme economic and immigration plans.

The 2024 presidential election, troubling prospects for the country


Bob Sheak, Dec 6, 2024

Trump won despite his poor record

The final vote count gave Trump 77,232,887 votes, or 49.9% of the total votes. Kamala Harris received 74,935,796, or 48.4%. Trump’s 1.5% advantage was lower than recent presidential winners received. Nonetheless, it gave the presidency to Trump, a convicted felon with a long record of indictments. His dismal record in dealing with the Covid pandemic is a not-too-distant example of his ineptness. Helio Fred Garcia writes in his book, The Trump Contagion:

“In December 2021 NPR broadcast a report that Trump supporters were far more likely to die of Covid-10: Since May 2021, people living in counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump during the last presidential election have been nearly three times as likely to die from Covid-19 as those who live in areas that went or now President Biden” (pp. 224-225).

Overall, Trump has accumulated 91 criminal indictments, according to a detailed account in Ali Velshi’s book, The Trump Indictments. Melissa Murray and Andrew Weissman have also compiled this outrageous record in their book, The Trump Indictments. These charges will most likely be vacated or postponed, which would ultimately mean that he may not ever be held accountable for his lawless behavior.

He lies. Washington Post journalist Glenn Kessler and his colleagues identified 30,753 false and misleading statements from Trump during his first presidential term (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years).

He pushed and got lower tax rates for the rich and corporations, while increasing the national debt by over 8 trillion dollars. According to US Budget Watch 2024, the national debt increased by $8.4 trillion during Trumps first presidential term (https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt).

Inequality rose during the Trump presidential years. Jeffrey Kucik reports on this (https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/535239-how-trump-fueled-economic-inequality-in-america). The article was published on Jan. 1, 2021. Kucik writes:

“It is difficult to select just one issue that defines President Trump’s legacy. There is his tragic mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is his alienation of America’s allies. There are even his wars on science and the rule of law. Any of these disasters would provide a suitable byline for the history books.
But we need to add something equally important to this list: Four years after Trump took office, income inequality continues to grow. And it is growing at a faster rate than during any of the last five administrations.”

Now Trump wants complete power

Trump Is Using “Unitary Executive” Theory in His Bid to Amass Supreme Power

Marjorie Cohn considers this issue in an article published on Dec 3, 2024
(https://truthout.org/articles/trump-is-using-unitary-executive-theory-in-his-bid-to-amass-supreme-power). Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and past president of the National Lawyers Guild. She sits on the national advisory boards of Veterans For Peace and Assange Defense, and is the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.

Here’s some of what she writes.

“Trump is claiming total executive power that would eclipse the legislative “co-equal” branch of government.

“In the weeks since the presidential election, president-elect Donald Trump and his allies have made a series of moves that indicate their intent to dangerously consolidate executive power under the controversial ‘unitary executive’ theory of the Constitution.

“During the presidential campaign, Trump posted a video on Truth Social that referred to his second administration as a ‘unified Reich,’ invoking Adolph Hitler’s Third Reich in Nazi Germany. As president-elect, Trump’s cabinet selections have corroborated his campaign pledge to be a dictator on day one.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority decided to grant Trump absolute immunity while in office. On this, Cohn writes: “With the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s decision granting him absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for his core ‘official’ functions, and the 920-page ‘Project 2025’ right-wing blueprint for an autocratic government, Trump is positioning himself to change the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over all aspects of the executive branch — and thereby becoming a ‘unitary executive.’”

Cohn continues. “Proponents of the unitary executive say that Article II establishes a ‘hierarchical, unified executive department under the direct control of the President’ who ‘alone possesses all of the executive power and … therefore can direct, control, and supervise inferior officers or agencies who seek to exercise discretionary executive power.’”

Cohn points out that “Project 2025, the right wing’s roadmap to an imperial presidency, is anchored in the unitary executive scheme. ‘This radical governing philosophy, which contravenes the traditional separation of powers, vests presidents with almost complete control over the federal bureaucracy, including congressionally designated independent agencies or the DOJ and the FBI….’”

Furthermore, as revealed in Project 2025, “Trump would circumvent Congress by taking complete control of all administrative agencies that protect our health, safety, food, water, climate and labor rights. The Supreme Court ruled in June that a federal agency doesn’t have the last word on protecting these rights. When a statute is ambiguous, an agency must now defer to courts (many of which are staffed by judges appointed by Trump) instead of following interpretations of agency experts.” For example, Project 2025 will reinstitute Schedule F that
“would reclassify 50,000 of the 2 million merit-based civil service employees as political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the president with no civil service protections.”

Cohn offers a summary of how Project 2025 could undermine the constitutional checks and balances.
– Curtailing the independence of independent agencies;
– Weaponizing the Department of Justice to serve Trump’s political agenda;
– Replacing civil servants with political supporters;
– Impounding funds Congress has appropriated and using them for other purposes;
– Neutralizing the press and independent media;
– Misapplying the Insurrection Act to suppress protests and deport undocumented immigrants;
– Misusing the recess appointment process to confirm executive branch nominees without Senate approval; and
– Deconstructing the administrative state to help corporations maximize profits.

The creation of a “king” in the White House

Cohn writes: “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” and quotes Sonia Sotomayor who wrote in dissent. ‘The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.’ The immunity the court established now ‘lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any president to use for his own political gain or financial interests, with the knowledge that he is inoculated from criminal liability.”

“As a result of Trump v. U.S., Trump’s election victory, and the Justice Department’s policy against prosecuting sitting presidents, Trump’s criminal cases — comprising 91 charges — are evaporating.”

Trump’s appointments to his administration: examples

His appointments emphasize loyalty over competence. Trump wants people in advisory or cabinet positions who will implement his right-wing agenda, basically, in various ways, to support a fossil-fuel energy system, to allow liquified natural gas exports to continue, to open up public lands to private investors, to ignore or deny the climate crisis, to drastically cut spending by the federal government on programs that benefit wide swaths of the population, to cut taxes on the rich and corporations, to begin the deportation of millions of undocumented residents, to impose ill-considered tariffs, especially on China, Canada, and Mexico, and to use the FBI and other executive branch agencies to punish Trump’s critics, viewed as “enemies.”

Consider three

Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense

One of his least defensible picks is Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. Jane Mayer has written at length about Hegseth, and how he was forced out of previous leadership positions for financial mismanagement, sexist behavior, and being repeatedly intoxicated on the job (https://newyorker.com/news-desk/pete-hegseths-secret-history). Here’s just two paragraphs from Mayor’s article.

“But Hegseth’s record before becoming a full-time Fox News TV host, in 2017, raises additional questions about his suitability to run the world’s largest and most lethal military force. A trail of documents, corroborated by the accounts of former colleagues, indicates that Hegseth was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran—Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America—in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.

“A previously undisclosed whistle-blower report on Hegseth’s tenure as the president of Concerned Veterans for America, from 2013 until 2016, describes him as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity—to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization’s events. The detailed seven-page report—which was compiled by multiple former C.V.A. employees and sent to the organization’s senior management in February, 2015—states that, at one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club, where he had brought his team. The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time, and other members of his management team sexually pursued the organization’s female staffers, whom they divided into two groups—the ‘party girls’ and the ‘not party girls.’ In addition, the report asserts that, under Hegseth’s leadership, the organization became a hostile workplace that ignored serious accusations of impropriety, including an allegation made by a female employee that another employee on Hegseth’s staff had attempted to sexually assault her at the Louisiana strip club. In a separate letter of complaint, which was sent to the organization in late 2015, a different former employee described Hegseth being at a bar in the early-morning hours of May 29, 2015, while on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, drunkenly chanting “Kill All Muslims! Kill All Muslims!”

Kash Patel to head the FBI.

Chris Lehmann argues in a Dec. 3, 2024, article that “Kash Patel is Trump’s Scariest Cabinet Appointment Yet (https://thenation.com/article/politics/kash-patel-trump-cabinet). Lehmann identifies Patel as “a deep state conspiracy theorist” who Trump has appointed to head the FBI.

“Patel has…duly minted his battles over control of the deep state into a book, Government Gangsters, which derides the agency he’s now charged with administering as ‘one of the most cunning and powerful arms of the Deep State,’ where rampant corruption has become ‘an existential threat to our republican form of government.’ He has also vowed, should he be entrusted with overseeing the agency’s operations, to shut down its Hoover Building headquarters in Washington on day one, and convert it into ‘a museum of the deep state.’”

Patel complains that the FBI is “overrun with self-protecting raging liberals—another plaint cribbed entirely from the persecution fantasies of Trump. Patel’s own history with the agency dates from his tour at the House Select Committee on Intelligence, where he reportedly penned the ‘Nunes memo,’ which castigated FBI officials for approving a baseless FISA surveillance order on former Trump campaign official Carter Page. That caught the eye of Trump, who appointed Patel to the National Security Council after the GOP lost its House majority in the 2018 midterms, and then promoted him to serve as the NSC’s senior director of the agency’s counterterrorism directorate.”

“…as with Trump himself, the conspiratorial logic behind Patel’s advancement has curdled into additional shocking and dangerous breaches with reality. Patel is a champion of the Trump-aligned QAnon cult and conspiracy theory, announcing in a 2022 podcast appearance that the mythical figure at the center of Q ‘should get credit for all the things he has accomplished.’ He’s also joined Mike Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser, for the Q-promoting ReAwaken America tour. In his role as all-purpose MAGA hustler, Patel has hawked a dietary supplement that supposedly reverses bodily damage wrought by the Covid vaccine, dubbing it ‘a homerun kit to rid your body of the harms of the vax.’”

“Patel’s conspiracy-mongering finds a frequent outlet in his broadsides against the press—an especially troubling penchant for the leader of an agency like the FBI, which has stood stoutly athwart basic civil liberties. ‘We’re going to put in all-American patriots from top to bottom,’ Patel announced in a 2023 appearance on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. ‘We will go out and find the conspirators not just in the government, but in the media. Yes, we’re going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We’re going to come after you, whether it’s criminally or civilly—we’ll figure that out.’

What Kash Patel Could Do to the F.B.I.

Garrett M. Graff, a journalist, a historian and the author of “The Threat Matrix: The FBI at War” and “Watergate: A New History,” among other books,
also considers the implications of Trump’s appointment of Kash Patel to head the FBI (https://nytimes.com/2024/12/02/opinion/kash-patel-trump-fbi.html).

“It goes almost without saying that Kash Patel, whom Donald Trump picked over the weekend to lead the F.B.I., is supremely unqualified to direct the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

“That’s what even those who know Mr. Patel well are saying. ‘He’s absolutely unqualified for this job. He’s untrustworthy,’ his supervisor in the first Trump administration, Charles Kupperman, told The Wall Street Journal. ‘It’s an absolute disgrace to American citizens to even consider an individual of this nature.’ Mr. Kupperman’s view is hardly an outlier. In Mr. Trump’s first term, Bill Barr, then the attorney general, and Gina Haspel, then the C.I.A. director, went to great lengths to prevent Mr. Patel from being installed in senior intelligence and law enforcement roles.”

“Unlike Mr. Patel, who has never been nominated for a Senate-confirmed position, every F.B.I. director in modern times has been vetted and confirmed (often repeatedly) by the Senate to another position first. Three F.B.I. directors were federal judges before being selected. Robert Mueller had been nominated by both Republican and Democratic presidents and confirmed by overwhelmingly bipartisan votes in the Senate; James Comey, Barack Obama’s nominee, had been in front of the Senate twice for confirmation. Mr. Wray had been the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, a role that earned him the department’s highest award for leadership and public service.

“Moreover, the idea of appointing a Trump loyalist like Mr. Patel goes against the fundamental approach all recent presidents have taken, which is that they’ve appointed nonpartisan figures, known for their independence. Directors, in turn, usually go out of their way to demonstrate clear independence from the presidents who appointed them. Bill Clinton’s relationship with his choice, Louis Freeh, was so tested during the Clinton scandals that the two men weren’t even on speaking terms, and Mr. Freeh turned in his White House pass to avoid even the appearance of familiarity with the president. Mr. Comey infamously took it upon himself to excoriate Hillary Clinton publicly over her handling of emails as secretary of state to demonstrate his independence from the Obama administration and Justice Department.

“What this independence illustrates is that the F.B.I. is not, as many MAGA loyalists believe, some liberal bastion of wokeness. No Democrat has ever served as an F.B.I. director. Even Democratic presidents appoint Republican officials to head the bureau, as Mr. Obama and Mr. Clinton did in their presidencies.

“Mr. Trump has been clear in what he is trying to do with a nominee like Mr. Patel: He wants to bend and break the bureau and weaponize it against those he sees as his political enemies and domestic critics. Mr. Patel said last year that he hopes to prosecute journalists.”

“…a Patel directorship of even a few years could cause grave, lasting harm to the institution. One of the key ways a director shapes the bureau is through the promotion of top agents, from section chiefs to unit chiefs to special agents in charge to assistant directors and executive assistant directors. His choices of those leaders would shape the bureau for decades.”

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to head HHS

Lauren Weber, Lena H. Sun and David Ovalle, Washington Post journalists, assess 10 of RFK Jr.’s “conspiracy theories and false claims” (https://washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/15/rfk-jr-views-conspiracies-false-claims).

“The ascension of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist, to the nation’s top health post has alarmed medical experts, who point to his history of trafficking in conspiracy theories as disqualifying to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Kennedy, whom President-elect Donald Trump selected as health secretary on Thursday, will be charged with a massive portfolio overseeing Americans’ insurance, drugs, medical supplies and food if the Senate confirms him.”

“This is troubling. ‘He is one of the most prominent anti-vaccine activists in the United States and globally, and he has been at this for 20 years,’ said Peter Hotez, co-director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.

“Here are 10 false health claims Kennedy has publicly made over the years:
Kennedy has falsely linked vaccines to autism
Kennedy falsely called the coronavirus vaccine the ‘deadliest vaccine ever made’
Kennedy promotes raw milk, stem cells and other controversial or debunked medical treatments
Kennedy argues government employees have an interest in ‘mass poisoning’ the American public
Kennedy has falsely linked antidepressants to mass shootings
Kennedy incorrectly suggests AIDS may not be caused by HIV

“Kennedy, who founded a prominent anti-vaccine group, has repeatedly linked the childhood vaccine schedule to autism — a claim that has been debunked by scientists. Kennedy has falsely blamed autism on thimerosal, a compound safely used as a preservative in vaccines, and decried the number of shots on the childhood vaccination schedule.

Weber and her colleagues continue. “‘I do believe that autism does come from vaccines,’ he [Kennedy] said last summer in an interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters.”

“A 2004 report by the Institute of Medicine concluded there is no link between autism and vaccination. Dozens of studies published in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals have also disproved the notion that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

“Hotez and many other public health experts say they worry that Kennedy, as health secretary, will do irreparable harm to already declining confidence in vaccines.

“Hotez pointed to the fivefold rise in pertussis, or whooping cough, in the past year; the 16 measles outbreaks reported by the CDC so far this year, compared with four in 2023; and the detection of polio in New York in 2022.

“‘So our baseline is a fragile vaccine ecosystem that could be on the brink of collapse,’ Hotez said. ‘I worry that now with this appointment, that could actually happen.’”

“Kennedy promotes raw milk, stem cells and other controversial or debunked medical treatments.”

Consider the reasons why milk is pasteurized.

“Raw milk is unsafe to consume, and the Food and Drug Administration and the CDC have strongly advised against consuming it because it can contain dangerous bacteria, such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria. It can also contain viruses, including the H5N1 bird flu virus that is causing an outbreak in dairy cattle and has sickened at least 46 people in the United States. Unpasteurized milk from infected cows can contain high levels of infectious H5N1 virus.”

“Kennedy argues government employees have an interest in ‘mass poisoning’ the American public.

“‘The agency, the USDA, the FDA have been captured by the industries they’re supposed to regulate, and they all have an interest in subsidies and mass poisoning the American public,’ Kennedy told Fox News in August.

“Kennedy has repeatedly spoken about wanting to eliminate industry interests from the government, but public health experts say it is slander to imply that government employees are purposefully harming Americans.

“That’s just an inflammatory statement that has no basis in reality,” Hotez said. “I’ve worked with the scientists at the [health] agencies, at CDC and FDA, at the National Institutes of Health, and they are the most dedicated civil servants the nation has ever seen.”

Kennedy has also falsely linked mass shootings to antidepressants and video games and asserted that AIDS is not caused by HIV. His views on covid-19 follow his dangerous and untrue claims.

“Kennedy falsely claimed in a July interview last year with Fox News that fewer people would have died of covid-19 if the United States had deployed ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Multiple studies have concluded that the antiparasitic and antimalarial drugs are ineffective against covid-19, despite the promotion of the drug by right-wing media.”

Initial responses from the Left to Trump’s election

Calls to action

1 – John Nichols emphasizes Trump’s narrow victory over Harris and that he does not have a mandate (https://thenation.com/article/politics/donald-trump-vote-margin-narrowed). He points out:

“Why make note of all the presidents who ran better than Trump? Why discuss the narrowness of his advantage over Harris? Why consider, in addition, that the Republican majorities in the House and Senate will be among the narrowest in modern American history? Because it puts the 2024 election results in perspective—and, in doing so, gives members of both parties an understanding of how to respond when Trump claims that an unappealing nominee or policy should be accepted out of deference to his “powerful” mandate.

“Trump’s victory was not of ‘epic’ or ‘historic’ proportions. There was no ‘landslide’ for the once and future president, as Fox News suggested repeatedly in postelection headlines. The election did not produce the ‘decisive victory’ for Trump that the Associated Press referred to in the immediate aftermath of the voting. Nor did it yield the “resounding defeat” for Harris that AP reported at the same time.”

Nichols continues.

“We now confront a second Trump presidency.

“There’s not a moment to lose. We must harness our fears, our grief, and yes, our anger, to resist the dangerous policies Donald Trump will unleash on our country.

“We rededicate ourselves to our role as journalists and writers of principle and conscience.

“Today, we also steel ourselves for the fight ahead. It will demand a fearless spirit, an informed mind, wise analysis, and humane resistance.”

2 – Kamala Harris say we must continue the fight for democracy

In her concession speech, Harris urged her supporters to “continue ‘the fight that fueled this campaign” (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-election-loss-speech-howard-university). The following quote from her speech captures her commitment to continue the fight for America.

“Let me say my heart is full today. My heart is full today, full of gratitude for the trust you have placed in me, full of love for our country, and full of resolve,” Harris said. “The outcome of this election was not what we wanted, not what we fought for, not what we voted for, but hear me when I say the light of America’s promise will always burn bright as long as we never give up and as long as we keep fighting.”

3 – New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg is concerned about what Trump will do with the power of the presidency, but hopes there will be resistance

(https://nytimes.com/2024/11/06/opinion/trump-future-mourn.html).

“Trump’s first election felt like a fluke, a sick accident enabled by Democratic complacency. But this year, the forces of liberal pluralism and basic civic decency poured everything they could into the fight, and they lost not just the Electoral College but also [the popular vote]. The American electorate, knowing exactly who Trump is, chose him. This is, it turns out, who we are.”

“But eventually, mourning either starts to fade or curdles into depression and despair. When and if it does, whatever resistance emerges to the new MAGA will differ from what came before. Gone will be the hope of vindicating the country from Trumpism, of rendering him an aberration. What’s left is the more modest work of trying to ameliorate the suffering his government is going to visit on us.”

“There’s no point in protesting his inauguration, as millions did in 2017. But hopefully we will take to the streets if his forces come into our neighborhoods to drag migrant families away. We will need to strengthen the networks that help women in red states get abortions, especially if Trump’s Justice Department cracks down on the mailing of abortion pills or his F.D.A. withdraws approval of them. In state and local elections, I’ll want to know how candidates promise to protect us from the MAGA movement’s threats to reshape our public health systems and our schools.”

“Ultimately,” Goldberg writes, “Trump’s one redeeming feature is his incompetence. If history is any guide, many of those he brings into government will come to despise him. He will not give people the economic relief they’re craving. If he follows through on his plans for universal tariffs, economists expect higher inflation. Trump’s close ally Elon Musk, dreaming of imposing aggressive austerity on the federal government, has said that Americans will have to endure ‘some temporary hardship.’ We saw, with Covid, how Trump handled a major crisis, and there is not the slightest reason to believe he will perform any better in handling another. I have little doubt that many of those who voted for him will come to regret it.”

“The question, if and when that happens, is how much of our system will still be standing, and whether Trump’s opponents have built an alternative that can restore to people a sense of dignity and optimism. That will be the work of the next four years — saving what we can and trying to imagine a tolerable future. For now, though, all I can do is grieve.”

Others see a grim future for the country

1 – Elie Mystal argues that “Trump is Not a Fluke – He’s America” (https://thenation.com/article/politics/trump-is-america-not-a-fluke). The article was published on Nov. 7.

“America deserves everything it is about to get. We had a chance to stand united against fascism, authoritarianism, racism, and bigotry, but we did not. We had a chance to create a better world for not just ourselves but our sisters and brothers in at least some of the communities most vulnerable to unchecked white rule, but we did not. We had a chance to pass down a better, safer, and cleaner world to our children, but we did not. Instead, we chose Trump, JD Vance….”

“Like I said, Trump is the sum of our failures. A country that allows its environment to be ravaged, its children to be shot, its wealth to be hoarded, its workers to be exploited, its poor to starve, its cops to murder, and its minorities to be hunted doesn’t really deserve to be ‘saved.’ It deserves to fail.
Trump is not our ‘retribution.’ He is our reckoning.”

2 – Peter Baker, New York Times journalist, analyzes how Trump’s threats and language sometimes are linked to a fascist past (https://nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/politics/trump-fascism.html).

“While presidents have pushed the boundaries of power, and in some cases abused it outright, no American commander in chief over the past couple of centuries has so aggressively sought to discredit the institutions of democracy at home while so openly embracing and envying dictators abroad. Although plenty of presidents have been called dictators by their opponents, none has been publicly accused of fascism by his own handpicked top adviser who spent day after day with him….

“Mr. Trump does not use the word to describe himself — in fact, he uses it to describe his adversaries — but he does not shrink from the impression it leaves. He goes out of his way to portray himself as an American strongman, vowing if re-elected to use the military to crack down on dissent, to use the Justice Department to prosecute and imprison his foes, to shut down news media outlets that displease him, to claim authority that his predecessors did not have and to round up millions of people living in the country illegally and put them in camps or deport them en masse.

“He has already sought to overturn a free and fair election that even his own advisers told him he had lost, all in a bid to hold onto power despite the will of the voters, something no other sitting president ever tried to do. When that did not work, he spread demonstrable lies about the 2020 vote so pervasively that he convinced most of his supporters that Mr. Biden’s victory was illegitimate, according to polls, eroding faith in the democratic system that is key to its enduring viability. He then called for the ‘termination’ of the Constitution so that President Biden could be instantly removed from power and himself reinstalled without a new election.”

“Gen. Mark A. Milley, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, was quoted in Bob Woodward’s new book, ‘War,’ calling Mr. Trump ‘fascist to the core.’ In recent days, 13 other former Trump aides released a letter backing Mr. Kelly’s assessment and warning of the former president’s ‘desire for absolute, unchecked power.’

“Whether intentionally or not, Mr. Trump has fueled concerns about fascism since the day he first descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower to announce his presidential bid in 2015. As he kicked off his campaign that day, he demonized Mexican migrants as rapists and within months he vowed to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

“He fashioned a foreign policy around the themes of isolationism and nationalism. When told by New York Times reporters that it sounded as if he were talking about an ‘America First’ approach, he happily appropriated the term. The fact that it was a term discredited by history because of its association before World War II with isolationists, including some Nazi sympathizers, did not matter to him.

“Nor did he mind citing fascists like Benito Mussolini. When Mr. Trump retweeted a quote that ‘it is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep,’ NBC’s Chuck Todd told him that it was from Mussolini. “I know who said it,” Mr. Trump replied. ‘But what difference does it make whether it’s Mussolini or somebody else?’ He also came to use language familiar to victims of Joseph Stalin when he declared journalists who angered him to be ‘enemies of the people,’ a phrase used to send Russians to the gulag.
“While he was president, Mr. Trump told staff members that “Hitler did a lot of good things.” At another point, he complained to Mr. Kelly, “Why can’t you be like the German generals,” meaning those who reported to Hitler. In interviews with The Times and The Atlantic in recent days, Mr. Kelly confirmed those anecdotes, first reported in several books over the last few years. Mr. Trump denied this past week that he ever said them, and last year he denied ever reading “Mein Kampf.”

“The former president has likewise affiliated himself with the modern world’s autocrats. He has praised some of today’s most authoritarian and, in some cases, murderous leaders, including President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia (‘genius’), President Xi Jinping of China (‘a brilliant man’), Kim Jong-un, the leader of North Korea (‘very honorable’), President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt (‘my favorite dictator’), Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia (‘a great guy’), former President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines (‘what a great job you are doing’), President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey (‘a hell of a leader’) and Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary (‘one of the most respected men’).”

Mr. Trump during his four years in office regularly asserted the most expansive view of presidential power. “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president,” he once said, referring to the article in the Constitution that deals with executive power, ignoring the limits built into the document.”

“An early sign of the tension came during a meeting when Mr. Trump was pushing the generals to stage a military parade down the streets of Washington, the kind of spectacle not typically seen outside of a moment of wartime victory. General Paul Selva of the Air Force, the vice chair of the Joint Chiefs, objected, explaining that it reminded him of his childhood in Portugal when it was a military dictatorship. “It’s what dictators do,” General Selva told him. Mr. Trump was undeterred and brought up the idea dozens of times again, officers later said.

“The rift grew over time and culminated in Mr. Trump’s final year in office. When some of the protests over Mr. Floyd’s murder turned violent, the president’s first instinct was to use the armed forces. He repeatedly pressed his team to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 so that he could send active-duty military to quell the protests. He wanted 10,000 troops in the streets and the 82nd Airborne Division called up.

“Mr. Trump demanded that General Milley personally take charge, but the Joint Chiefs chairman resisted, saying the National Guard would be sufficient. Mr. Trump shouted at him in a meeting. “You are all losers!” he yelled and then repeated the line with an expletive. Turning to General Milley, he said, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”

“Over the past four years, Mr. Trump has escalated his threats to use the power of the presidency to punish his antagonists. He has vowed to prosecute Mr. Biden and other Democrats if he wins the election and threatened prison time for election workers who he deems to have cheated in some way.

“He promoted a social media post saying that former Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, should face a military tribunal for investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. He calls Democrats ‘the enemy from within’ and suggested that he would order the National Guard or active-duty military members to round up American citizens who oppose his candidacy.

“He has signaled that he would go after the news media as well. After ‘60 Minutes’ edited an interview with Ms. Harris in a way that Mr. Trump did not like, he said that “CBS should lose its license.” He said similar things this year about NBC, ABC and CNN. While in office, aides have said he pressed them to use government power to punish corporations affiliated with CNN and the owner of The Washington Post, the Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.”

“He has called for the summary execution of shoplifters and ruminated about unleashing the police to inflict ‘one really violent day’ on criminals or even ‘one rough hour — and I mean real rough’ to bring down the property crime rate.
In a 2021 podcast, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, now Mr. Trump’s running mate, said that if the former president won again he should ‘fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people,’ in effect turning the nonpartisan government work force into a partisan cadre of loyalists.

Concluding thoughts

Nearly half of all voters registered support for Trump and gave the Republicans slim leads in both chambers of the U.S. Congress. They voted for a man and a political party that will try to destroy American democracy, ignore the US Constitution, create a king-like president, and find justifications for their extremist agenda. Trump and his administration are committed to capturing, detaining, and deporting millions of undocumented residents, and, in the process, separating many children from their parents. He will look for ways to compel local officials to go along. He will, as emphatically promised, impose inflation-driving tariffs, and thus increase the costs of goods to American consumers and many businesses. He and his administration will go after their domestic “enemies.” These efforts will likely be supported by a right-wing Supreme Court and many federal courts across the country.

Alternatively:

In his new book, On Freedom, historian Timothy Snyder describes what a real democracy entails.

“A large representative democracy works only when people are in fact represented. Democracy is rule by the people, so nonhuman entities (algorithms, corporations, and foundations) should neither vote nor pay for political campaigns. No American should count for more than any other American. Campaigns should be transparently and publicly financed. Candidates should be publicly financed; voter registration should be automatic; voting stations should be plentiful; ballots should be paper; gerrymandering should be outlawed” (p. 241).

Trump will likely pay little attention to the climate crisis, and it will get worse


Bob Sheak, Nov 14, 2024

Introduction

The U.S. remains the second largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, behind China. The Biden administration has done some things in attempts to reduce such emissions, but, despite these efforts, emissions in the US have continued to increase. Indeed, 2024 is the hottest year on record.

Trump, a climate-crisis denier, will as president exacerbate the problem and give open-ended support to fossil fuel production and consumption and the industries that benefit from them. Rising emissions and the rising temperatures they produce represent an existential problem that will likely threaten to generate massive dislocations of people and threaten the survival of millions, if not billions, of people in America and around the globe.

There are plenty of books that tell this cataclysmic story. Here are a few examples. Mark Lynas’ book examines in detail the effects of rising temperatures (Our Final Warning: Six Degrees of Climate Emergency). Abrahm Lustgarten focuses on the “uprooting of America” and the millions of people who will be forced to move, as their communities become too hot to continue (On the Move: The Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America). Jeff Goodall zeros in on the effects of Americans of rising heat levels (The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet).

I – Biden’s record on the climate crisis has bright spots

Mike Ludwig reports that Biden made steady progress on climate, but adds that Trump is poised to dismantle it (https://truthout.org/articles/biden-made-slow-but-steady-progress-on-climate-trump-is-poised-to-dismantle-it). On Biden’s climate record, Ludwig writes:

“While politicians and the media obsessed about the economy and immigration under President Joe Biden, his administration has been running the most robust Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a generation, making modest but steady progress on vexing problems such as environmental racism, toxic chemical contamination and updating infrastructure to run on cleaner energy.

“Flush with nearly $29 billion in Inflation Reduction Act funding, the EPA is stewarding billions of dollars in grants for upgrading water infrastructure, reducing climate-warming pollution and expanding renewable energy.

Other government agencies are involved in climate-related work. Ludwig points out,

“The climate work goes beyond the EPA, with multiple agencies implementing an expansive plan to drastically reduce industrial releases of methane, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. For the first time, federal regulators are questioning whether permitting private companies to export vast quantities of fossil gas produced in the U.S. — including on publicly owned land — could be harmful to both the environment and consumers struggling to pay energy bills.”

Wikipedia has further details on Biden’s Inflation Adjustment Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate-change-policy-of-the-United-States).

“The Inflation Reduction Act was a reconciliation bill that was the largest investment in climate change mitigation in US history to date, setting out provisions to invest in increasing renewable energy and electrifying areas of the US economy. The legislation, signed into law by Biden on August 16, 2022, invests approximately $400 billion to climate-related projects, primarily in the form of tax credits for consumers and private businesses. The majority of these investments is intended to increase the amount of wind and solar energy in the United States grid by providing tax incentives to renewable energy producers, as well as companies that manufacture batteries and wind and solar power components.[145][146][147][148] The Act may also invest $28–48 billion in building retrofits and energy efficiency, $23–436 billion in clean transportation, $22–26 billion in environmental justice, land use, air pollution reduction and resilience, and $3–21 billion in sustainable agriculture.[149][150][151]”


II. Withal, Global warming continues to rise

Despite the efforts of the Biden administration, Austyn Gaffney reports that researchers find that 2024 temperatures are on track for a record high (https://nytimes.com/2024/11/06/climate/2024-temperatures-hottest-year.html). He writes,

“This year [2024] will almost certainly be the hottest year on record, beating the high set in 2023, researchers announced on Wednesday [Nov. 6].

Gaffney cites the research done by “the Copernicus Climate Change Service, the European Union agency that monitors global warming,” and has forecast “that 2024 would be the first calendar year in which global temperatures consistently rose 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.

“That’s the temperature threshold that countries agreed, in the Paris Agreement, that the planet should avoid crossing. Beyond that amount of warming, scientists say, the Earth will face irreversible damage.

“Greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are dangerously heating up the planet, imperiling biodiversity, increasing sea level rise and drought and making extreme weather events more common and more destructive.

Gaffney quotes Samantha Burgess who refers to recent storms like Hurricanes Helene and Milton and the flooding in Spain to exemplify just how devastating weather intensified by warming can be.”

“A report issued by the United Nations last month found that the world’s current climate plans are inadequate, only providing a 2.6 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that reduction needs to be an order of magnitude larger: at least a 43 percent reduction by 2030 and 60 percent by 2035.”

“The reality is, every fraction of a degree matters,” Dr. Burgess said. “The sooner globally we cut emissions, the sooner our climate will stabilize.”

“If President-elect Donald J. Trump withdraws the United States from the Paris accord, as he has promised and as he did during his first administration, it would be ‘very bad news,’ according to Diana Urge-Vorsatz, a professor at Central European University and vice chairwoman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N. body that provides governments with scientific information to develop climate policies.”

The US and most world governments are not doing enough

Zia Weise and Lucia Mackenzie provide more details on global warming and how, according to the UN, the world is on track for catastrophic 3 degrees Celsius warming (https://politico.eu/article/united-nations-emissions-gap-global-warming-data-climate-change-report). The article was published on Oct. 24, 2024. Here’s some of what they write.

“The world is already 1.3C hotter than before the Industrial Revolution.

“Current plans and policies will lead to 2.6 to 3.1 degrees Celsius of global warming this century, with zero chance of limiting the temperature increase to the totemic 1.5C target agreed in Paris in 2015, according to a new report out Thursday.

“In fact, existing measures are falling so far short of what’s needed that the world even risks blowing past 2C, the Paris accord’s upper limit, the U.N. warned.

“The severity and frequency of dangerous heat waves, destructive storms and other disasters rises with every fraction of warming. At 3C, scientists say, the world could pass several points of no return that would dramatically alter the planet’s climate and increase sea levels, such as due to the collapse of polar ice caps.

Weise and Mackenzie continue: “If nations do not implement current commitments, then show a massive increase in ambition in the new pledges, followed by rapid delivery, the Paris Agreement target of holding global warming to 1.5C will be dead within a few years and 2C will take its place in the intensive care unit,” said Inger Andersen, the U.N. environment chief.”

“Andersen said that worldwide, measures to reduce emissions will require a ‘minimum six-fold increase’ in investment, ‘backed by reform of the global financial architecture and strong private sector action.’” Such investment is not in the cards during a Trump administration.

“In general, the G20 — which comprises industrialized countries such as the EU and U.S. as well as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia — were responsible for 77 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2023.
In stark contrast, all 55 African Union countries accounted for just 6 percent.”

“After all, while the entire G20 accounted for 77 percent of last year’s global emissions, the largest six polluters among them were responsible for more than 60 percent. The U.N. report doesn’t name and shame, but authors are referring to China (30 percent), the United States (11 percent), India (8 percent), the EU (6 percent), Russia (5 percent) and Brazil (2 percent).”

“Progress among the G20 is a mixed bag: China’s emissions grew 5.2 percent in 2023, while the EU’s fell 7.5 percent; and while China is much more populous, its per-capita emissions in 2023 were 11 tons to the EU’s 7.3 tons.

“U.S. emissions fell by 1.4 percent, but American per-capita emissions remain the second-highest at 18 tons after Russia’s 19 tons. India’s are just 2.9 tons — even though its emissions rose by 6 percent last year.”

U.N. environment chief Andersen urges rich nations like the US to phase out greenhouse gas emissions at a much faster rate than at present.


III. Trump and his administration will reverse the limited achievements of the Biden presidency on climate.

One of Trump’s signature slogans is “drill baby drill,” which means, as he has told us, his upcoming government, once installed after January 20,2025, will (1) increase government support for fossil fuels, (2) reduce support for solar, wind, and geothermal, (3) encourage more export of fracked natural gas, (4) eviscerate or close the Environmental Protection Agency, (5) open up public land to drilling; and (6) serve as an international model for other countries to follow his example.

Mike Ludwig (cited previously) reminds us that “Trump is threatening to unleash pollution, increase emissions and incapacitate the most robust EPA in a generation (https://truthout.org/articles/biden-made-slow-but-steady-progress-on-climate-trump-is-poised-to-dismantle-it). And he will have the power to do it, as result of being chosen to be president by millions of American voters in the recent election.

“…efforts to meet international climate commitments,” Ludwig writes, “seem certain to stall, if not end abruptly, after Donald Trump is reinstalled in the White House and Republicans take over the Senate if not all of Congress. According to the most recent information, as of Nov. 12, Republicans will control the White House, both branches of the U.S. Congress, and the Supreme Court when Trump and his party come into power after January 20, 2025.”

With such political power, Ludwig continues, “[t]he damage will go far beyond global warming. If Trump’s rhetoric and first-term record are any indication of what is ahead, the president-elect and the industries willing to curry his favor are poised to make the U.S. a more polluted and dangerous place to live.”

Trump will move to make “steep budget cuts” in the EPA, and perhaps move the agency out of the capitol, “as enforcement of clean air and water standards plummets. Career public servants are expected to be replaced with loyalists from the private sector. Back in 2017, Trump appointed a former coal lobbyist to lead the EPA.” Trump is also expected to dissolve the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the “agency tracks climate change for policy makers and the public.”

Climate scientists at the United Nations are worried. They view the climate crisis with words like “catastrophic” to describe our future without swift action.

“Trump and the Republicans have told a convenient lie to voters, accusing the Democrats of throttling domestic oil and gas production and sending gas and energy prices through the roof. In reality, fossil fuel prices are set by global forces the U.S. president has little control over. The U.S. is already the world’s top producer of oil and gas, and domestic prices would likely come down if the industry didn’t export so much overseas.

“The consequences of this election are clear for those on the frontlines of the climate crisis,” said Jennifer Krill, executive director of the environmental justice group Earthworks, in a statement. “Low-income communities and communities of color will bear the brunt of impact, from poisoned air and water to extreme weather events and rising sea levels, all within our lifetimes.” But the effects will be everywhere.

Fossil fuel companies will profit

Evan Halper, Maxine Joselow and Chico Harlan delve into this issue
(https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/11/06/trump-win-climate-change-oil-gas).

The journalists report, “Trump’s plans have the potential to send fossil fuel companies’ profits soaring while threatening the world’s climate goals.”

“President-elect Donald Trump’s return to the White House could reverse the gains the United States has made in fighting global warming, experts said, by cementing his plans to unleash domestic fossil fuel production, dismantle key environmental rules and scale back federal support for renewable energy and electric vehicles.

“It has also raised fears among U.S. allies and even some major energy executives who warn that a U.S. exit from global climate efforts will hurt American industry as the rest of the world shifts away from fossil fuels.

“Trump’s election creates ‘a very long pathway for fossil fuels,’ Ben Cahill, an energy scholar at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a phone interview Wednesday. ‘Investors will feel the outlook is brighter. The industry will be under less pressure.’”

“He (Trump) is expected to ease a suite of restrictions on the oil industry’s emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. And he will probably cancel the Biden administration’s pause on permits for new liquefied natural gas export projects, clearing the way for the industry to build billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that could increase U.S. emissions and keep gas flowing to other nations for decades to come.”

“Trump is expected to take aim at these investments by targeting President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, which he has repeatedly called a ‘green new scam.’ But he would likely need Congress to repeal the law, and some Republican lawmakers may balk.

“Cahill said that the law’s tax credits for consumers, including those for EVs, rooftop solar panels and heat pumps ‘will definitely be on the chopping block’ but ‘the investment incentives for wind, solar and battery storage have proven to be quite popular with big business.’”

Nonetheless, “[t]he incoming president will have much more latitude to reverse dozens of environmental rules that oil and gas executives find burdensome. During an April dinner at his Mar-a-Lago Club, Trump asked oil executives to steer $1 billion toward his campaign while promising to relax industry regulations.

“The oil industry responded by donating tens of millions of dollars to his campaign and crafting a playbook for the new administration. It includes draft executive orders that would end restrictions on drilling on public lands and shift the Interior Department’s priorities away from protecting vulnerable species and ecosystems.”

“Trump has argued that unshackling oil companies from environmental rules could drive the price of gasoline below $2 per gallon. But energy analysts are skeptical. Prices at the pump typically have little connection to White House policies, and are largely driven instead by the coalition of oil-producing nations led by Saudi Arabia and Russia. And Trump will take office at a time when the United States is already producing more oil and gas than any country ever has.

Trump’s record is bad. “During his first term, Trump weakened or wiped out more than 125 environmental rules and policies touching everything from toxic chemicals to endangered species.”

When Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement for the first time, a group called America Is All In announced that dozens of states, cities and corporations were still committed to the pact. Gina McCarthy, the former White House climate czar under Biden and the managing co-chair of America is All In, vowed in a statement Wednesday to continue that fight.

“‘No matter what Trump may say,’ she said, ‘the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back.’

“If Trump pulls the United States from the Paris agreement, it will deal a symbolic blow to the international efforts, given America’s place as the largest historical emitter of planet-warming pollution. Under Biden, the United States has produced record amounts of oil, but it had also positioned itself as a climate leader. Last year, minutes after nations agreed to a historic pledge to transition away from fossil fuels, then-climate envoy John F. Kerry addressed delegates, touting a moment of ‘multilateralism’ and unity, and expressing a sense of ‘awe.’ His remarks drew loud applause.

“Collins Nzovu, who served until recently as Zambia’s green economy and environment minister, said in a recent interview that the global climate process is less credible if the ‘superpower is not at the table for discussing an existential threat.’

“Poorer countries are…depending on the United States to help finance plans that are essential to the world’s climate goals.

“‘No mitigation efforts can work without America at the table,’ Nzovu said.”

Experts discuss the problem

Jenni Doering, Steve Curwood, and their colleagues at Inside Climate News also consider what climate and environmental policies will look like in Trump’s second administration (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09112024/climate-and-environmental-policies-during-second-Trump-administration). Here are excerpts from the article, which features a discussion among well-informed analysts.

From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Jenni Doering and Steve Curwood with Inside Climate News’s Washington bureau chief Marianne Lavelle and executive editor Vernon Loeb, about what the election of Donald Trump may mean for the environment.


STEVE CURWOOD: What’s your view of how the world is going to look at us now that we have chosen a leader who denies climate change when we’ve been seeing temperatures going up and storms and such are getting worse and worse?

VERNON LOEB: Well, I think the world has seen this before. When Trump was in office the first time, one of the first things he did was take the country out of the Paris Agreement. Clearly, the world is expecting he’ll do that again.

Climate action didn’t stop when he did that the first time. It won’t stop this time. But I think clearly, world leaders feel like progress on climate is going to be a lot harder to achieve with Trump in office and with the U.S. out of the official agreement. It’s not a good moment for the climate. I don’t think progress is going to grind to a halt, but it’s not a good moment.

LAVELLE: President-elect Trump has made clear that he is going to roll back the regulations that are meant to nudge the auto industry toward electric vehicles over the next decade. He says he is going to repeal that on day one, and that is going to make a big difference.

My colleague Dan Gearino and I have been working all year on writing about the politics of electric vehicles, and one of the analysts we’ve talked to says that there is going to be 40 percent less demand for EV batteries and EV technology under a Trump administration than there would have been under a Harris administration. Those kinds of changes in policy are bound to make a huge difference in how quickly we make the transition—that’s already going on all over the world—to electric vehicles.

LOEB: There’s a long description in Project 2025 about how the EPA’s enforcement capability should be pulled way back. And instead, the agency should move to something called “compliance assistance,” which is working more closely with corporations.

Project 2025 also talks about dismantling NOAA, which is the National Weather Service—the agency that tracks hurricanes—and the National Hurricane Center. Project 2025 even calls for the repeal of the EPA efficiency ratings for appliances, the Energy Star efficiency ratings. So Project 2025 could be a real disaster for environmental protection, if it is indeed the Trump blueprint.

LAVELLE: One of the things Project 2025 says to do is to eliminate EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice. It definitely is in the sights of the team around Trump to really redirect this initiative to address environmental justice.

One thing I noticed is that House Republicans this week put out a report on environmental justice grants by the Biden administration, and they’re very critical of those grants because they’re going to groups that, for example, oppose the natural gas export terminals on the Gulf Coast. What this report does is kind of gives a blueprint for the incoming Trump administration on what grants to withdraw, and also kind of a basis for withdrawing the program altogether. That report came out very much with an awareness that Trump is coming into the White House with an eye to cutting back the support for these communities that are overburdened with pollution, and have been for a long time.

DOERING: What do you think is going to happen now that the Trump administration is coming back in and has 20-something natural gas projects which it can potentially give the green light to?

LOEB: The Biden administration put a hold on those projects as it considered the climate implications. My hunch is that that will be one of the first things Trump does away with and basically gives those plants the green light as part of his energy dominance, “drill, baby, drill” approach. Of all the industries, none has fared better under Trump than the fossil fuel industry. I would expect a real explosion of LNG exports over the next four years under Trump, too.

DOERING: Remind us why are climate activists so concerned about those terminals?

LOEB: The terminals just lead to more fracking. We’re already the leading oil and gas nation in the world, and if we can continue to frack and start exporting our natural gas as liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe, which is still somewhat smarting from the loss of Russian natural gas, it just means more fracking. And when you’ve got more fracking, you’ve got more air pollution, more greenhouse gas emissions, more produced water piling up with no place to dispose of it. LNG exports means more fracking across the nation.

CURWOOD: I’ve seen some research that says that the actual carbon footprint of exported natural gas can even exceed that of burning coal.

LAVELLE: As somebody who’s been writing about this for a long time, I usually focus on the stories I’m telling and what I’m working on, not looking out at the big picture that much. This forces you to look at the big picture. And anyone who has young people in their lives, you think, what kind of world are we leaving for them? The way I deal with it is just focus on the importance of the work we’re doing, trying to explain the science and tell people really that there are things that can be done to address climate change, and we know what they are, and it’s going to take all of us to do something about it.

CURWOOD: Talk to me about what some people call the glimmer of hope: the states and localities.

LOEB: Voters in Washington firmly rejected a measure on the ballot that would have overturned the state’s signature climate law. In California, the voters approved a $10 billion bond fund for projects that focus on resiliency and coastal adaptation and response to floods and wildfires. And similarly, in Honolulu, voters also approved a climate resiliency fund there. So kind of a mixed result, right?

While the national vote was going for Trump, who’s someone who’s sort of avowedly almost a climate denier, you’ve got majorities in these states clearly voting for climate change measures to fund things like adaptation and resiliency.

Concluding thoughts

The Trump/Republicans win in a blow-out “red” wave defeat of Democrats in the recent elections. At the same time, some Americans will continue their struggles to combat the sources of the problem, namely, fossil fuel companies and their economic and political allies, including Trump and the Republican Party.

Members of the World Resources Institute contend that “all hope is not lost” (https://wri.org/insights/trump-climate-action-setbacks-opportunities-us). The authors, Cristina DeConcina, Jennifer Rennicki, and Gabby Hyman, identify “several pathways remain to keep momentum for climate action alive.”

“For one, there are bipartisan climate-friendly opportunities to seize, such as continued clean energy development, which has already delivered tremendous economic benefits in both red and blue states. There is also support from both sides of the aisle for next-generation geothermal energy and from the business community for decarbonizing heavy industries and strengthening international supply chains to ensure U.S. competitiveness and security. These initiatives would bolster U.S. manufacturing and national security, while also benefitting the climate.

DeConcina and her colleagues continue.

“In addition, subnational actors like states, cities, businesses and tribal nations boldly stepped up during Trump’s first term in office. They can — and early signs show they will — take up the mantle of leadership again in the climate fight.
Some of the major opportunities include:

“When President Trump announced in 2017 that the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, American communities, states, tribal nations and business leaders quickly coalesced to form America Is All In. More than 4,000 mayors, governors, university presidents and business leaders signed the We Are Still In declaration, committing to meet the emissions-reduction targets set in the Paris Agreement and continue engaging with the international community. The 2019 Accelerating America’s Pledge report found that bottom-up leadership from states, cities, businesses and other subnational actors would reduce U.S. emissions by up to 37% by 2030, even without federal intervention.

“And since the first Trump administration, subnational climate action initiatives have only grown in strength and commitment. Managing Co-Chair of America Is All In and former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said recently, ‘No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable, and our country is not turning back.’”

“Many states have enacted ambitious climate policies. For example, the 24 states and territories that comprise the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance, representing 54% of the U.S. population and 57% of the U.S. economy, have committed to achieving net-zero emissions no later than 2050.

“Some states are poised for even greater action before Trump takes office. In California, voters overwhelming approved Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond measure that will help the state prepare for the impacts of climate change. Just after the election, California’s Governor Newsom announced a special session of the state legislature to take steps “to safeguard California values”— including the fight against climate change — ahead Trump’s second term. A day later, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved updates to the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), designed to accelerate the development of cleaner fuels and zero-emission infrastructure to help the state meet legislatively mandated air quality and climate targets.

“At the same time, voters in Washington state upheld a new law that forces companies to cut carbon emissions while raising billions to support programs such as habitat restoration and climate preparation. Maryland’s Governor Moore issued a wide-ranging executive order earlier this year directing state agencies to develop climate implementation plans to ensure the state could continue working towards its ambitious climate change targets, which aim for net-zero carbon by 2045.

“In parallel, cities have long played a crucial role in advancing climate policies and will continue to do so. Climate Mayors, which started as a network of 30 mayors in 2017, is now a bipartisan network of nearly 350 U.S. mayors driving climate action in their communities. These cities continue investing in public transportation, green infrastructure and local emissions-reduction initiatives — all of which will continue to mitigate the impacts of climate change and build more sustainable urban environments with or without federal action on climate.”

12 Reasons to Vote Against Trump

12 Reasons to vote against Trump

Bob Sheak, Oct 11, 2024

Introduction

This post offers twelve reasons to vote against Trump/Vance in the November presidential election. The reader may think of more reasons. It will take a large vote for Harris/Walz to accomplish this goal and thus end Trump’s dominating influence on the Republican Party and US politics. It is a truly epical fight about democracy vs fascism.

#1 – Cognitive decline

Peter Baker and Dylan Freedman report on Trump’s increasingly angry and rambling speeches (https://nytimes.com/2024/10/06/us/politics/trump-speeches-age-cognitive-decline.html). Peter Baker covered the Trump presidency and wrote a book on it with his wife, Susan Glasser. Dylan Freedman is a machine-learning engineer and a journalist working on A.I. initiatives. Here’s some of what Baker and Freedman consider.

“Former President Donald J. Trump vividly recounted how the audience at his climactic debate with Vice President Kamala Harris was on his side. Except that there was no audience. The debate was held in an empty hall. No one “went crazy,” as Mr. Trump put it, because no one was there.”

“He rambles, he repeats himself, he roams from thought to thought — some of them hard to understand, some of them unfinished, some of them factually fantastical. He voices outlandish claims that seem to be made up out of whole cloth. He digresses into bizarre tangents about golf, about sharks, about his own “beautiful” body. He relishes “a great day in Louisiana” after spending the day in Georgia. He expresses fear that North Korea is “trying to kill me” when he presumably means Iran. As late as last month, Mr. Trump was still speaking as if he were running against President Biden, five weeks after his withdrawal from the race.”

Baker and Freedman continue. “With Mr. Biden out, Mr. Trump, at 78, is now the oldest major party nominee for president in history and would be the oldest president ever if he wins and finishes another term at 82. A review of Mr. Trump’s rallies, interviews, statements and social media posts finds signs of change since he first took the political stage in 2015. They point out that Trump “has always been discursive and has often been untethered to truth, but with the passage of time his speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past.

“According to a computer analysis by The New York Times, Mr. Trump’s rally speeches now last an average of 82 minutes, compared with 45 minutes in 2016. Proportionately, he uses 13 percent more all-or-nothing terms like “always” and “never” than he did eight years ago, which some experts consider a sign of advancing age.

“Similarly, he uses 32 percent more negative words than positive words now, compared with 21 percent in 2016, which can be another indicator of cognitive change. And he uses swearwords 69 percent more often than he did when he first ran, a trend that could reflect what experts call disinhibition. (A study by Stat, a health care news outlet, produced similar findings.)

“He cites fictional characters… like Hannibal Lecter from “Silence of the Lip” (he meant “Silence of the Lambs”), asks “where’s Johnny Carson, bring back Johnny” (who died in 2005) and ruminates on how attractive Cary Grant was (“the most handsome man”). He asks supporters whether they remember the landing in New York of Charles Lindbergh, who actually landed in Paris and long before Mr. Trump was born.”

“Sarah Matthews, who was Mr. Trump’s deputy press secretary until breaking with him over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack, said the former president had lost his fastball.

“‘I don’t think anyone would ever say that Trump is the most polished speaker, but his more recent speeches do seem to be more incoherent, and he’s rambling even more so and he’s had some pretty noticeable moments of confusion,’ she said.”

Some of Mr. Trump’s cabinet secretaries had a running debate over whether the president was “crazy-crazy,” as one of them put it in an interview after leaving office, or merely someone who promoted “crazy ideas.” There were multiple conversations about whether the 25th Amendment disability clause should be invoked to remove him from office, although the idea never went far. His own estranged niece, Mary L. Trump, a clinical psychologist, wrote a book identifying disorders she believed he has. Mr. Trump bristled at such talk, insisting that he was ‘a very stable genius’.

“Ms. Matthews said of her time in the White House. ‘No one wanted to outright say it in that environment — is he mentally fit? — but I definitely had my moments where I personally questioned it.’

“A 2022 study by a pair of University of Montana scholars found that Mr. Trump’s speech complexity was significantly lower than that of the average president over American history. (So was Mr. Biden’s.) The Times analysis found that Mr. Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level, lower than rivals like Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who speaks at an eighth-grade level, which is roughly average for modern presidents.”

There is more. Baker and Freedman write:

“Mr. Trump has appeared tired at times and has maintained a far less active campaign schedule this time around, holding only 61 rallies so far in 2024, compared with 283 through all of 2016, according to the Times analysis, although he has picked up the pace lately. He appeared to nod off during his hush-money trial in New York before being convicted of 34 felonies.”

“Now his rallies are powered as much by anger as anything else. His distortions and false claims have reached new levels. His adversaries are ‘lunatics’ and ‘deranged’ and ‘communists’ and ‘fascists.’ Never particularly restrained, he now lobs four-letter words and other profanities far more freely.”

“But like some people approaching the end of their eighth decade, he is not open to correction. “Trump is never wrong,” he said recently in Wisconsin. ‘I am never, ever wrong.’” And his millions of followers believe him.

#2 – Moral unfitness

The New York Times Editorial Board has offered a summary of Trump’s moral unfitness to be president

(https://nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/11/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-2024-unfit.html).

“He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racistsabuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty.

This record shows what can happen to a country led by such a person: America’s image, credibility and cohesion were relentlessly undermined by Mr. Trump during his term.

“None of his wrongful actions are so obviously discrediting as his determined and systematic attempts to undermine the integrity of elections — the most basic element of any democracy — an effort that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

#3 – Law breaker

In a report for Citizens for Ethics (CREW), Brie Sparkman and Sara Wiatrak write that, as of March 2024 [updated June 4], “Donald Trump has been personally charged with 88 [now 91] criminal offenses in four criminal cases” (https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trumps-91-criminal-charges-and-where-they-stand). They continue:

“This total reflects charges related to Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, election interference in Georgia, falsifying business records in New York, and mishandling classified records after leaving the presidency. Donald Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to be criminally indicted.”

#4 – Opposed to abortion access

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, ending the right to abortion that had existed since 1973. Nina Totenberg and Sarah McCammon review the new law for NPR (https://npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn). Here are excerpts and comments from their analysis.

“The decision, most of which was leaked in early May [2022], means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.”

Concurring with Justice Samuel Alito 78-page decision were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks.”

“Dissenting were Justices Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama. They agreed that the court decision means that ‘young women today will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers.’ Indeed, they said the court’s opinion means that ‘from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest personal and familial costs.’”

#5 – Building a right-wing and lawless army of militia to advance Trump’s authoritarian agenda

Bob Dreyfuss delves into this issue in an article for The Nation on Sept 5, 2024

(https://thenation.com/article/society/donald-trump-squadristi-nazies). Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an independent investigative journalist who specializes in politics and national security.

Dreyfuss writes: “Trump, of course, has a long history of supporting and encouraging potentially violent supporters. In 2016, during his first campaign, he suggested that ‘the Second Amendment people’—i.e., his gun-owning backers—might be able to stop the nomination of Democratic Supreme Court choices. In 2019, he said, ‘I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump—I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.’ And in 2020 Trump famously told the Proud Boys militia to ‘stand down and stand by.’ Ultimately, the Proud Boys would help lead the January 6 insurrection.”

There is a pattern. Dreyfuss reports, “Certainly, Trump has summoned US militias and other extremists to his cause. In 2020, for instance, at the height of nationwide protests against lockdowns, mask requirements, and school closures at the start of the coronavirus crisis, Trump issued a series of viral tweets urging his followers to ‘liberate’ Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, where armed adherents were mobilizing in street demonstrations. For instance, on April 17, 2020, Trump tweeted—characteristically, in all caps—’LIBERATE MICHIGAN!’ Soon afterwards, gun-toting Trump supporters invaded the state capitol in Lansing. Most egregiously, he called on supporters to gather in Washington on January 5-6, 2021—’Be there, will be wild’—for a rally that ended in the occupation of the Capitol and led to Trump’s impeachment.”

Trump has an armed and cult-like following that seems prepared to take up arms on his behalf. This is in a context in which the nation is bitterly divided “in which a substantial portion of the populace believes that violence may be necessary.

“According to a survey by the University of Chicago’s Project on Security & Threats, as many as 14 percent of Americans say that violence is justified to ‘achieve political goals that I support,’ and 4.4 percent—that’s more than 11 million US adults—agree that ‘the use of force is justified to return Donald Trump to the presidency.’”

#6 -Trump’s January 6 Culpability

Brett Wilkins reports on a new case for Trump’s culpability on January 6

(https://commondreams.org/articles/bombshell-new-motion-lays-out-legal-case-for-trumps-culpability-on-january-6).

“Jack Smith, the special counsel probing former U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential contest, on Wednesday [Oct 2] presented a massive trove of fresh evidence supporting his election interference case against the 2024 Republican nominee.

“Smith’s sprawling and highly anticipated 165-page motion — which was partly unsealed Wednesday by presiding U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — states that Trump ‘asserts that he is immune from prosecution for his criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election because, he claims, it entailed official conduct. Not so.’

“Trump — who in August 2023 was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights — contends that his actions were taken in his official capacity as president and not as a private individual.

“Bottom of Form

In July, the U.S. Supreme Court’s right-wing justice— including three Trump appointees — ruled that the ex-president is entitled to ‘absolute immunity’ for ‘official acts’ taken while he was in office, raising questions about the future of this case. According to Smith’s motion:

“Although the defendant was the incumbent president during the charged conspiracies, his scheme was fundamentally a private one. Working with a team of private co-conspirators, the defendant acted as a candidate when he pursued multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted—a function in which the defendant, as president, had no official role.

“In Trump v. United States… the Supreme Court held that presidents are immune from prosecution for certain official conduct—including the defendant’s use of the Justice Department in furtherance of his scheme, as was alleged in the original indictment—and remanded to this court to determine whether the remaining allegations against the defendant are immunized.

“The answer to that question is no. This motion provides a comprehensive account of the defendant’s private criminal conduct; sets forth the legal framework created by Trump for resolving immunity claims; applies that framework to establish that none of the defendant’s charged conduct is immunized because it either was unofficial or any presumptive immunity is rebutted; and requests the relief the government seeks, which is, at bottom, this: that the court determine that the defendant must stand trial for his private crimes as would any other citizen.

Smith’s filing details what Trump told various people in his inner circle, including then-Vice President Mike Pence, his now-disgraced and twice-disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and leading White House and Republican Party figures — some of whose names remain undisclosed.”

Smith’s motion states:

“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office. With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (the “targeted states”). His efforts included lying to state officials in order to induce them to ignore true vote counts; manufacturing fraudulent electoral votes in the targeted states; attempting to enlist Pence, in his role as president of the Senate, to obstruct Congress’ certification of the election by using the defendant’s fraudulent electoral votes; and when all else had failed, on January 6, 2021, directing an angry crowd of supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification.”

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen and co-chair of the Not Above the Law Coalition praises Smith’s efforts says “Jack Smith has shown us yet again the merits of his case against former President Trump.”

“In his filing, Smith clarifies that the alleged criminal actions occurred while Trump was acting as a private citizen,” Gilbert added. “The desperate plan that Trump embarked on to try and overturn the results of a legitimate election was reprehensible, irresponsible, and — the document shows — criminal. Accountability to the American people and our democracy is our only path forward.”

#7– Encourages violence among his supporters

Sasha Abramsky reports on the fascist calls to violence by Trump and his supporters in an article on The Nation, Oct 4, 2024

“Late last week, in Erie, Pennsylvania, Trump, who has long fetishized what he sees as strongman behavior and language, took another leaf out of the Duterte and Bolsonaro playbooks. Specifically, he aped both authoritarians in their approach to crime and punishment.”

“Trump, in Erie, called for shoplifters to face ‘one really violent day’ and ‘one rough hour’ at the hands of the police, arguing that it was Democratic policy to coddle offenders, and that taking the gloves off in the fight against street crime was the only way to render communities safe again. In a rambling speech notable both for its utter lack of syntax and its extraordinary embrace of illegal violence by state and federal agents, Trump declared ruefully: ‘They’re [police officers] not allowed to do it, because the liberal left won’t let them do it. If you had one real, rough, nasty day with the drug stores as an example.… she [Harris] created something in San Francisco, $950 you’re allowed to steal; anything above that you will be prosecuted. Originally you saw kids walking with calculators, standing there with calculators adding it up. If you had one really violent day, put Congressman Mike Kelly [a local GOP representative who was attending the rally] in charge for one day. Mike, would you say, if you’re in charge, ‘Don’t touch them, let them rob your stores’?… it’s a chain of events, it’s so bad. One rough hour, and I mean real rough, the word will get out and it will end immediately, end immediately, it will end immediately.’”

Abramsky continues.

“The violent sentiments underpinning Trump’s word-salad sentences were in and of themselves appalling—as appalling as his reported desire during his time in the White House to let Border Patrol agents shoot undocumented immigrants in the legs as a form of deterrence. Equally disgusting was the reaction of his crowd. At each turn of phrase, at each homage to violence, the crowd roared its approval.

“There’s been a lot of talk recently about ‘understanding’ the Trump voter, about not tarring them all with their leader’s fetid brush. Good luck on that front. For, based on that particular interaction between cult leader and cult followers in Pennsylvania, I’d say a significant portion of them, at least the ones who think it a worthy investment of time and energy to attend a Trump rally, are now reveling in out-and-out fascist calls to violence. They’re supporting Trump not despite his propensity to devolve into ugly calls for clearly illegal acts of violence but because of it. And, in these rallies, they are provided the cover of numbers to give their worst, most vicious impulses free rein. That’s the emotional timbre of the lynch mob.”

Since the end of his presidency, Trump has “sought to invoke the Insurrection Act against racial justice protesters; and he described police violence as a ‘beautiful thing to watch.’ And while his 2016–20 presidency did see some criminal justice reform legislation signed into law, since then Trump has leaned into tough-on-crime policies: he has pledged to dramatically expand the use of the death penalty, to introduce summary executions for drug dealers, and Project 2025, which his campaign is closely tied to, has promised to pull back on federal probes into police violence against suspects. He has also repeatedly stated that he will use the Department of Justice to prosecute his political opponents, elections workers, and even members of the media.”

#8- A long record of ignoring the law 

Abramsky also addresses this issue. “If the GOP and the MAGA movement were even remotely concerned with true crime fighting, they wouldn’t have nominated a man convicted of 34 felonies—not for stealing a few hundred dollars’ worth of drugstore items but for illegally paying off a porn star to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep quiet about her affair with Donald J. Trump. They would not have nominated a man whose business enterprises have been found to have committed fraud and who boasts about his fine-tuned ability to avoid paying taxes. They would not have nominated a man found liable for sexual abuse, fined millions of dollars for defaming the victim of that sexual abuse, and caught on tape bragging about his ability to grab and grope the private parts of any woman he wants. They would not have nominated a man twice impeached, once for holding up aid to Ukraine in hopes of strong-arming that country’s government into dishing up political dirt on Joe Biden, the other time for inciting an armed uprising aimed at preventing the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election. They would not have nominated a man facing dozens of additional state and federal felony charges for everything from hoarding top-secret documents through to trying to bully state officials in swing states into changing the election tallies to benefit Donald Trump.”

#9 – Trump suggests there will be violence if he loses the November Election and seems to welcome the thought

C. J. Polychroniou, a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. points to relevant information (https://commondreams.org/opinion/implications-2024-election-us). The article was published on August 24, 2024.

“The 2024 U.S. presidential election is enormously important for many of the reasons you cited, although we shouldn’t be oblivious of the fact that parochialism is what drives most American voters. That said, this election is indeed unlike any other in modern history also because American voters are so polarized that the threat of civil breakdown is real. In fact, I believe that Trump is already laying the groundwork for rejecting the election result if he loses. This is why he calls Democrats’ replacement of Biden a ‘coup’ and even ‘a violent overthrow’ of a president. And back in March, he said that there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses the November election.

#10 – Dismisses the threat of  global warming

Tob Engelhardt considers how Trump’s policies would intensify global warming in an article for Tom Dispatch, Sept 26 2024

(https://tomdispatch.com/in-a-lost-universe-with-you-know-who).

“After all, right now, in September 2024, we’re living on a planet that has never, not at any time in human history, been hotter. Our world has, in fact, been setting remarkable heat records, one after another, month after month — August was the 15th straight month to be the hottest of its kind ever — year after year. In fact, 2023 set a global heat record and 2024 has a 95% probability of smashing that record. And the weather of such an overheating planet should already be taking your breath away, even if we’re still early (more or less) in a process that could indeed create nothing less than a genuine hell on Earth.

“All the greenhouse gases that have been and are being sent into the planet’s atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels are creating ever more heat, about 90% of which is at present being absorbed by global waters and is already altering our world in stunning ways. Recently, for instance, there has been devastating climate-change-related flooding globally, whether you’re talking about parts of ChinaNigeria, or most recently central Europe that suddenly found themselves underwater (while, by the way, Portugal was burning with more than 100 fires). The droughts have similarly been horrific, while the fires — oh, yes, those fires! — have been beyond fierce, including the recent blazes in Southern California and the 1.9 million (yes, 1.9 million!) acres scorched in Oregon’s record summer fire season. And don’t forget those Canadian fires of 2023 and 2024 that set such grim records in a world where “nearly 12 million hectares [of forests] — an area roughly the size of Nicaragua — burned in 2023, topping the previous record by about 24%.”

“And the heat? …. This year, records have been smashed again (and again) across the American West — and significant other parts of the planet.”

“In fact, to be fair to The Donald, while Joe Biden and Kamala Harris did indeed take some significant steps toward greening this country, mainly through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), during their time in office, the U.S. has remained the leader globally in producing oil and natural gas. In 2023, for the sixth year in a row, it set an all-time global record for oil production and another for natural gas exports. And don’t forget about methane, a truly potent greenhouse gas, where the American record is equally grim.

“Still, the man who demanded a billion dollars in campaign contributions from a group of leading oil executives and lobbyists at a dinner at Mar-a-Lago last spring, while promising to reverse Biden administration environmental rules and regulations, has, as Kamala Harris reminded us in their debate, repeatedly dismissed the phenomenon as a ‘hoax.’ Worse yet, it’s obvious that, should he enter the White House again, Trump and his compatriots are planning to let the fossil-fuel companies run wild and wreak havoc. He also plans to do his damnedest to limit the production of electric cars (despite the backing of Elon Musk) — ‘I will end the electric vehicle mandate on day 1’ — and so much else to ensure that we live on what, barring some remarkable surprise in the decades to come, will be a planet from… yes, hell.

“And oh yes, that Heritage Foundation plan, Project 2025, that he claims he hasn’t read (and it’s true that, as far as we know, he doesn’t read much, other perhaps than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf or the collection of that monster’s speeches, which he once reportedly kept near his bed). Still, Project 2025, created by so many people connected to his first term in office, already promises, according to the Guardian‘s Oliver Milman, “a widespread evisceration of environmental protections, allowing for a glut of new oil and gas drilling, the repeal of the IRA and even the elimination of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Weather Service so they can be replaced by private companies. The conservative Heritage Foundation, which leads Project 2025, has said a new Trump administration should ‘eradicate climate change references from absolutely everywhere.’”

“The estimate is that if Project 2025’s authors have their way, the result will be an added 2.7 billion tons of carbon emissions by 2030 and 26 billion tons (no, that is not a misprint!) by 2050. A cheery prospect for sure on a planet already heating in a historic (or do I mean post-historic?) fashion.”

“We’re talking, of course, about the man who generally summarizes his stance on energy and this planet in a simple phrase: ‘Drill, baby, drill”’— sometimes adding ‘and drill now!’ Honestly, you couldn’t be blunter than that, could you, when it comes to the fate of our world?”

#11 – Trump’s Politicization of Hurricane Helene Is Scandalous, Even for Him

Ed Kilgore reports on Trump’s politicization of Hurricane Helene in an article on New York Magazine, Oct 7,2024 (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-politicization-of-hurricane-helene-is-scandalous.html).

Trump has been alleging without evidence of a highly incompetent and even indifferent Biden administration response. “As CNN reports, it’s mostly a pack of demonstrably fabricated lies:

“Though the Biden administration’s response had certainly received criticism, it had also been praised by various state and local leaders — including the Republican governors of some of the affected states and the Democratic governor of North Carolina, plus local leaders including the Democratic mayor of the hard-hit North Carolina city of Asheville.

“For example, Republican South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster said at a Tuesday press conference that federal assistance had ‘been superb,’ noting that Biden and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg had both called and told him to let them know whatever the state needed. McMaster also said FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell had called…. The FAA is coordinating closely with state and local officials to make sure everyone is operating safely in very crowded and congested airspace.”

Kilgore refers to NBC News reports:

“False claims that federal emergency disaster money was given to migrants in the U.S. illegally have spread quickly in recent days, boosted by former President Donald Trump and some of his most high-profile supporters. Trump repeated one of the more extreme baseless allegations during a rally Thursday in Saginaw, Michigan, saying that the money had been stolen. 

More lies. Trump also said, “They stole the FEMA money, just like they stole it from a bank, so they could give it to their illegal immigrants that they want to have vote for them this season.”

Combine all the false claims Team Trump is promoting right now “and they tell a tall tale of worthless deep-state bureaucrats (whom Trump wants to replace with loyalists once he’s back in office) politically persecuting his suffering followers (just like the Biden administration persecuted him via ‘lawfare’), as they pursue their horrifically anti-American project of drowning the country and its voters in a sea of violent pet-eating migrants deeper than any flood waters. Needless to say this campaign of slander offers Helene victims nothing other than another grievance and makes an ongoing tragedy just another chapter in the saga of Trump’s earth-scorching return to power.”

#12 – Trump would add twice as much to national debt as Harris

Jacob Bogage, who covers economic policy in Congress for The Washington Post,  reports on a study documenting that Trump’s agenda would add to national debt (https://washingtonpost.com/business/2024/10/07/harris-trump-national-debt).

“Trump’s campaign proposals would increase the ballooning national debt by $7.5 trillion; Harris’s would add $3.5 trillion, according to a nonpartisan think tank.”

“Trump has called for extending his 2017 tax cuts, which would add more than $5 trillion over 10 years to the United States’ $35.7 trillion national debt, according to a study from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). His plan to end taxes on overtime wages, Social Security benefits and tips would add another $3.6 trillion in debt. And his call for a nationwide campaign to detain and deport undocumented immigrants would cost $350 billion.

“Trump says major new tariffs on imports would bring in enough revenue to offset all the tax cuts, but the study doesn’t support that claim, and many economists say the tariffs would also drive prices up for U.S. consumers.

“All told, CRFB found that the Trump policies it studied would add $7.5 trillion of debt — more than twice as much as the Harris proposals the group scrutinized.

“Harris would add $3 trillion to the debt by extending the 2017 tax cuts for those earning less than $400,000 a year, and $1.35 trillion through a major expansion of the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit, according to the study. Harris’s campaign says those programs would cost far less.

“Major portions of Trump’s 2017 tax cut expire in 2025, and without new legislation, individual tax rates will increase sharply. Congress’s nonpartisan bookkeeper projects the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio, a key metric of financial health, will reach a new all-time high within the next decade, imperiling financial stability. And Social Security and Medicare will also be insolvent by 2035 and 2036, respectively, forcing mandatory benefits cuts by those dates without congressional action.

“If we don’t take this seriously, it sort of becomes like bankruptcy, which happens very slowly and then suddenly, all at once,” said Jason Fichtner, chief economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank. “What that means for individuals, households, consumers, investors, borrowers, is that they will see the value of the dollar decline. They’ll probably see interest rates go up and they will see inflation go up, as well. Does that mean an apocalypse and there’s nothing to buy anymore? No. It means things become more expensive and we have a hard time funding the things you want to pay for now, like roads, bridges and education.”

“Both candidates do have plans to raise some federal revenue: The tariffs Trump has proposed would reach as high as 20 percent on all $3 trillion of annual imports, which could bring in $2.7 trillion in revenue, according to CRFB.

“But, by some of his own economic advisers’ analysis, the tariffs could also dramatically increase prices and depress U.S. economic output, because producers often pass on the cost of import duties to consumers. Lower economic output might also mean lower tax revenue.

“‘Tariffs are just a tax, no question about it,’ Stephen Moore, an economist at the right-wing Heritage Foundation and a Trump economic adviser, told policymakers at an event hosted by Politico this spring. “I don’t always agree on everything with Donald Trump. He knows I don’t agree with the monetary policy. A tariff is just a consumption tax.”

“Trump would also dramatically expand domestic energy production and recoup funding from some of President Joe Biden’s climate investments, worth up to $700 billion. And Trump has pledged to end the Department of Education at a savings of $200 billion, though much of that money would probably have to be reprogrammed into state education grants.”

“Harris has said she would pay for each of her policy proposals, and under one budget model CRFB studied, her plans would not raise the debt at all.”

“Under the most realistic scenario CRFB studied, Harris would raise $900 billion in revenue by increasing the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, plus another $900 billion from additional tax revenue. Much of that would be generated from new funding for the IRS to investigate tax cheats.

“Harris has not yet proposed new tax rates for those earning more than $400,000, but less than roughly $600,000. Rates for that tax bracket would be worked out in negotiations with Congress, she has said. Rates for the wealthiest earners would be set at 39.6 percent, according to Harris’s plan.

“The vice president would also increase tax rates on capital income, including on gains, dividends and corporate stock buybacks, for $850 billion in revenue, and allow Medicare to more aggressively negotiate prescription drug prices, worth $250 billion in debt reduction.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump’s presidential candidacy poses an existential threat to American democracy and to the wellbeing of the great majority of Americans. As discussed in this post, there are reasons to take the threat Trump poses seriously. The only way to stop him and his allies is to vote for Harris/Walz and other Democrats. The hope is that such votes would not only give the Democrats the advantage in the popular vote but also enough electoral college votes to certify their win. The hope then is that a Harris-led administration would continue the economic policies that have reduced inflation, raised wages, and created millions of jobs and address the problem with more determination than heretofore.

Democrats have momentum, but there are challenges

Bob Sheak, Oct 4, 2024

The odds that Kamala Harris will defeat Trump in November have improved, but there are challenges. In this post, I refer to the polls, Harris’ policies, the debates, trends that favor Harris/Walz, Trump’s anti-democratic agenda, and concerns about the Electoral College.

I -The polls

Andrew Howard reports on the polls and how Harris and Trump are deadlocked in every battleground state (https://politico.com/news/20124/10/02/harris-trump-polls-00182150). Here’s some of what he writes.

“Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump remain neck and neck in all seven battleground states, according to new polls released Wednesday.

“The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter’s Swing State Project surveys, conducted by a bipartisan team of pollsters, shows Harris between 1 and 3 points ahead in five of the states, easily within the margin of error. In a sixth state, North Carolina, Harris and Trump were exactly tied.

“Harris leads Trump in Michigan by 3 percentage points, and she also leads by 1 or 2 points in Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

“Trump is leading by 2 percentage points head-to-head in Georgia.

“In each of the states, the result is statistically unchanged since the last iteration of the survey in mid-August.”

“While Harris is virtually tied with Trump, Democrats running in other key statewide races have more significant leads across the map.

Senate races

“In Senate races, Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego leads his GOP opponent Kari Lake in Arizona, 54 percent to 41 percent; in Michigan, Democratic Rep. Elissa Slotkin leads former Rep. Mike Rogers, 50 percent to 46 percent; Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen leads Republican Sam Brown in Nevada, 53 percent to 40 percent; Democratic Sen. Bob Casey leads Republican Dave McCormick, 52 percent to 45 percent, in Pennsylvania; and Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin holds a 2-point lead over GOP nominee Eric Hovde in Wisconsin.

“And in the North Carolina gubernatorial race, Josh Stein leads Mark Robinson, whose vulgar comments on a porn website were reported last month, 59 percent to 35 percent.

II. Harris’ policies

April Rubin offers a summary of the proposals (https://axios.com/2024/09/06/kamala-harris-policy-proposals-economy-abortion-immigration).

————————————–

Some of the major proposals Harris has announced or backed, across policy areas:

Economy

First-time homebuyers could receive a $25,000 tax credit as a shortage of available homes keeps prices high under an economic plan Harris outlined in August.

Harris also pitched tax breaks for homebuyers who build starter homes and those who rehabilitate older housing stock.

Capital gains tax of 28% could affect wealthy Americans, a pitch more than 10 points lower than what Biden has proposed.

This marked a move to the center,Axios’ Hans Nichols reported.

A small business tax credit could expand tenfold from $5,000 to $50,000.

She proposed reducing barriers to getting occupational licenses across state lines with a goal of 25 million new small business applications in her first term.

A ban on grocery price gouging could mirror existing state laws, although Harris hasn’t provided details on this policy.

38 states prohibit companies from increasing prices during emergencies.

On child tax credits, new parentscould receive $6,000 during the first year of their child’slife.

The earned income tax credit would expand for lower-income adults who aren’t raising kids.

Taxes on tips could be eliminated, in a rare policy position where Harris copied what Trump has promised service and hospitality workers.

Such a policy could incentivize workers to push harder for more tips, Axios’ Emily Peck reported.

Health

Abortion and reproductive care have been central to Harris’ campaign.

She said she would sign a law to restore Roe v. Wade, which protected federal abortion access, though incompletely as women across the U.S. faced barriers to accessing abortion and states could still enact strict bans.

The campaign kicked off a 50-stop bus tour focused on reproductive rights, zeroed in on battleground states. It started in Florida on Tuesday.

Programming at the Democratic National Convention in August reflected a frank approach to discussion abortion rights by platforming women who shared how bans impacted them, Axios’ Ivana Saric reported.

Out-of-pocket drug costs would cap at $2,000 per year for everyone and insulin copays at $35 per month.

Immigration

New security measures at the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico would be funded under a bipartisan border proposal that Harris said she’d support.

Trump, earlier this year, successfully urged congressional allies to oppose the bill.

Her stance on the border and immigration has flip-flopped from previously held, more liberal policy positions, Axios’ Alex Thompson and Hans Nichols reported.

Migrants would largely be barredfrom seeking asylum under the bipartisan proposal, CNN reported.

Energy

Fracking could survive under a Harris presidency.

She said last month in her first formal interview with CNN as the nomineethat she wouldn’t ban fracking, a reversal from a position she held during her first presidential run.

Reality check: A fracking bill would take an act of Congress that is unlikely anytime soon, Axios’ Ben Geman reported.

Foreign policy

Harris called for a hostage and ceasefire deal during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July. While her tone has been perceived as more critical of Israel than Biden, she’s been playing a similar balancing act.

Harris said during her DNC keynote speech weeks later that said she would “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself.” She said she and Biden were working to secure a deal and protect Palestinians’ “right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.” [But the US continues to provide Israel with the weapons it needs to continue the attacks on Palestinians in Gaza.]

The pro-Palestinian activists, including the Uncommitted National Movement, have protested at the DNC and at her campaign rallies.

—————————————

III – The debates

#1 – Harris vs. Trump

Kamala bested Trump in their debate, as reported widely after the debate. For example, NPR’s Domenico Montanaro reports that it wasn’t even close (https://npr.org/2024/09/11/g-s1-22023/debate-harris-trump-takeaways).

Here are 3 takeaways reported by Montanaro.

(1) This debate wasn’t close.

“Harris was far more dominant than Trump, from beginning to end. She called him ‘weak and wrong,’ inverting the political cliché that ‘strong and wrong’ beats ‘weak and right.’ Harris answered questions, then redirected and baited him on a host of issues.

“She got under Trump’s skin — something he usually tries to do — by saying that people at his rallies leave ‘early out of exhaustion and boredom,’ painting him as out of touch and a bad businessman for inheriting $400 million ‘on a silver platter and then filed for bankruptcy six times,’ and chiding him for being ‘fired by 81 million people’ in the 2020 election and now being ‘confused’ about losing.

“Harris addressed policy, including tax breaks for small businesses and parents and touting her idea for a first-time home-buyer credit for down payments. She repeatedly said, ‘I have a plan,’ while Trump was left saying, ‘I have concepts of a plan’ when it comes to replacing the Affordable Care Act.”

“Trump made the unusual move for a presidential candidate to go into the spin room after the debate and talk to reporters. That’s not something that’s normally done when someone has a good debate. That’s usually reserved for low-polling primary candidates, who felt they didn’t get enough time or attention during the debate.”

(2) The spotlight should now be on Trump’s incoherence and general lack of any serious grasp on policy.

“With a more-than-competent performance from Harris Tuesday, Trump’s lies, meandering, conspiracies and often general incoherence was made even more glaring.

“He wandered through conspiracies about, not just the election, but also about who is currently president (Joe Biden), the usual about immigrants who (aren’t actually) coming from “mental institutions and insane asylums” and the newly unusual (and debunked) about immigrants who (are not) “eating the dogs” or “cats.”

(3) Trump was on the defensive and evasive, even on issues that should benefit him — and didn’t land much, if anything, that stuck.

“Harris had Trump on the defensive from the get-go on the economy (about his tax cuts and tariffs), his jobs record, his handling of the pandemic and Jan. 6. There were times, even on immigration, when Trump decided to address a Harris attack instead of talking about the issue he ostensibly wants to talk most about.”

“He declined to say if he wanted Ukraine to win against Russia, wouldn’t answer if he had any regrets about his response to the violence on Jan. 6, and he twice refused to say if he would veto a national abortion ban, like his vice-presidential running mate said he would.

In fact, he went out of his way to say essentially that Republican vice-presidential candidate JD Vance doesn’t speak for him — in a clumsy and meandering way that led him to student loans.”

“Never mind that Republicans in Congress would not act to help relieve student loans or that Republican-led states sued to end Biden’s executive action on student-loan forgiveness. But Trump was digging the hole even deeper for himself on abortion rights.

“‘I did a great service in doing it,’ Trump said about the overturning of Roe. ‘It took courage to do it. And the Supreme Court had great courage in doing it. And I give tremendous credit to those six justices.’

“Nearly two-thirds have said they opposed the overturning of Roe.”

Montanaro concludes as follows. “Could this debate have changed some minds? Maybe. But views of Trump have been ingrained. This race is very much a coin flip, according to the polls, and that’s unlikely to change very much even after this debate, because of how hyper-polarized this country is.”

#2- Walz vs Vance

John Nichols, a national affairs correspondent for The Nation, offers some insights (https://thenation.com/article/politics/walz-vance-vice-presidential-debate-reality).

Republican vice-presidential candidate Senator JD Vance and Democratic vice-presidential candidate Minnesota Governor Tim Walz participated in a debate at the CBS Broadcast Center on October 1, 2024, in New York City.

Nichols writes: “JD Vance began his assault against reality with his response to the first question in what will probably be the only vice-presidential debate of the 2024 campaign. When asked whether he would support a preemptive Israeli strike on Iran, the senator from Ohio blamed the Democratic administration of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the violence in the Middle East and the rest of the world. Then, he announced that, during his running mate’s one term as president, ‘Donald Trump actually delivered stability in the world.’ Trump, Vance claimed, ‘consistently made the world more secure.’”

“That was a jaw-dropping pronouncement about a scandal-plagued former president who cozied up to dictators, cheered on the spread of right-wing extremism across Europe, and supported vile attacks on refugees at home and abroad.”

Nichols continues. “

Overall, Walz proved up to the task of fact-checking Vance. He responded deftly to that claim from Vance that Trump had ‘delivered stability in the world’ by saying, ‘Look, our allies understand that Donald Trump is fickle. He will go to whoever has the most flattery or where it makes sense to him.’ Walz had already highlighted the damage done to America’s credibility ‘when our allies see Donald Trump turn towards Vladimir Putin, turn towards North Korea, when we start to see that type of fickleness about holding the coalitions together.’ And he told viewers, ‘It’s those that were closest to Donald Trump that understand how dangerous he is when the world is this dangerous. His chief of staff John Kelly said that he was the most flawed human being he ever met, and both of his secretaries of defense and his national security advisers said he should be nowhere near the White House.’

“Walz delivered the facts, pointing out that when Trump was in office he could have worked with ‘a coalition of nations that had boxed Iran’s nuclear program.’ Instead, Walz explained, ‘Donald Trump pulled that program and put nothing else in its place. So Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon they were before because of Donald Trump’s fickle leadership.’”

Nichols refers to the controversy over Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. Vance made the false claim that Haitian immigrants were stealing the pets of their neighbors in Springfield and eating them. On this issue, “Walz delivered a stinging critique of the lies Trump and Vance have told about Haitian immigrants who are legally in Springfield and who are credited by honest Republicans, such as Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, with having revitalized the community. The Democrat rightly accused Vance of seeking to ‘dehumanize and villainize other human beings.’”

There were other issues discussed, “with exchanges highlighting Vance’s extreme stances on reproductive rights, healthcare, childcare, and a host of other issues, including the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy—but it finally returned to immigration. When Vance repeated the wild claim that Harris is responsible for chaos at the nation’s southern border, the Democrat clarified that border crossings have, in recent months, been down compared to when Trump left office.”

IV – Some good news for Harris and Democrats

#1 – Overall, workers are better off now than they were under Trump

Dean Baker, the co-founder and the senior economist of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and the author of several books, presents evidence that US workers are much better off today than they were during Trump’s presidency (https://commondreams.org/opinion/workers-better-off-under-biden).

This may well benefit Harris and Walz in November.

Baker writes: “First and foremost, workers are better off today because they overwhelmingly have jobs if they want them. They also are getting higher pay, even after adjusting for inflation. And they tell us they are much more satisfied at their jobs.

“When President Biden took office, the unemployment rate was 6.4 percent. It is currently 4.3 percent. For most of his presidency the unemployment rate has been below 4.0 percent, a stretch of low unemployment not seen in more than half a century.”

Baker points out that “wages for workers in the bottom ten percent of the wage distribution increased by 13.4 percent from before the pandemic, after adjusting for inflation.” Workers in the middle saw average increases of 3.0 percent after inflation. He notes that 3% is not great, but it’s better than it has been over the prior four decades, “when wages were often stagnate or falling.”

A tight labor market favors workers, giving many of them a choice of jobs. Under such circumstances, they often have the option of leaving jobs “where the pay is low, the workplace is unsafe, or the boss is a jerk.” Thus, in 2021-2023, workers switched jobs in record numbers: “Tens of millions of people quit their jobs and moved on to better ones. One result was that workers reported the highest rate of job satisfaction on record. This is a big deal, since most workers spend a large share of their waking hours on the job.”

Job growth slowed in the late three months of the Trump administration, with a paltry rate of increase of just 140,000.

“The Biden administration’s recovery package got back these jobs in less than a year and a half. The rapid job growth has continued so that we now have 6.4 million more jobs than we did before the pandemic. With the economy still growing at a good clip and inflation back to its pre-pandemic pace, for workers the future is bright.”

#2 – Trump is losing his advantage among voters on the economy

Abha Bhattarai, the economics correspondent for The Washington Post, also reports on evidence that “Trump is losing his edge on the economy among voters” (https://washingtonpost.com/business/2024/09/25/economy-election-harris-trump-polls).  Here’s some of what she writes.

“Although voters still favor former president Donald Trump over Harris on handling the economy, his advantage has dropped dramatically in recent weeks. Trump now averages a six-percentage-point edge on the economy, compared with a 12-point lead against President Joe Biden earlier this year, according to an analysis of five polls that measured voters’ opinions before and after Biden dropped out.

“A Fox News poll this month, for example, found that 51 percent of registered voters favor Trump on the economy, compared with 46 percent who favor Harris. That’s compared with a 15-point advantage Trump had over Biden in March. Other recent polls — by ABC-Ipsos, NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist, USA Today-Suffolk University and Quinnipiac University — show similar shifts.

“‘Voters are beginning to give [Harris] the benefit of the doubt — and that’s really significant,’ said Frank Luntz, a longtime GOP pollster. ‘Affordability is a top issue for voters, but Trump has failed to hold Harris to account or to tie her to Biden’s inflation failures.’”

“Underlying that sea change, analysts say, is the fact that Americans are feeling better about the economy. Prices are stabilizing, interest rates are coming down and wages are rising faster than inflation. At the same time, voters seem to view Harris as a clean slate, unburdened by the rapid run-up in prices that has plagued Biden for much of his presidency.” It also helps that prices have stabilized and Harris is focusing on issues important to middle-class voters, including affordable health care, housing and childcare.

“The shift in economic polling coincides with Americans’ improving views on the economy. Consumer sentiment, at its highest level in four months, has risen 40 percent from its low in June 2022, according to a closely watched survey from the University of Michigan. The latest figures show that Americans are feeling better about inflation, as well as the economy and their own finances. Researchers also noted that ‘a growing share of both Republicans and Democrats now anticipate a Harris win.’”

Trump’s proposed tax cuts and spending proposals “would add $5.8 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade — roughly five times the $1.2 trillion Harris’s plans would cost in the same period, according to estimates from the Penn Wharton Budget Model.”

“More than 400 economists and former U.S. policymakers endorsed Harris for president in an open letter this week, calling her ‘a strong steward of the U.S. economy.’ Meanwhile, they said Trump’s proposals ‘risk reigniting inflation and threaten the United States’ global standing and domestic economic stability.’”

Harris and the Democrats have advantages going into the November elections. The Harris/Walz domestic policy agenda is strong. They are raising funds to support their efforts. They have organizations aimed at getting out the vote in all states. And Harris and Walz are conducting an energetic campaign across the country.

V – Trump’s Republican Party

While the Trump/Republican priorities, especially as contained in the 900+page Project 2025, are extreme and anti-democratic, there are tens of millions of cult-like Trump supporters, along with support from rich and powerful people and organizations, who will go along with whatever Trump wants, that is, an authoritarian/fascist presidency and executive branch with Trump as the dominating leader. He and his party will continue their attempts to suppress the votes of opponents. In Georgia, Republican election officials have mandated that all votes must be hand counted, thus delaying the results for weeks or more.

Trump is for maximizing the development and use of fossil fuels, with no regard for the increasingly destructive climate effects. He says he will order massive deportations and detentions of millions of undocumented residents and build walls on the southern border to keep most of them from entering the US, despite international asylum laws and despite the dire economic consequences of potentially losing workers who contribute to local economies and pay taxes. He will support the imposition of high tariffs, regardless of their inflationary effects. He will support tax cuts for the rich and corporations and drive-up inequality. He will likely support a national abortion ban or something like it. He is for work requirements for those who get government benefits (e.g., for disability). He will support the continuation of the Electoral College. Chris Walker finds that two-thirds of Americans back ending the Electoral College (https://truthout.org/articles/nearly-two-thirds-of-americans-back-ending-the-electoral-college).  It is a dystopian vision. As president, Trump will likely withdraw the country from NATO, and will support authoritarian governments.

Consider two examples of the extreme and anti-democratic implications of Trump’s and Republican following and agenda.

#1 – A cult-like following

Dana Milbank, opinion columnist for The Washington Post, considers “why Trump supporters will believe absolutely anything” Trump says (https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/12/trump-jesus-mandela-lincoln). Milbank develops his argument in a book, “The Destructionists: The 25-Year Crackup of the Republican Party.”

Trump presents himself as a great leader, perhaps one of the greatest in all of human history. Milbank reports, for example, that in April of 2024 Trump “’styled himself ‘a Modern Day Nelson Mandela.’” Of course, this is absurd but an example of Trump’s “pathological narcissism.” (See the book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President”).

His tens of millions of die-hard followers have been unquestioning in their adherence to Trump’s claims. Milbank refers to a Post-Schar School poll showing  just how deep this pathological adherence runs.

“As The Post’s Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, and pollsters Scott Clement and Emily Guskin report, Trump’s supporters have become substantially more persuaded by disinformation than they were six years ago. They are more likely to say today that the 2016 election was marred by millions of fraudulent votes and that Russia did not interfere in that election — both demonstrably untrue. A majority of strong Trump supporters today believe his provably false assertions that Joe Biden won the 2020 election because of fraud, that the United States funds most of NATO’s budget and that global temperatures are rising because of natural, not human, causes. While only 28 percent of Americans believe Trump’s false claims on average, those who list Fox News as a primary news source are 13 percentage points more likely to accept the disinformation as true.”

#2 – Violence against opponents is acceptable

Thom Hartmann, a talk-show host and the author of more than 25 books,” analyzes how “Trump Has Delivered Unto Us a Nation of Fascist Bullies” (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-fascist-bully).

“Brownshirts, Blackshirts, Proud Boys, Three Percenters, you name it; they’re all mostly made up of men deeply insecure about their own masculinity or role in the world who find safety and meaning by joining the über-bully’s gang.”

Hartmann continues.

“To some extent the groundwork for this bullying was laid by a group of rightwing billionaires who believed they could keep their own taxes low by bullying politicians and voters who wanted ‘nice things’ for average Americans like a national healthcare system.

“They funded astroturf groups like the Tea Party to harass ‘socialist’ Democrats inclined to vote for President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, even though it was a massive giveaway to the insurance industry that was first written by the Heritage Foundation and put into place in Massachusetts by then-Governor Mitt Romney.

“These, in turn, inspired other groups more closely aligned to the Klan — America’s first national bully group — to show up in the streets with torches and swastikas chanting, ‘Jews will not replace us’ as they murdered a young counter-protestor, Heather Heyer.

“And that, of course, led to the murder of three police officers and the death of five others — and the near death of our democratic republican form of government — at the hands of Trump’s mob on January 6th.

“America is today suffering from a surfeit of bullying. It drained many of us of our hope and optimism, much as it did in the 1950s when Joe McCarthy last led a national bullying campaign. It was causing people to check out of the political process, to essentially give up like an abused spouse, or to retreat into sports, music, and hours of binge-watched TV dramas.

“America, in other words, has been suffering for nine long years from being tortured by an unrepentant bully and the ‘tough guys’ who attached themselves to him.”

“If we don’t take on bullies — particularly fascist bullies — they keep going further and further until either they win or you fight back and defeat them.”

“That’s because bullies never stop, unless they are stopped by somebody stronger than them. And, most importantly, every time they win they set their sights on the next conquest. Giving in to their demands only creates a newer and more elaborate set of demands. Responding to their bullying with anything other than a literal, verbal, or metaphorical punch in the face is a waste of time.”

—————–

Concluding thoughts

With just a month away from the election, polls indicate that Harris and Trump are virtually tied in crucial swing states. Republicans are doing their best to reduce Democratic turnout, while Democrats under Harris are doing the opposite, namely, to encourage voting. Indeed, Harris says, as president, she will govern for all Americans. Unfortunately, the outcome will not be determined by the popular vote in most states, but rather by the winner-take-all Electoral College. Sarah Pruitt describes how Electoral College Electors are chosen

(https://history.com/news/electors-chosen-electoral-college).

“There are 538 total electors, including one for each U.S. senator and representative and three electors representing the District of Columbia, and presidential candidates need a majority of 270 votes to win the White House. Most of the time—but not always—the winner of the Electoral College is also the winner of the popular vote.” For example, Trump won the Electoral College in 2016 but lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by almost 3 million.

The Democrats have a chance to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College. However, Trump and the Republicans will try to create chaos, delay the vote and challenge outcomes they don’t like. They did not succeed in 2020, but they won’t give up.

Then there are unexpected events. Dockworkers at ports from Maine to Texas began walking picket lines early Tuesday, Oct. 1,  in a strike over wages and automation that could reignite inflation and cause shortages of goods if it goes on more than a few weeks. It’s not clear yet which political party will gain or lose from the strike. But it is another wildcard variable that opens up opportunities for Trump to stoke fears on the legitimacy of the election. There are at least two other wildcards. How many votes will Democrats lose because of the Biden administration’ support of Israel’s war on Palestinians or because of Harris’s support for fracking.

Trump preps his base for a repeat of Jan. 6

Bob Sheak

Sept 14, 2024

Trump continues to argue falsely, as he did in the recent debate with Kamala Harris on Sept 10, 2024, that he won the 2020 presidential election over Biden and did so by millions of uncounted votes, the largest margin ever, he deceitfully says. He also claims that he had no responsibility for the violent and destructive attacks on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2023, a claim that is likewise contradicted by the evidence. His views on the 2020 presidential election are often referred to as “the big lie.” And they are a significant part of Trump’s anti-democratic campaign platform this year.

————-

The Sept 10, 2024, Debate

Trump’s ongoing assertion that he won the 2020 presidential election

Eric Tucker reports for the Associated Press on how in the debate with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris Trump persisted “in saying he won the 2020 election and he’s taking no responsibility for what unfolded at the Capital on Jan. 6, 2020,” as his supporters stormed the building to block the peaceful transfer of power  (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-repeats-false-claims-2020-election-loss-deflects-113575338).

Tucker writes: “The comments Tuesday night underscored the Republican’s refusal, even four years later, to accept the reality of his defeat and his unwillingness to admit the extent to which his falsehoods about his election loss emboldened the mob that rushed the Capitol, resulting in violent clashes with law enforcement. Trump’s grievances about that election are,” Tucker writes, “central to his 2024 campaign against Democrat Kamala Harris, as he professes allegiance to the rioters.”

Trump maintains that he had “every right” to interfere in 2020 election

Steve Benen addresses this issue in an article for MSNBC, Sept 3, 2024

(https://msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-claims-every-right-to-interfere-2020-election-rcna169323). Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Benen writes:  “About a year after Donald Trump was initially indicted over his efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, special counsel Jack Smith and his team decided it was time for a new superseding indictment related to the same underlying crimes. The move was apparently necessary as a result of a scandalous U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, to a radical degree, elevated the American presidency above the law.”

“Days later,” Benen writes, “Trump blustered ‘that he had every right’ to interfere with the 2020 election, even as two criminal cases involving those allegations hang over him. On Monday, Kamala Harris’ campaign charged that the comments were evidence that Trump believed he was ‘above the law.’

Believes he is above the law

Benen offers the following summary. “Everything Donald Trump has promised on the campaign trail — from ‘terminating’ the Constitution, to imprisoning his political opponents and promising to rule as a dictator on ‘day one’ — makes it clear that he believes he is above the law. Now, Trump is claiming he had ‘every right’ to interfere in the 2020 election.” His public statements substantiate all this.

Trump asserts that he had ‘every right’ to interfere in a presidential election, just days after he was indicted for allegedly trying to interfere in a presidential election, the former president’s rhetoric looked a bit like an ill-timed admission.” Trump has much to admit.

“For example, Benen reports, “Trump admitted that he fired James Comey as the director of the FBI in the hopes of derailing an investigation against him. He confessed that he deliberately misled his own country about the severity of the coronavirus threat. He made provocative comments about his role in the Stormy Daniels hush money scandal. More recently, the GOP candidate made his lawyers’ life more difficult with comments about taking classified documents to his glorified country club.”

Trump falsely says he won the 2020 presidential race.

Eric Tucker has evidence that indicates otherwise. He writes: “In 2020, Democrat Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes to Trump’s 232, and there was no widespread fraud, as election officials across the country, including Trump’s then-attorney general, William Barr, have confirmed. Republican governors in Arizona and Georgia, crucial to Biden’s victory, vouched for the integrity of the elections in their states. Nearly all the legal challenges from Trump and his allies were dismissed by judges, including two tossed by the Supreme Court, which includes three Trump-nominated justices.

An Associated Press review of every potential case of voter fraud in the six battleground states disputed by Trump found fewer than 475. Biden took Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and their 79 electoral votes by a combined 311,257 votes out of 25.5 million ballots cast for president. The disputed ballots represent just 0.15% of his victory margin in those states.”

Trump has no regrets about Jan. 6 insurrection

Tucker’s sources indicate otherwise. “In the ABC debate, Trump was asked twice if he regretted anything he did on Jan. 6, when he told his supporters to march to the Capitol and exhorted them to ‘fight like hell.’ On the Philadelphia stage, Trump first responded by complaining that the questioner had failed to note that he had encouraged the crowd to behave ‘peacefully and patriotically.’

Trump’s incendiary language

 “But,” Tucker points out, “he ignored other incendiary language he used throughout the speech…during which he urged the crowd to march to the Capitol, where Congress was meeting to certify Biden’s victory. Trump told the crowd: ‘If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.’ That’s after his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, declared: ‘Let’s have trial by combat.’”

Trump delayed calling for rioters to stop

The implication is that Trump had the power to stop the attacks on the Capitol.

“Trump didn’t appeal for the rioters to leave the Capitol until more than three hours after the assault began.” Trump attempts to deflect attention away from his actions. In the debate, Trump “repeated an oft-stated false claim that then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ‘rejected” his offer to send “10,000 National Guard or soldiers’ to the Capitol. Pelosi does not direct the National Guard. As the Capitol came under attack, she and then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. called for military assistance, including from the National Guard.” But had no authority to do this and there was no initial response.

Trump praised the rioters

Tucker – “He then [after three hours of mayhem] released a video telling the rioters it was time to ‘go home,’ but added: ‘We love you. You’re very special people.’”

—————

Trump’s present campaign running on “pure contempt”

Chris Lehmann argues this point in an article on The Nation, Aug 28 2024

(https://thenation.com/article/politics/trump-arlington-cemetary-scandal). Chris Lehmann is the DC Bureau chief for The Nation and a contributing editor at The Baffler and is the author, most recently, of The Money Cult: Capitalism, Christianity, and the Unmaking of the American Dream (Melville House, 2016).

“Tuesday’s political news cycle [August 27, 2024] delivered a crash course in the fundamental outlook of the Trumpified Republican Party, via a pair of stories conveying the deep, reflexive contempt that Donald Trump has helped spread throughout the party’s upper reaches. This contempt extends not merely to the GOP’s political rivals but also to basic humanity and decency.”

Here are the two examples.

#1 – Trump violates rules governing Arlington National Cemetery

Lehmann reports, “The Trump story came from a report by NPR’s Quil Lawrence and Tom Bowman about an ugly and cynical photo-op the Trump campaign staged at Arlington National Cemetery on Monday. Trump and his handlers had barged into Section 60 of the cemetery grounds, where recent war fatalities are laid to rest, in order to photograph the candidate at the gravesites of 13 soldiers killed during the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. The event culminated in a typically tasteless and inapposite shot of Trump giving a smiling thumbs-up at the site—not exactly a study in somber, statesmanlike mourning.

“But, as Lawrence and Bowman reported, the photo-op was not merely an exercise in bad taste. Trump and his entourage had callously violated the cemetery’s strictures against using the graves of soldiers as a political backdrop, along with its policy against having anyone other than Arlington staff members take official photos there. And Trump staffers had profanely insulted the cemetery official trying to prevent the photo-op from happening, with some sort of altercation ensuing. ‘Federal law prohibits political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries, to include photographers, content creators or any other persons attending for purposes, or in direct support of a partisan political candidate’s campaign,” the cemetery said in a statement to NPR. ‘Arlington National Cemetery reinforced and widely shared this law and its prohibitions with all participants.’ The statement also confirmed that ‘there was an incident, and a report was filed.’

#2 – Trump’s bizarre vice-presidential choice

JD on childless women

On Tuesday, the Harris campaign posted a recording of a 2021 Vance speech to the Christian Virtue leadership forum. In it, Vance launches into still another detour into his bizarre natalist obsession with childless women. Where he’d elsewhere dismissed people without kids as free riders on the sociobiological social contract—lacking enough ‘skin in the game’ to be entrusted with serious grown-up responsibility—here he lays into the subgroup of childless women teachers.

Lehmann quotes Vance. “‘Our conservative idea is that a parent and a family should determine what ideas children learn and are brought up with,” Vance begins, citing a long-standing talking point in right-wing efforts to undermine public education and single-parent, dual-earner, and otherwise nontraditional families. He then supplies an example: ‘So many leaders of the left, and I hate to get so personal about this’ Vance says (spoiler alert: Vance, in fact, does not hate to get personal), ‘but they’re people without kids trying to brainwash the minds of our children. And that really disorients me and that really disturbs me. Randi Weingarten is the head of one of the most powerful teachers’ unions in the country. She doesn’t have a single child. If she wants to brainwash and destroy the minds of children, she should have some of her own and leave ours the hell alone.’”

The disturbing point. “Bottom of FormIt’s also worth stressing,” Lehmann writes, “that the logic of Vance’s remarks show that he’s not opposed to ‘brainwashing’ America’s children on principle; instead, he favors letting right-wing parents do the relevant indoctrination.”

Vance accepts the extremist Republican 2025 document

“Vance candidly aired his reasoning in a podcast interview recorded just days ahead of his appearance at the Christian Virtue leadership forum. There he called for the right’s ideological seizure of the civil service, declaring, ‘We need a de-Ba’athification program in the U.S.… We should seize the administrative state for our own purposes. We should fire…every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our own people.’ In other words, Vance’s real grudge against Weingarten isn’t that she’s warping the minds of children; it’s that she’s not warping their minds in the way he prescribes—and the way that he wants all public servants to emulate on pain of ideological dismissal. It’s the same crass and instrumentalist vision that the Trump campaign has of dead soldiers—as designated movement props, rather than human beings with moral agency of their own. And just as Trump reportedly views dead soldiers as ‘suckers and losers,’ so does Vance regard education, and governance more broadly, as a rigid process of developing kids into ideological ventriloquist dummies for the natalist right. disqualifications for both members of the GOP presidential ticket. But in today’s hopelessly deranged political discourse, it was just another Tuesday.”

————

The majority of Americans believe that if re-elected Trump will move on his authoritarian/fascist threats

Chris Walker reports Aug 30, 2024 on a poll that finds two-thirds of Americans think Trump won’t accept 2024 election outcome (https://truthout.org/articles/poll-two-thirds-of-americans-think-trump-wont-accept-2024-election-outcome).

Walker based his reporting on The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which asked respondents to predict “whether the two major candidates for president would themselves be accepting of the outcome — 68 percent said the Democratic candidate for president and current Vice President Kamala Harris would accept the results, while only 29 percent said they believe Trump would. Two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) said they believe Trump won’t be prepared to accept the outcome.”

“The poll further asked if voters are confident that the upcoming election will be counted accurately, finding that just 65 percent believe the outcome will be correct, while 34 percent stated that they lack confidence in what the final results will be. Those numbers represent the highest rate of skepticism that the election will be counted accurately since the poll started asking the question in 2004.”

Walker continues. “Indeed, 21 percent of Trump supporters (accounting for 8 percent of voters overall) say they are not prepared to accept the 2024 election results.”

“The poll suggests that, should Trump legitimately lose the 2024 presidential race to Harris, a large portion of voters, close to 1 in 12 casting a ballot, will not accept the outcome.”

Much like he did in 2020, Walker sees how Trump is laying the groundwork to dispute the 2024 presidential election. At the same time, “Trump has not provided any sound or rational basis for why the election should be viewed skeptically, repeating many of the same debunked talking points he peddled to his supporters nearly four years ago when he lost to President Joe Biden.”

Walker adds: “During the Republican National Convention this summer, Trump continued to claim that the previous election was ‘rigged’ against him — a statement that has no basis in truth whatsoever.” Then after weeks of peddling this lie, “Trump held a rally in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. There, he encouraged his enraged supporters to go to the Capitol directly, to protest in person as Congress was certifying Trump’s Electoral College loss to Biden. Before sending them off,’ and that they couldn’t ‘take back our country with weakness.’”

Thousands of Trump followers went on to storm the Capitol grounds, violently entering the building and disrupting the proceedings inside. “Dozens of Capitol Police and other law enforcement were injured by Trump’s mob of loyalists. At least seven individuals died in connection to that day’s events.”

————–

Building a right-wing army of militia to destroy US democracy

Bob Dreyfuss delves into this issue in an article for The Nation on Sept 5, 2024

(https://thenation.com/article/society/donald-trump-squadristi-nazies). Dreyfuss, a Nation contributing editor, is an independent investigative journalist who specializes in politics and national security.

Dreyfuss writes: “Trump, of course, has a long history of supporting and encouraging potentially violent supporters. In 2016, during his first campaign, he suggested that ‘the Second Amendment people’—i.e., his gun-owning backers—might be able to stop the nomination of Democratic Supreme Court choices. In 2019, he said, ‘I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump—I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough—until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.’ And in 2020 Trump famously told the Proud Boys militia to ‘stand down and stand by.’ Ultimately, the Proud Boys would help lead the January 6 insurrection.”

There is a pattern. Dreyfuss reports, “Certainly, Trump has summoned US militias and other extremists to his cause. In 2020, for instance, at the height of nationwide protests against lockdowns, mask requirements, and school closures at the start of the coronavirus crisis, Trump issued a series of viral tweets urging his followers to ‘liberate’ Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, where armed adherents were mobilizing in street demonstrations. For instance, on April 17, 2020, Trump tweeted—characteristically, in all caps—’LIBERATE MICHIGAN!’ Soon afterwards, gun-toting Trump supporters invaded the state capitol in Lansing. Most egregiously, he called on supporters to gather in Washington on January 5-6, 2021—’Be there, will be wild’—for a rally that ended in the occupation of the Capitol and led to Trump’s impeachment.”

Trump has an armed and cult-like following that seems prepared to take up arms on his behalf. This is in a context in which the nation is bitterly divided “in which a substantial portion of the populace believes that violence may be necessary.

“According to a survey by the University of Chicago’s Project on Security & Threats, as many as 14 percent of Americans say that violence is justified to ‘achieve political goals that I support,’ and 4.4 percent—that’s more than 11 million US adults—agree that ‘the use of force is justified to return Donald Trump to the presidency.’”

Dreyfuss considers whether there are parallels between “…the Nazi Brownshirts, called the Sturmabteilung (SA), or Storm Division… first, established by Hitler as a kind of bodyguard formation to protect Hitler’s speeches in beer halls. It drew its recruits from a pool of German rightists called the Freikorps (Free Corps), a 400,000-strong, ultra-violent paramilitary militia that engaged in mass killing of socialists and communists in the immediate aftermath of World War I.”

Are the militias and Trump’s followers who believe in the power of insurrection a growing American SA? The evidence says they are. Dreyfuss gives the following examples.

“During and after Trump’s presidency, gun-toting protesters occupied several state capitols, organized militias at the US-Mexican border to combat what Trump called an ‘invasion,’ mobilized militia-like formations to engage in street fights with antifa and the Black Lives Matter demonstrations that followed the murder of George Floyd, and created self-defined protection units to defend business owners who opposed pandemic-imposed lockdowns and closures.”

The U.S. has encumbered by a wild west gun culture. Dreyfuss gives these additional examples.

“The armed occupation of the Michigan state capitol in 2020 was carried out by the Michigan Liberty Militia, the Michigan Proud Boys, and others, carrying semiautomatic assault rifles (Two men arrested in that action were later charged in a plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer.) Only 13 states have elected to regulate or restrict open carrying of weapons, making it difficult or impossible to prevent armed demonstrators from intimidating opponents. Similar armed rallies, focused on militant opposition to Covid-19 restrictions, were also held inside statehouses in Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Wisconsin, and armed demonstrations erupted in the streets of Salt Lake City, Denver, Pittsburgh, and Dallas, according to a compilation by Everytown for Gun Safety. And in January 2020, the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), a militant pro-gun group, led a massive, armed march and rally in Richmond, Virginia, to protest gun safety legislation, in concert with militias and the boogaloo movement. “We welcome our militia brothers and sisters,” said the VCDL. According to the Everytown report, “Militia groups descended on Richmond [and] organized a conference the day before, titled ‘The State of the Militia’ at which various militia leaders spoke, including those who had helped plan the [Unite the Right] event in Charlottesville.”

The US militia movement survives, as it consolidates its membership at the local and regional levels, while ‘still engaged in equipping their followers in tactical gear and training in the woods,’ Travis McAdam, senior researcher for the SPLC, told The Nation. The SPLC currently tracks 51 organized militias, part of what it describes as ‘more than 1,500 hard-right extremist groups operating across the country.’” Additionally, there are recent attempts “to create a national militia under the name National American Patriot and Liberty Militia (NAPALM) and its parallel name, the National Constitutional Militia. It’s being organized by Jake Lang, currently in jail on charges of assaulting law enforcement officers with a baseball bat on January 6, along with a host of extremists and white nationalists.”

It is also worrisome “that conservative elected officials, sheriffs, and Republican Party offices are tacitly, and sometimes even explicitly, cooperating with, encouraging and supporting militia groups. The membrane that has long separated the state and local governments from nongovernmental and private ultra-right actors, including violence-prone ones, is becoming increasingly porous.”

Dreyfuss continues. “‘It would be foolish to underestimate the power of Trump’s comments to call rogue militias to action,’ wrote Mary McCord, in essay for Lawfare five years ago. ‘The militia movement has shown that it will take action based on the president’s statements.’” Dreyfuss quotes McCord. ‘If he doesn’t win, he’s been planting the seeds of a false narrative that people with AR-15s are listening to,’ she says. ‘A lot of what happens is up to Trump and what words he uses, and to what extent does he call people to engage in violence.’”

McCord also points out

‘that despite the Second Amendment, which refers to a “well-regulated militia,’ militias and militia-like organizations are illegal in all 50 states. In the landmark 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court supported the most conservative interpretation of the Second Amendment and gun ownership, Justice Antonin Scalia also wrote that that amendment ‘does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary groups.’ Yet, says McCord, laws against militias are never enforced, partly because local officials misinterpret the law, partly because militias thinly disguise their activities, and partly because many local law enforcement agencies are broadly sympathetic.” The NRA is also a powerful right-wing force against gun restrictions of any kind.

Back to Dreyfuss: “Not surprisingly, in 2024 the NRA has given Trump its endorsement. Of course, after a decade of controversy, financial troubles, and high-profile lawsuits against it, the NRA has lost a significant about of its clout. Still, the organization, once topping 6 million members, can still boast of 4.2 million, and will spend millions of dollars in the 2024 election. On February 9, Trump appeared at the NRA’s Great American Outdoor Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, telling the crowd, ‘They are coming to get your guns,’ and announcing the creation of Gun Owners for Trump. And on May 18, Trump traveled to the NRA’s annual convention in Dallas, Texas, where he predicted ‘death and destruction like never before’ if he isn’t elected in November.”

Concluding thoughts

There is still little doubt that Trump dominates the Republican Party, enjoys the support of a large number of the rich and powerful organizations, and has a loyal, cult-like base of tens of millions of grassroots supporters, along with a multifaceted militia movement and other supporters who are well armed. The country may be able to avoid authoritarianism/fascism if the Democrats can rally voters for Kamala Harris and Jim Walz and not be defeated by the Electoral College or the Republican efforts to reduce opportunities for Democratic voters.

Suggested further reading

David Neiwert, The Age of Insurrection: The Radical Right’s Assault on American Democracy (2023)

John Rennie Short, Insurrection: What the January 6 Assault on the Capitol Reveals about America and Democracy (2024)

Andrew L. Whitehead, American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church (2023)

Steve Benen, Ministry of Truth

Democracy, Realty, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past (2024)

Trump’s Path

Bob Sheak, August 29, 2024

Who he is

The New York Times Editorial Board offers a summary of Trump’s moral unfitness to be president (https://nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/11/opinion/editorials/donald-trump-2024-unfit.html).

“He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racistsabuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty.

This record shows what can happen to a country led by such a person: America’s image, credibility and cohesion were relentlessly undermined by Mr. Trump during his term.

“None of his wrongful actions are so obviously discrediting as his determined and systematic attempts to undermine the integrity of elections — the most basic element of any democracy — an effort that culminated in an insurrection at the Capitol to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power.

“On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump incited a mob to violence with hateful lies, then stood by for hours as hundreds of his supporters took his word and stormed the Capitol with the aim of terrorizing members of Congress into keeping him in office.”

“He praised these insurrectionists and called them patriots; today he gives them a starring role at campaign rallies, playing a rendition of the national anthem sung by inmates involved with Jan. 6., and he has promised to consider pardoning the rioters if re-elected. He continues to wrong the country and its voters by lying about the 2020 election, branding it stolen, despite the courts, the Justice Department and Republican state officials disputing him. No man fit for the presidency would flog such pernicious and destructive lies about democratic norms and values, but the Trumpian hunger for vindication and retribution has no moral center.”

Thom Hartmann comments on Trump’s involvement in the insurrection (https://commondreams.org/opinion/the-politics-of-joy-versus-the-only-thing-republicans-have-left-cruelty). He writes:

“When Donald Trump lost the 2020 election by seven million votes, he sent a violent mob against the US Capitol. As they tried to murder the vice president and speaker of the house, covered the walls of the building with feces and defaced priceless paintings, Trump gleefully watched on live television for over three hours while refusing to call in the national guard or take any other meaningful action.

“Five civilians and three police officers died as the result of his sending that murderous mob because all he and his GOP have left is cruelty.”

Ignoring the law

In a report for Citizens for Ethics (CREW), Brie Sparkman and Sara Wiatrak write that, as of March 2024 [updated June 4], “Donald Trump has been personally charged with 88 [now 91] criminal offenses in four criminal cases” (https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trumps-91-criminal-charges-and-where-they-stand). They continue:

“This total reflects charges related to Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, election interference in Georgia, falsifying business records in New York, and mishandling classified records after leaving the presidency. Donald Trump is the first former president in U.S. history to be criminally indicted.”

Responses to the 2020 presidential loss

Here is a summary from Melissa Murray and Adrew Weisman’s book, The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents With Commentary.

“Trump’s alleged scheme to reject the results of the 2020 presidential election involved: pressuring state legislators in battleground states, through threats and lies, to alter the vote tallies; enlisting slates of fake electors, including through fraud, in battleground state; filing false lawsuits; breaking into state election machines; plotting to seize voting machines; lying about Georgia election workers and pressuring them to lie about election fraud; enlisting the DOJ to say that it was investigating serious allegations of fraud when it was not and had in fact reported it had found no material fraud; and pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to violate his oath of office on January 6 and lying about his supposed assent that he had the power to reject the counting of the votes, when he told Trump he did not” (p. xxvii).

—————

What next from Trump?

If elected in November, Trump, his party, and allies have a plan referred to as “2025.” The plan, over 900 pages in length, is aimed at destroying American democracy. It has been developed by people at the right-wing Heritage Foundation and other Trump adherents. If implemented, it would make Trump an unaccountable and authoritarian/fascist “leader” and give him the power to turn the Department of Justice and other executive agencies into compliant extensions of this power.

The Plan calls for the removal of thousands of experienced civil servants who will be replaced by Trump loyalists, regardless of their competence. Given the opportunity, he will further stack the courts with ultra-conservative judges. The plan includes proposals for the detention or deportation of tens of millions of undocumented U.S. residents – and anyone Trump and his minions identify as opponents. They will push for tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, while privatizing Social Security, Medicare, and other parts of the social safety net. Trump wants to replace the Affordable Care Act, but hasn’t offered an alternative. He favors the privatization of the public schools and likes the idea of diverting funds from them to private and charter schools.

Although Trump argues from one side of his mouth that he will not support a national ban on abortion access, his record against reproductive rights is well known and suggest that it is naïve to believe there will not be a ban. He brags to right-wing evangelicals, an important Trump constituency that America is indeed a Christian society, ignoring the constitutional separation of religion and the state and that the majority of Americans do no hold extremist religious views. His notion of “freedom” (for employers) does not allow much room for occupational safety laws or unions. Generally, he and his allies want massive deregulation. This is also true of his energy policy, one that is based on maximum use of fossil fuels, including coal. Trump and his allies reject the findings of experts that the planet is growing hotter as the U.S. and other rich countries continue to increase their use of these fuels. Trump has recently said that he wants to impose high – tariffs on products from China, having little knowledge about their potentially detrimental effects on American consumers. It is well known that he is attracted to authoritarian leaders.

We should not forget that his angry, spiteful, maliciously narcissist person would, as president, have the power to start a nuclear war.  

Twenty-seven psychiatrists and mental health experts came to the following conclusion, among others, in their book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump.

“We are gravely concerns about Trump’s abrupt, capricious 180-degree shifts and how these displays of instability have the potential to be unconsciously dangerous to the point of causing catastrophe, and not only for the citizens of the United States”

Rejecting the results of the 2024 presidential election if he loses

C. J. Polychroniou, a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. points to relevant information (https://commondreams.org/opinion/implications-2024-election-us). The article was published on August 24, 2024.

“The 2024 U.S. presidential election is enormously important for many of the reasons you cited, although we shouldn’t be oblivious of the fact that parochialism is what drives most American voters. That said, this election is indeed unlike any other in modern history also because American voters are so polarized that the threat of civil breakdown is real. In fact, I believe that Trump is already laying the groundwork for rejecting the election result if he loses. This is why he calls Democrats’ replacement of Biden a ‘coup’ and even ‘a violent overthrow’ of a president. And back in March, he said that there will be a ‘bloodbath’ if he loses the November election.

Ignoring global warming

Andes Oppenheimer, journalist at the Miami Herald, worries whether U.S. voters will elect a climate skeptic in times of record-breaking heat? (https://miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article289090739.html). The article was published on June 7, 2024.

“Trump has repeatedly mocked climate change warnings and promotes fossil fuels, ignoring the scientific consensus that climate change is likely caused by man-made greenhouse emissions. As crazy as it sounds at a time of record heat waves, Trump is publicly vowing to reverse the Biden administration’s ambitious laws to combat global warming. According to the Trump campaign website, a second Trump administration would unleash a wave of oil drilling and speed up approvals of fracking permits in public lands. ‘To keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80% of its energy, President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL,’ the campaign’s official website says. The Trump campaign website also says that, ‘from day one,’ the former president would kill hundreds of laws to combat global warming adopted by the Biden administration, including rules to reduce car emissions and subsidies for buyers of electric vehicles. Trump would also again order a U.S. withdrawal from the 2016 Paris Agreement to control climate change, which calls on countries to substantially reduce planet-warming emissions. Trump had pulled out of the Paris Agreement at the start of his term, but Biden later reversed that decision.”

“At an April fundraiser with oil company owners and executives at his Mar-a-Lago compound, Trump promised to go out of his way to help fossil fuel industries if they donated $1 billion to his campaign, The Washington Post reported. Trump specifically vowed to scrap current policies that encourage production of electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, and other green power sources opposed by the oil industry, the Post said.”

Hardly a friend of workers

Lawrence Wittner, Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany who has written extensively on peace movements, foreign policy, and economic inequality, considers Trump’s record on American workers (https://commondreams.org/opinion/trump-working-class). The title of his article, published on May 21, 2024, says it all: “Trump Didn’t Lift Up the Working Class. He Stepped on Its Neck.” Here’s some of what he writes.

“Although Donald Trump, as president, proclaimed in his 2020 State of the Union address that he had produced a “blue-collar boom” in workers’ wages, the reality was quite different. Using his control of the executive branch of the U.S. government, Trump repeatedly undermined the wages of American workers by blocking raises and imposing wage reductions.

“Only the preceding year, Trump derailed vital wage legislation. In July 2019―with the pathetically low federal minimum wage stuck at $7.25 per hour for a decade and some 13 million workers holding two or more jobs to support their families―the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the Raise the Wage Act. If enacted, the legislation would have gradually increased the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour over a six-year period. But, instead of supporting the legislation or proposing an alternative, the Trump White House announced that, if the Senate passed the House bill, Trump would veto it.

“Consequently, the measure died in the Republican-controlled Senate. According to the AFL-CIO, the legislation would have raised the pay of 40 million American workers.

“That same year, Trump’s Department of Labor succeeded in rolling back planned wage increases for millions of workers by restricting eligibility for overtime pay. In 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, the Labor Department had issued a rule substantially raising the income level below which workers were paid time and a half for work done beyond 40 hours per week. But the Trump Labor Department, seizing on a delay in implementation occasioned by a judicial decision, lowered the level by more than $20,000, thus depriving 8.2 million American workers of the right to overtime pay secured under Obama.

“In August 2018, Trump canceled a scheduled 2 percent pay raise for millions of civilian federal employees, leading to criticism even from some Republicans. This action, plus other administration assaults on the rights of public employees, led to a massive flight of workers from government service. By the fall of 2019, there were 45,000 vacancies in the Department of Veterans Affairs alone. To fill these vacancies, the Trump administration hired large numbers of temp workers at low wages and with minimal benefits.

“Yet another administration policy that undercut workers’ wages emerged with the Trump Labor Department’s issuance of a “joint-employer” rule. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been fashioned to ensure that businesses using staffing companies or subcontractors would be accountable for complying with basic workplace protections. Even so, the Trump administration’s joint-employer rule substantially limited liability for wage and hour violations, thereby making it harder for workers to hold all parties accountable. As a result, U.S. workers lost an estimated $1 billion annually thanks to subcontracting or wage theft by employers.

“Of course, not all Trump administration attempts at holding down wages succeeded. In 2017, the Trump Labor Department proposed that employers could simply pocket workers’ tips, as long as the workers were paid the minimum wage. Economists estimated that this policy would lead to the loss of $5.8 billion per year in tips for workers, 80 percent of whom were women. But after the discovery that Trump’s Secretary of Labor had gone to great lengths to hide his department’s findings about how harmful the new policy would be, Congress stepped in and amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to prohibit employers from seizing the tips of their employees.

“Another Trump administration failure occurred in connection with reducing the wages of farmworkers, some of the most exploited, lowest-paid workers in the United States. In mid-2019, the Labor Department proposed a new regulation that would change the rules of the H-2A visa program, used by agricultural employers to hire migrant farmworkers for seasonal work―for example, by President Trump’s wineries. As one of the rules changes would lower wage rates for H-2A farmworkers and, consequently, for their U.S. counterparts, the United Farm Workers challenged it in federal court and, ultimately, prevailed.”

Concluding thoughts

Trump is the head of the Republican Party, enjoys support from large swaths of corporate America, has a hardcore, cult-like following of tens of millions who seem to welcome the thought of having a king-like president. He benefits from the conservative Supreme Court. He preaches violence and retribution. His policy views are essentially anti-democratic and self-serving. If he wins the presidential election, the US will look more like, say, Hungary, with an authoritarian government, the absence of civil and political rights, a court system that legitimates whatever the leader does. Anne Applebaum, a staff writer at the Atlantic magazine and author, has published a book titled “Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World,” that delves into such issues.

The big question is whether Kamala Harris, Tim Walz, the Democratic Party, and their supporters can win enough votes – and electoral votes –  in November to alter the dire path on which Trump would govern. The platform is strong on progressive taxes, civil and gender rights, support for workers and unions, strengthening gun regulation, and protecting consumers. But it is weak or unclear on how to stop and reverse global warming, seems to reject an arms embargo on US weapons sent to Israel, and needs to flush out the details on what an “opportunity economy” includes. So far, under Biden’s presidency, there are also plenty of laudatory developments, namely, the economy has grown, wages are up, inflation has fallen. At the same time, sadly, they endorse the bipartisan call for ever higher military spending.  

The nuclear threat unabated

Bob Sheak, August 16, 2024

The story of nuclear weapons begins in the United States. The U.S. government under the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the greenlight for the project to build a bomb to commence, the first atomic bombs were then created and tested, and, under dubious assumptions, the bombs were subsequently used to blow up two Japanese cities, causing massive destruction, death, and lasting radiation illnesses. The testing and development of nuclear bombs continued, as did the costs to people and the environment. Sadly, the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries are now in the process of “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals. This is despite the fact that the majority of countries in the U.N. General Assembly have voted to ban nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the U.S. unfortunately maintains a “first use” policy with respect to nuclear weapons and Trump will have the power to launch nuclear weapons if he becomes president.

Background

Here is a summary of what occurred in what became known as the Manhattan Project from the Wikipedia online encyclopedia (https://wikipedia.org/Manhattan_Project).

—————

“The Manhattan Project was a research and development undertaking during World War II that produced the first nuclear weapons. It was led by the United States with support from the United Kingdom and Canada. From 1942 to 1946, the project was under the direction of Major General Leslie Groves of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The nuclear physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer was the director of the Los Alamos Laboratory that designed the bombs. The Army component was designated the Manhattan District, as its first headquarters were in Manhattan; the name gradually superseded the official codename, Development of Substitute Materials, for the entire project. The project absorbed its earlier British counterpart, Tube Alloys. The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but employed nearly 130,000 people at its peak and cost nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $24 billion in 2021).[1] Over 90 percent of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material, with less than 10 percent for development and production of the weapons. Research and production took place at more than 30 sites across the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.

“The project led to the development of two types of atomic bombs, both developed concurrently, during the war: a relatively simple gun-type fission weapon and a more complex implosion-type nuclear weapon. The Thin Man gun-type design proved impractical to use with plutonium, so a simpler gun-type design called Little Boy was developed that used uranium-235. Three methods were employed for uranium enrichmentelectromagneticgaseous and thermal. In parallel with the work on uranium was an effort to produce plutonium. After the feasibility of the world’s first artificial nuclear reactor, the Chicago Pile-1, was demonstrated in 1942 at the Metallurgical Laboratory in the University of Chicago, the project designed the X-10 Graphite Reactor and the production reactors at the Hanford Site, in which uranium was irradiated and transmuted into plutonium.

The Fat Man plutonium implosion-type weapon was developed in a concerted design and development effort by the Los Alamos Laboratory.

The project was also charged with gathering intelligence on the German nuclear weapon project. Through Operation Alsos, Manhattan Project personnel served in Europe, sometimes behind enemy lines, where they gathered nuclear materials and documents, and rounded up German scientists. Despite the Manhattan Project’s tight security, Soviet atomic spies successfully penetrated the program.

The first nuclear device ever detonated was an implosion-type bomb during the Trinity test, conducted at New Mexico’s Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range on 16 July 1945. Little Boy and Fat Man bombs were used a month later in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, with Manhattan Project personnel serving as bomb assembly technicians and weaponeers on the attack aircraft.

In the immediate postwar years, the Manhattan Project conducted weapons testing at Bikini Atoll as part of Operation Crossroads, developed new weapons, promoted the development of the network of national laboratories, supported medical research into radiology and laid the foundations for the nuclear navy. It maintained control over American atomic weapons research and production until the formation of the United States Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.”

—————

Destruction and death

Hiroshima

Here’s some of what we learn from the Texas A&M University’s “Narratives of World War II in the Pacific” (https://tamucc.edu/library/exhibits/s/hist4350/page/the-aftermath-of-the-atomic-bomb). The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945.        

“Citizens were unaware of their fate and were going on about their days. Men, women, and children all fell victim to the nuclear bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima. The bombing of Hiroshima caused the deaths of thousands of citizens instantly and more to the nuclear fallout and the lack of infrastructure which would lead to the deaths of many more Japanese civilians due to the devastating destruction by the atomic bomb.”

“The United States main goal for the Atomic Bomb was for it to be used on military targets only and minimize civilian casualties as much as possible. Hiroshima was used by the Japanese Army as a staging area but was also a large city with a population of roughly 410,000 people. Hiroshima was selected for the first bomb to be dropped and to be observed for future bombs that could be used in the future.

“August 6th, 1945 was a typical morning for Hiroshima. The city was flourishing with activity of people going to work, children playing, and businesses opening. The warning signs began around 7A.M. with air raid sirens which was a common occurrence for the people of Japan and most ignored it. Around 8:14 A.M. however, is when Hiroshima changed forever.”

“Once the initial explosion took place, it is estimated that 60,000 to 80,000 people died instantly due to the extreme heat of the bomb, leaving just shadows of where they once were. Fires broke out and spread rapidly while people were trying to find loved ones as well as figure out what exactly had happened.[2] The lack of people physically able to fight the fire and the weather increased the fires and the whole city became a blazing fireball all from a single bomb. Not only were people instantly vaporized, the people who did survive the initial blast, succumbed to radiation sickness and would later die a painful slow death. Sometimes symptoms did not reveal themselves until weeks or even years after being exposed to such high levels of radiation.” Over time, at least 60,000 more people died of radiation sickness.”

Nagasaki

Shampa Biswas writes on the bombing of Nakasaki on August 9, 1945  (https://thebulletin.org/2023/08/what-can-we-learn-from-oppenheimer-about-the-blind-spots-in-nuclear-storytelling).

“Fat Man laid a city [of Nakasaki] to waste, quickly killing between 60,000-80,000 people, the death toll eventually rising to over 130,000. Nagasaki is now the site of an elaborate Peace Memorial whose central story is the victimhood of Japan. It is a deeply moving story, but one told through a nation-making lens, with barely a nod to Japan’s own war crimes or its uneven redressal of the claims of first- and second-generation hibakusha, the surviving victims of the bombing.

“The Nagasaki Museum tells its heart-breaking story through photographs and objects: dented household pots, ripped clothing, bones of a human hand stuck to a piece of metal, a replica of the destroyed ruins of the Urakami cathedral at Ground Zero, pictures of scarred and dead bodies and a city leveled flat. It is a story that makes you weep for a devastated past and hope for a more peaceful future.”

The genie is out of the bottle

The Russians’ atomic bomb

The Russians exploded their first atomic bomb in 1949 (https://history.com/this-day-in-history/soveits-explode-atomic-bomb).

The US tests the first hydrogen bomb, followed by Russia

“On November 1, 1952, the United States successfully detonated ‘Mike,’ the world’s first hydrogen bomb, on the Elugelab Atoll in the Pacific Marshall Islands. The 10.4-megaton thermonuclear device instantly vaporized an entire island and left behind a crater more than a mile wide. Three years later, on November 22, 1955, the Soviet Union detonated its first hydrogen bomb on the same principle of radiation implosion. Both superpowers were now in possession of the so-called ‘superbomb,’ and the world lived under the threat of thermonuclear war for the first time in history.”

Other countries get the bomb

The Union of Concerned Scientists keeps a record (https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/worldwide).

“Nine countries possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. In total, the global nuclear stockpile is close to 13,000 weapons. While that number is lower than it was during the Cold War—when there were roughly 60,000 weapons worldwide—it does not alter the fundamental threat to humanity these weapons represent.

“For example, the warheads on just one US nuclear-armed submarine have seven times the destructive power of all the bombs dropped during World War II, including the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. And the United States usually has ten of those submarines at sea.

“Moreover, nearly all the major nuclear powers—including the United States, Russia, and China—are now significantly increasing their nuclear arsenals in size, capability, or both. This growing new arms race is raising the risk of nuclear war.”

The nuclear stock piles of the U.S. and Russia

“Today, the United States deploys 1,419 and Russia deploys 1,549 strategic warheads on several hundred bombers and missiles, and are modernizing their nuclear delivery systems. Warheads are counted using the provisions of the New START agreement, which was extended for 5 years in January 2021. Russia suspended its participation in the treaty on Feb. 21, 2023; in response, the United States instituted countermeasures limiting information sharing and inspections.

“However, both the U.S. and Russia have committed to the treaty’s central limits on strategic force deployments until 2026.

“New START caps each country at 1,550 strategic deployed warheads and attributes one deployed warhead per deployed heavy bomber, no matter how many warheads each bomber carries. Warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs are counted by the number of re-entry vehicles on the missile. Each re-entry vehicle can carry one warhead.

“The United States, Russia, and China also possess smaller numbers of non-strategic (or tactical) nuclear warheads, which are shorter-range, lower-yield weapons that are not subject to any treaty limits.”

On the Brink

W.J. Hennigan, writes about national security issues for Opinion from Washington, D.C. He has reported from more than two dozen countries, covering war, the arms trade and the lives of U.S. service members. He reports in this article on how close humanity is to nuclear war

(https://nytimes.com/interactive/2024/03/07/opinion/nuclear-war-prevention.html).

“In the fall of 2022, a U.S. intelligence assessment put the odds at 50-50 that Russia would launch a nuclear strike to halt Ukrainian forces if they breached its defense of Crimea. Preparing for the worst, American officials rushed supplies to Europe.

“Ukraine has set up hundreds of radiation detectors around cities and power plants, along with more than 1,000 smaller hand-held monitors sent by the United States.

Nearly 200 hospitals in Ukraine have been identified as go-to facilities in the event of a nuclear attack. Thousands of doctors, nurses and other workers have been trained on how to respond and treat radiation exposure. And millions of potassium iodide tablets, which protect the thyroid from picking up radioactive material linked with cancer, are stockpiled around the country.

Hennigan continues.

A nuclear playbook

“But well before that — just four days after Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine, in fact — the Biden administration had directed a small group of experts and strategists, a ‘Tiger Team,’ to devise a new nuclear ‘playbook’ of contingency plans and responses. Pulling in experts from the intelligence, military and policy fields, they pored over years-old emergency preparedness plans, weapon-effects modeling and escalation scenarios, dusting off materials that in the age of counterterrorism and cyberwarfare were long believed to have faded into irrelevance.

“The playbook, which was coordinated by the National Security Council, now sits in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the West Wing of the White House. It has a newly updated, detailed menu of diplomatic and military options for President Biden — and any future president — to act upon if a nuclear attack occurs in Ukraine.

The likelihood of nuclear war goes up

“‘At the heart of all of this work,” Hennigan writes, “is a chilling conclusion: The possibility of a nuclear strike, once inconceivable in modern conflict, is more likely now than at any other time since the Cold War [since 1992]. ‘We’ve had 30 pretty successful years keeping the genie in the bottle,’ a senior administration official on the Tiger Team said. While both America and Russia have hugely reduced their nuclear arsenals since the height of the Cold War, the official said, ‘Right now is when nuclear risk is most at the forefront.’”

Hennigan goes on.

If deterrence breaks down, the effects of a nuclear attack

“The toll of a 10-kiloton blast on a military target near a city could be thousands dead, even more wounded. Roads, tunnels and railways are impassable because of debris and destruction. It might be days before rescue workers can venture safely into affected areas.

“Cell towers and utility poles are knocked over and disconnected, causing widespread power failures. The electromagnetic pulse released from the detonation cripples electronic equipment within roughly a one-mile radius from the epicenter.

“The thousands of unburied dead, the open sewage and the fetid water are a breeding ground for disease and growth in insect populations that have a higher tolerance than humans for radiation. Flies appear en masse, laying eggs in corpses and the open burn wounds of survivors.

“The debris churned up by a nuclear blast, along with soot and ash from the raging fires, falls back to earth as thick, black water droplets laced with radioactive material. Black-rain showers can fall miles away from ground zero, staining nearly everything they touch.

“Radiation sickness begins with bouts of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Days or weeks after exposure, people who look fine can suddenly lose hunks of hair, become anemic and weak, and begin bleeding internally. Their immune systems can fail, rendering them helpless against the infectious diseases that start to spread: dysentery, typhoid, cholera.

“Some pregnant women who are near the blast later give birth to babies with microcephaly and other defects. Cancer of all kinds can appear decades later.

“If radioactive contamination from the initial blast passes through the food chain via animals and plant roots, damage to the ecosystem can linger for years.”

“Russia is replacing its Soviet-era hardware with new jets, missiles and submarines. And the other eight nations that have nuclear weapons are believed to be enhancing their arsenals in parts of the world that are already on edge.”

“Now that shared safety net of treaties and agreements is nearly gone. After a decade of diplomatic breakdown and military antagonism, only one major arms treaty between the United States and Russia remains — New START, which Mr. Putin suspended Russia’s participation in last year. The treaty is set to expire in February 2026.”

“That means we are just two years away from a world in which there are no major treaty limits on the number of strategic nuclear weapons the United States and Russia deploy. Already today, because of the New START suspension, the two nations disclose little information about their arsenals to each other and do not engage in talks for further agreements. If nuclear deterrence — however flawed a concept it may be — is to work, transparency about nations’ capabilities is critical. Without better communication, the risk of rapid escalation and miscalculation will grow.”

Nuclear winter – the end game

“Even a limited nuclear war could be catastrophic. A 2022 scientific study found that if 100 Hiroshima-size bombs — less than 1 percent of the estimated global nuclear arsenal — were detonated in certain cities, they could generate more than five million tons of airborne soot, darkening the skies, lowering global temperatures and creating the largest worldwide famine in history.

“An estimated 27 million people could immediately die, and as many as 255 million people may starve within two years.”

“The United States is now preparing to build new nuclear warheads for the first time since 1991, part of a decades-long program to overhaul its nuclear forces that’s estimated to cost up to $2 trillion. The outline of that plan was drawn up in 2010 — in a much different security environment than what the country faces today.

Donald Trump’s Reckless Infatuation with nuclear weapons and a renewed nuclear arms race

Lawrence S. Wittner,Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press), reports on this issue in an article published by Foreign Policy in Focus, July 22, 2024 (https://fpif.org/donald-trumps-infatuation-with-nuclear-weapons).  

Trump has brought the world closer to nuclear midnight

Wittner writes: “Over the past decade and more, nuclear war has grown increasingly likely. Most nuclear arms control and disarmament agreements of the past have been discarded by the nuclear powers or will expire soon. Moreover, there are no nuclear arms control negotiations underway. Instead, all nine nuclear nations (Russia, the United States, China, Britain, France, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea) have begun a new nuclear arms race, qualitatively improving the 12,121 nuclear weapons in existence or building new, much faster, and deadlier ones.

“Furthermore, the cautious, diplomatic statements about international relations that characterized an earlier era have given way to public threats of nuclear war, issued by top officials in Russia, the United States, and North Korea.

“This June, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that, given the heightened risk of nuclear annihilation, “humanity is on a knife’s edge.”

This menacing situation owes a great deal to Donald Trump.

Trump’s record

“As president of the United States, Trump sabotaged key nuclear arms control agreements of the past and the future. He single-handedly destroyed the INF Treaty, the Iran nuclear agreement, and the Open Skies Treaty by withdrawing the United States from them.  In addition, as the expiration date for the New START Treaty approached in February 2021, he refused to accept a simple extension of the agreement—action quickly countermanded by the incoming Biden administration.

“Not surprisingly, Trump was horrified by the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons―a UN-negotiated agreement that banned nuclear weapons, thereby providing the framework for a nuclear-free world.  In 2017, when this vanguard nuclear disarmament treaty was passed by an overwhelming majority of the world’s nations, the Trump administration  proclaimed that the United States would never sign it.

“In fact,” Wittner continues, “Trump was far less interested in arms control and disarmament than in entering―and winning―a new nuclear arms race with other nations. ‘Let it be an arms race,’ he declared in December 2016, shortly after his election victory. ‘We will outmatch them at every pass.’ In February 2018, he boasted that his administration was ‘creating a brand-new nuclear force.  We’re gonna be so far ahead of everybody else in nuclear like you’ve never seen before.’ And, indeed, Trump’s U.S. nuclear ‘modernization’ program―involving the replacement of every Cold War era submarine, bomber, missile, and warhead with an entirely new generation of the deadliest weapons ever invented―acquired enormous momentum during his presidency, with cost estimates running as high as $2 trillion.”

There’s more.

Trump considers the return of U.S. nuclear weapons testing

“Eager to facilitate this nuclear buildup, the Trump administration began to explore a return to U.S. nuclear weapons testing.  Consequently, it announced in 2018 that, although the U.S. government had ended its nuclear tests in 1992 and President Bill Clinton had negotiated and signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 1996, Trump would oppose U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty. The administration also dramatically reduced the time necessary to prepare for nuclear weapons test explosions. In 2020, senior Trump administration officials reportedly conducted a serious discussion of U.S. government resumption of nuclear testing, leading the House of Representatives, then under Democratic control, to block funding for it.

“Though many Americans assumed that a powerful U.S. nuclear arsenal would prevent an outbreak of nuclear war, Trump undermined this wishful thinking by revealing himself perfectly ready to launch a nuclear attack. During his 2016 presidential campaign, the Republican nominee reportedly asked a foreign policy advisor three times why, if the U.S. government possessed nuclear weapons, it should be reluctant to use them. The following year, Trump told the governor of Puerto Rico that, ‘if nuclear war happens, we won’t be second in line pressing the button.’

“Indeed, Trump came remarkably close to lunching a nuclear war against North Korea. In August 2017, responding to provocative comments by Kim Jong Un, Trump warned that further North Korean threats would ‘be met with fire, fury and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.’”

“Trump’s threat of a nuclear attack triggered a rapid escalation of tensions between the two nations. In a speech before the UN General Assembly that September, Trump vowed to ‘totally destroy North Korea’ if Kim, whom he derisively labeled ‘Rocket Man,’ continued his provocative rhetoric. Meanwhile, the White House chief of staff, General John Kelly, was appalled by indications that Trump really wanted war and, especially, by the president’s suggestion of using a nuclear weapon against North Korea and, then, blaming the action on someone else.

According to Kelly, the military’s objection that the war would―in the words of Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis ‘incinerate a couple million people’―had no impact on Trump. In early 2018, the U.S. president merely upped the ante by publicly boasting that he had a ‘Nuclear Button’ that was ‘much bigger & more powerful’ than Kim’s.

“What finally headed off a nuclear war, Kelly recalled, was his appeal to Trump’s ‘narcissism.’ If Trump could forge a friendly diplomatic relationship with North Korea, the general suggested, the U.S. president would emerge as the ‘greatest salesman in the world.’ And, indeed, Trump did reverse course and embark on a flamboyant campaign to pacify and denuclearize North Korea, remarking that May that ‘everyone’ thought he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Eventually, however, the U.S.-North Korean negotiations, including a much-heralded ‘summit’ between Trump and Kim, resulted in little more than handshakes, North Korea’s continued development of nuclear weapons, and Trump’s return to public threats of nuclear war―this time against Iran.

“Given this record, as well as Trump’s all-too-evident mental instability, we have been fortunate that, in a world bristling with nuclear weapons, the world survived his four years in office.

“But our good fortune might not last much longer, for Trump’s return to power in 2025 or the recklessness of some other leader of a nuclear-armed nation could unleash unprecedented catastrophe upon the world.

“Ultimately, the only long-term security for humanity lies in the global abolition of nuclear weapons and the development of a united world community.” Such goals seem less and less attainable.”

————-

Concluding thoughts

It is worrisome that Trump seems to think about nuclear weapons and nuclear war so nonchalantly. Everything we know about him is that he is impulsive, doesn’t read much, hates to lose, wants to be dominant, seeks revenge against his opponents, and wants recognition and acceptance as a great leader, if not a messiah with supernatural abilities.  He is encouraged to adopt a permissive approach to nuclear policies by key allies like the Heritage Foundation and, generally, the big nuclear weapons producers. For example, William Hartung reports on August 6, 2024 on “the Heritage Foundation” proposal to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal (https://commondreams.org/opinion/heritage-foundation-nukes).

There has been “a flood of campaign contributions from ICBM contractors [which]  is reinforced by their staggering investments in lobbying. In any given year, the arms industry as a whole employs between 800 and 1,000 lobbyists, well more than one for every member of Congress. Most of those lobbyists hired by ICBM contractors come through the ‘revolving door’ from careers in the Pentagon, Congress, or the Executive Branch. That means they come with the necessary tools for success in Washington: an understanding of the appropriations cycle and close relations with decision-makers on the Hill.”

Hartung points out, “The Pentagon is in the midst of a massive $2 trillion multiyear plan to build a new generation of nuclear-armed missiles, bombers, and submarines. A large chunk of that funding will go to major nuclear weapons contractors like Bechtel, General Dynamics, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. And they will do everything in their power to keep that money flowing,” as reported by Hekmat Aboukhater and William D. Hartung (https://counterpunch.org/2024/08/08/inside-the-nuclear-weapons-lobby-today).

It is also of concern that: “all three major nuclear powers are upgrading their nuclear arsenals” and “the one remaining U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control agreement is hanging by a thread.”

Trump’s advisers exacerbate the situation by encouraging him to renew U.S. nuclear weapons testing if he wins the presidency in November, a development that would surely lead to testing by Russia and China (https://nytimes.com/2024/07/05/science/nuclear-testing-trump.html).

A peace-oriented option

Lawrence Davidson, a retired professor of history, wants us to “think about how to build a more peaceful world”

(https://counterpunch.org/2024/08/13/lets-think-about-how-to-build-a-more-peaceful-world). He focuses on how to reform the United Nations and  recommends ending the veto power of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Indeed, “124 UN nations have endorsed a proposal to scrap the veto in connection with genocide, crimes against humanity, and mass atrocities.”

The Republican Project 2025 is alarming

Bob Sheak, August 3, 2024

Project 2025, labeled the Presidential Transition Project, is the 920-page Republican Party plan to be implemented after (not if) they “win” the presidential and congressional elections in November. It describes how Trump and his allies intend to destroy America’s democracy and create something like a monarchy or fascist political order. Independently of the 2025 Project, Trump believes he will win the election and then become the absolute leader. The federal government will then be under his control, obviating the need for elections and the rule of law. The rich and powerful will be the chief beneficiaries.

According Project 2025, opponents of Trump will be imprisoned or deported, as will millions of undocumented workers residing in the country. Thousands of Trump loyalists will be appointed to executive branch jobs. And a full-blown right-wing agenda will be instituted, involving lowered taxes on the rich, deregulation, and privatization of critical public institutions. The social safety net will be eviscerated. The production and consumption of fossil fuels will be maximized and global warming will increase.

Wikipedia provides a detailed analysis of this anti-democratic project.

———–

Wikipedia’s description of Project 2025

Wikipedia: “Project 2025, also known as the 2025 Presidential Transition Project,[3] is an initiative coordinated by the Heritage Foundation that aims to promote conservative and right-wing policies to reshape the United States federal government and consolidate executive power should Donald Trump win the 2024 presidential election.[4][5] The Project asserts that the entire executive branch is under the direct control of the president under unitary executive theory.[6][7] It proposes reclassifying tens of thousands of federal civil service workers as political appointees in order to replace them with people loyal to the president.[8][9] Proponents of the project argue it would dismantle what they view as a vast, unaccountable, and liberal government bureaucracy.[10] The Project seeks to infuse the government and society with conservative Christian values.[11][12] Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarianChristian nationalist plan to steer the U.S. toward autocracy.[11][13][14][15] Legal experts have said it would undermine the rule of law,[16] separation of powers,[5] separation of church and state,[17] and civil liberties.[5][16][18]

Project 2025 envisions widespread changes to economic and social policies and the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes taking partisan control of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of CommerceFederal Communications Commission (FCC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), dismantling the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor fossil fuels.[16][19] The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts,[20] but its writers disagree on protectionism.[21] It recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be transferred or terminated.[22][23] Funding for climate research would be cut, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would be reformed along conservative principles[vague].[24][25] The project seeks to cut Medicare and Medicaid,[26][27] and urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care.[28][29] The project seeks to eliminate coverage of emergency contraception[26] and enforce the Comstock Act to prosecute those who send and receive contraceptives and abortion pills.[29][30] It proposes criminalizing pornography,[31]: 5 [32] removing legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,[32][33] and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs[5][33] and affirmative action[34] by having the DOJ prosecute “anti-white racism.”[35] The Project recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of illegal immigrants.[36][37][38] It proposes deploying the military for domestic law enforcement.[39] It promotes capital punishment and the speedy “finality” of those sentences.[40][41]

————-

Why is Project 2025 so alarming?

Matt Cohen, a writer and researcher, addresses the question in an article published on Democracy Docket on July 9, 2024

(https://democracydocket.com/analysis/what-is-project-2025-and-why-is-it-alarming). Here’s some of what Cohen writes.

The project, designed to give Trump maximum power, is so extreme that even Trump has tried to distance himself from it.

Trump wants to “distant” himself from the project

Trump has recently tried “to distance himself from the extreme agenda of Project 2025,” claiming “I know nothing about Project 2025.” Trump added: “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

Trump’s allies are behind the project

Cohen points out that, despite his claimed ignorance of Project 2025, “numerous former Trump administration officials contributed to the nearly 1,000-page mandate, including former Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli and Peter Navarro, a former top trade advisor to Trump. Trump also has deep ties to The Heritage Foundation, the group behind Project 2025, and the dozens of conservative organizations who contributed to the plan.”

“Though The Heritage Foundation organized Project 2025, the initiative is actually a coalition made up of more than 100 right-wing groups, including notorious groups like America First Legal, the Public Interest Legal Foundation and Moms For LibertyAccording to NBC News, a huge web of right-wing dark money groups connected to Project 2025, led by the Leonard Leo-connected Donors Trust, has seen a large bump in donations since the project was announced. 

The chapters in the Project 2025 plan and 180-Day Playbook were written by “more than 400 scholars and policy experts from across the conservative movement and around the country,” the group says.

Implementing the project

Should Trump win the November election, he will be able to move ahead with the plan and, Cohen writes, “vastly remake the federal government most effectively to carry out an extremist far-right agenda.” 

“It is not enough for conservatives to win elections,” the project’s website states. “If we are going to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left, we need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration. This is the goal of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project.”

Cohen continues.

“The opening essay of the plan, written by Heritage Project President Kevin D. Roberts, succinctly summarizes the goal of Project 2025: a promise to make America a conservative nation. To do so, the next presidential administration should focus on four ‘broad fronts that will decide America’s future.’”

#1 – Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children.

#2 – Dismantle the administrative state and return self-governance to the American people.

#3 – Defend our nation’s sovereignty, borders, and bounty against global threats.

#4 – Secure our God-given individual rights to live freely—what our Constitution calls ‘the Blessings of Liberty.’

Cohen elaborates. “The rest of the document sketches out, in detail, how the next Republican administration can execute their goals on these four fronts. That includes comprehensive outlines on what the White House and every single federal agency should do to overhaul its goals and day-to-day operations — from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Defense, Small Business Administration and Financial Regulatory Agencies. Every sector of the executive branch has a detailed plan in Project 2025 that explains how it can carry out an ultra-conservative agenda.” 

Cohen writes, “Project 2025 is ‘a remarkably detailed guide to turning the United States into a fascist’s paradise.’ The primary document of Project 2025… lays out what is essentially a ‘Christian nationalist vision of the United States, one in which married heterosexuality is the only valid form of sexual expression and identity; all pregnancies would be carried to term, even if that requires coercion or death; and transgender and gender-nonconforming people do not exist.’”

One troubling provision includes “a detailed plan to essentially purge the federal workforce of tens of thousands of workers in favor of hiring ones who will adhere to the conservative principles of Project 2025.” It speaks to just about every facet of American life, including “anti-abortion advocacyvoter suppressionanti-climate policies, and anti-LGBTQ advocacy.” 

—————-

Liz Theoharis and Shailly Gupta Barnes identify Project 2025 as “a New Pax Romana” (https://counterpunch.org/2-24/-7/30/project-2025-a-new-pax-romana).

“Although the Roman Empire described itself as being in favor of life and peace, the various Caesars and their enablers regularly dealt death and destruction in their wake. They spread the Pax Romana (the Roman Peace), including a taxation system that left the poor in debt servitude, a military that caused terror and violence across the then-known world, and a ruling authority that pitted whole communities against each other, while legislating who could associate with whom (passing marriage laws, for instance, that banned gay, inter-racial, or even cross-class marriages). The emperor in power in Jesus’s time, Caesar Augustus, was known for ushering in a Golden Age of Moral Values that went hand in hand with that Pax Romana, and it meant war and death, especially for the poor.

“Fast forward millennia and that world bears a strange resemblance to the media distractions, violence, and regressive policies that MAGA and other extremists are pushing forward in our times. Whether it’s Donald Trump’s assertion that “I alone can fix your problems”; Supreme Court and state legislative attacks on reproductive rightssame-sex marriage, and trans youth in the name of family values; cuts to welfarehealthcareworker’s rights and other life-sustaining programs to protect corporate interests; the militarizing of endless communities by allowing guns (especially AR-15 rifles) to proliferate, while offering only thoughts and prayers to the victims of violence, the MAGA movement is promoting culture wars and extremist policies under the banner of Christian nationalism. In doing so, its leaders are perfecting a disdain for the excluded, exploited, and rejected that hurts the poor first and worst, but impacts all of society.”

The Formal Project 2025 Takeover

“The wholesale capture of the state is the ultimate goal of its Christian nationalist architects. Project 2025 simply clarifies just how they plan to implement their drive for power.  Each of its sections — from ‘taking the reins of government’ by centralizing executive authority in the office of the President to securing ‘the common defense’ by expanding every branch of the military — is worth reviewing.

Theoharis and Barnes note this: “The longest section focuses on ‘general welfare’ and it should be no surprise that the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development are subject to significant cutbacks, including:

* Imposing yet stricter eligibility standards, work requirements, and asset tests to constrain access to Medicaid, even though more than 23 million Americans have been unenrolled from that program since 2023;

* Revisiting how the “Thrifty Food Plan” is formulated to minimize food-stamp allocations, while imposing onerous work requirements on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), even though most of its recipients work and/or are in households with children, elderly people, or people with disabilities;

* Ending universal free school meals by removing the “community eligibility provision,” which allows school districts with high poverty rates to provide free breakfast and lunch programs to all children in need;

* Eliminating Head Start, which has served 39 million children and families since 1965 and currently serves more than 800,000 poor families with young children, while shuttering the Department of Education;

* Ending “Housing First” programs and prohibiting non-citizens, including mixed-status families, from living in low-income public housing; and

* Imposing a “life agenda” and a “family agenda” that will restrict access to abortion and reproductive rights, and otherwise curtail LGBTQ+ rights.

“Such proposals would undoubtedly be deeply unpopular. In fact, as people learn more about Project 2025, opposition is growing, even across party lines. Most Americans want a government that would provide for the down-and-out, who are a growing segment of the population and the electorate, as well as one that supports abortion rightsvoting rights, and the freedom of expression. At least 40% of us — 135-140 million people — are either poor or one emergency away from economic ruin, including 80 million eligible voters. Project 2025’s social welfare cuts would, in fact, push significant numbers of people across the poverty line into financial ruin.”

“Today, tens of millions of poor people in this country are on the front lines of our failing democracy and increasingly militarized society. They are the true canaries in the coal mine, already living through the violence of a society that has prioritized war and profits over addressing the pain and toll of low-wage jobs, crushing debt burdens, polluted water and land, and lives cut short by poverty, the police, and the denial of basic human rights. They can undoubtedly also foresee the drive toward an ever-deeper warfare state and the possible fallout from Project 2025 if Donald Trump and J.D. Vance win this year.”

The Supreme Court smooths the way for Project 2024

“From its recent rulings, it’s clear that the Supreme Court is hastening Project 2025’s agenda judicially, both in terms of specific future policies and the executive power grab at the heart of that mandate (and now of that court’s rulings). In June, for instance, it ruled in favor of the city of Grants Pass, Oregon, which enacted a law to fine, jail, and ultimately expel its unhoused residents. That precedent will only exacerbate the already hostile terrain confronting unhoused people, seeding firm ground to 2025’s plan to eliminate even more housing projects.

Worse yet, as the Nation’s Elie Mystal recently made clear, in just a few weeks of rulings, the court “legalized bribery of public officials, declared the president of the United States absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for ‘official acts,’ and made the power to issue regulations subject to the court’s unelected approval.”

As Mystal warns, “There’s no legislative fix for the problems the court has created… [and] they will continue to do all the things Republicans want that nobody elected

“In addition, in the legislative arena, Congressional debates around the Farm Bill echo Project 2025’s plan to cut food assistance by limiting updates to the Thrifty Food Plan, the current formula that determines SNAP allocations. For example, at the state level, a Republican supermajority in Kansas voted last year to override the governor’s veto and enact work requirements for older recipients of SNAP benefits.

“Overall, various Project 2025 priorities are already being implemented at the state and local level, with reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, public education, social welfare programs, and unhoused people under serious threat in Republican-run states across the country. Since the Supreme Court decision in 2022 to overturn Roe v. Wade, 21 states have enacted full or partial bans on abortion.”

“There is also a multi-state strategy underway to preempt community-led efforts to implement guaranteed income programs. At least 10 states have challenged basic income programs with legislative bans, funding restrictions, constitutional challenges, and court injunctions, while four Republican-led states — Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, and South Dakota — have already completely prohibited such programs.

And in lockstep with Project 2025’s call for military expansion, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker recently released a report proposing that $55 billion be added to the Pentagon’s already humongous budget in fiscal year 2025 while raising military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars in the next five to seven years. The report, “Peace Through Strength,” revives the false idea that spending ever more on war preparations makes us safer. Not only is Wicker distorting Cold War history, but his prescriptions ignore our experience of the past 20 years of military buildup and the disastrous Global War on Terror. According to the Costs of War Project and the National Priorities Project, this country’s post-9/11 wars have cost at least $8 trillion, taken millions of lives, and displaced tens of millions of people globally, while precipitating climate chaos through their polluting emissions. If implemented, Wicker’s plan would only increase the risk of yet more destabilizing conflicts, offering a modern Pax Romana promise for yet more war and death.”

———————-

Trump tells supporters there will be no need to vote anymore after he and other Republicans win their elections in November.

Edward Carver reports on this in an article published in Common Dreams on July 27, 2024 (https://commondreams.org/news/it-ll-be-fixed-trump-tells-supporters-no-need-to-vote-in-the-future). On July 23, 2024, Trump “told rally-goers at a far-right Christian event in West Palm Beach, Florida that they needed to vote ‘just this time’ and wouldn’t need to do so after four more years…”

“‘Christians, get out and vote!’ the former president told attendees of the event, hosted by the far-right youth advocacy group Turning Point Action. ‘Just this time. You won’t have to do it any more, four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed! It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote any more, my beautiful Christians.’”

“‘Get out–you gotta get out and vote,’ he added. ‘In four years, you don’t have to vote again. We’ll have it fixed so good, you’re not gonna have to vote.’”

Carver cites Katie Phang, an MSNBC host, who interpreted Trump’s remarks to mean that he would try to remain in power indefinitely, if reelected.

“In other words, Trump won’t ever leave the White House if he gets reelected,” she wrote on social media.”

“He has in the past expressed admiration for strongmen around the world, and has framed his 2024 campaign as one of retribution, even calling his opponents ‘vermin.’ He and his allies have threatened to prosecute their political enemies—political figures and bureaucrats—if they take power in 2025.”

“‘I love you, Christians, I’m [unclear word or words] Christian, I love you.’

Many Christians seem to love Trump back. A Pew poll from April showed that more than 80% of white evangelicals support the Republican nominee.

————–

Using the Military and police to enforce obedience to the anticipated fascist order

The ACLU reports on July 19, 2024 that “Trump Promises to Militarize Police, Reincarcerate Thousands, and Expand Death Penalty” (https://aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/trump-promises-to-militarize-police-reincarcerate-thousands-and-expand-death-penalty).

“Donald Trump has long identified himself as the candidate of ‘law and order’ but, during the Trump administration, ‘law and order’ translated to a severe approach to criminal punishment and policing that failed to make us safer.

“Today, his proposed policies for a second term promise to double down on these ineffective tough on crime tactics. If reelected, a second administration threatens to accelerate mass incarceration and roll back decades of progress by encouraging aggressive policing practices, enacting draconian sentencing regimes, and expanding the use of the death penalty.”

Trump on the Criminal Legal System

“Specifically, Trump’s law enforcement policies call for further protections for abusive police, including condoning the use of force against protesters, which he once described as a ‘beautiful thing to watch.’ This rhetoric risks encouraging state actors to take a similarly brutal approach. Beyond rhetoric, however, Trump is also likely to immediately rescind President Joe Biden’s 2022 executive order on policing. Doing so would eviscerate one of the most substantial federal actions on police reform since George Floyd’s murder and roll back important changes to use of force standards, including restrictions on chokeholds and carotid restraints.

“These expected policies will have an outsized impact on marginalized communities, especially the Black community, which is far more likely to experience police abuse. We also know that a second Trump administration intends to deputize local law enforcement to aid an unprecedented mass deportation effort that would decimate communities.

“Additionally, Trump has promised that, if reelected, his administration will accelerate mass incarceration efforts by directing federal prosecutors to seek the most serious charges and maximum sentences, pressuring local prosecutors to take a similarly draconian approach, and re-incarcerating thousands of people on home confinement. His administration will also expand the use of the death penalty – despite Americans’ increasing opposition to capital punishment – by broadening the category of crimes punishable by death, sentencing more people to die, and killing every person on federal death row.

“While Trump will have a singular impact on the federal system, ultimately, state and local governments control most of the substantive parts of state criminal legal systems, including policing, prosecution, sentencing, and conditions in prisons and jails. Today, there are over 1.6 million people in state and local jails and prisons, compared to just over 200,000 in federal jails and prisons. But even without direct control of state systems, Trump will play an important role in setting the tone for state policies and many of his plans will have a ripple effect across the country.”

“Trump’s time in office also underscored the need to continue to hold his administration accountable for its unlawful actions. From 2017-2021, the ACLU filed more than 430 legal actions against the administration, including lawsuits aimed at defending the right to protest against police brutality, protecting the health and humanity of incarcerated people during the Covid-19 pandemic, and stopping mass surveillance by law enforcement.

“Our Roadmap: If Trump returns to office, he can expect that he will be met with the same fierce response the ACLU brought during his last administration.

Specifically, we will use the courts to halt the Trump administration’s attempt to carry out one of, if not the largest, carceral events in our nation’s history: the senseless return to prison of nearly 3,000 individuals released on federal home confinement during the pandemic. Additionally, we will use litigation to challenge any efforts to return to unconstitutional methods of execution, and expose the racism and cruelty inherent in the death penalty, as we continue to seek its total abolition.

“The ACLU will also advocate for Congress to constrain the funneling of military equipment to local police, fight for legislation to end sentencing disparities, and, under any administration, continue to push for the full implementation of the First Step Act. Importantly, we’ll use our expertise and resources to advise and assist members of Congress on how to prevent a future Trump administration from manipulating our legal system.”

————–

Concluding thoughts

US democracy, the rule of law, the protections provided by the US Constitution, all will be at unprecedented risk again. Trump, his MAGA base, and his many powerful backers seem all too willing to follow him down a fascist path.

Will American voters defeat him and the other extremist Republicans? It comes down to whether a majority of voters oppose his candidacy and whether the popular vote is not negated by the Electoral College.

Republicans the anti-abortion party

Bob Sheak, July 22, 2024

The Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in the decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, ending the right to abortion that had existed since 1973.

Nina Totenberg and Sarah McCammon review the new law for NPR (https://npr.org/2022/06/24/1102305878/supreme-court-abortion-roe-v-wade-decision-overturn). Here are excerpts and comments from their analysis.

“The decision, most of which was leaked in early May [2022], means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states immediately, with more restrictions likely to follow. For all practical purposes, abortion will not be available in large swaths of the country. The decision may well mean too that the court itself, as well as the abortion question, will become a focal point in the upcoming fall elections and in the fall and thereafter.”

Concurring with Justice Samuel Alito 78-page decision were Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by the first President Bush, and the three Trump appointees — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, concurred in the judgment only, and would have limited the decision to upholding the Mississippi law at issue in the case, which banned abortions after 15 weeks.”

“Dissenting were Justices Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama. They agreed that the court decision means that ‘young women today will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers.’ Indeed, they said the court’s opinion means that ‘from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest personal and familial costs.’”

What did Roe v Wade say?

Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer point out that there were nine men on the Supreme Court in 1973, all of whom ruled in favor of abortion rights (The Fall of Roe: The Rise of A New America (publ. 2024).

“A woman in America had the right to get an abortion until a fetus could live separately – a point the court called viability – which at the time was about twenty-eight weeks into pregnancy. They could make private decisions about her pregnancy with her doctor, without interference from anyone else” (p. 12).

The Catastrophic effects after “the fall of Roe”

Millions of women are affected

Dias and Lerer write that “On June 24, 2022, there were about 65 million women of childbearing age in America. Within two months of the decision, about one-third – 20.9 million – would live in states where abortion was a criminal act” (p. 356). Here are some other facts from their book.

The effects on women and girls

The Center for Reproductive Rights – “argued that women who are denied the ability to end a pregnancy face greater health risks and lost education and career opportunities” (p. 315)

The effects of racism on black women

“The higher abortion rate of Black women was not because of a nefarious plot by abortion providers. It was due…to structural racism and a raft of socioeconomic factors that made Black women disproportionately at risk for unintended pregnancy. Studies showed that Black women were less likely to receive sex education, more likely to live in ‘contraception deserts,’ and uninsured at roughly twice the rate of white women and girls – making it difficult to obtain contraception” (p. 267)

Americans divided on the ruling

Support – A majority of Americans support access to abortion without any or with only some restrictions, and they still do. Dias and Lerer point out,

“A majority of Americans accepted Roe v. Wade as settled law and supported legal abortion. Many Americans backed some restrictions on the procedure, although disagreed on what those limits should be. But only 16 percent of Americans believed abortions should be illegal in all circumstances, and just another quarter believed it should be illegal in most circumstances” (p 12). And “…a whopping 85 percent of Democratic women now thought abortion should be legal in all or most cases, up eighteen points from March 2026 before Trump claimed his party’s nomination” (p. 172).

Dias and Lerer also note, “Not a single state had a majority of adults that favored overturning Roe. Even in Mississippi, only 40 percent agreed with the court’s decision” (p. 376).

Opposed

Catholics and right-wing Evangelicals

Dias and Lerer provide some background. A small group, led by Roman Catholics and soon joined by the conservative evangelicals of the nascent religious right, never accepted the roe decision as settled law” (p. 13). Such views were held by an array of right-wing groups and people.  “Every town seemed to have a church with an antiabortion pregnancy ministry, or a Catholic school that annually sent teenagers to Washington for the March for Life, or a Baptist pastor who preached against the sin of abortion” (p. 13).

At the same time, Dias and Lerer point out, “Catholics in the United States were divided on abortion, with polling showing them nearly evenly split between supporting and opposing abortion rights” (p. 113). They also remind readers that Catholic theology “was not always static – for centuries, the church taught that the soul entered the fetus only later in pregnancy, but in 1869, as the scientific revolution took hold, the church decreed that a human life begins at conception and expressly forbade abortion at any stage of pregnancy (p. 113).

Shefali Luthra informs us in her book, Undue Burden: Life and Death Decisions in Post-Roe America (publ. 2024) that many Catholics supportive of some access to abortion. She writes: “Only days after the court decision, data collected by the Public Religion Research Institute indicated that the majority of American Catholics – 64 percent of White Catholics and 75 percent of Hispanic Catholics – said they supported access to abortion in most or all cases” (pp. 101-102).

The fetus and pain, a false assumption

Those who espouse an anti-abortion view often believe that at any stage in a pregnancy the embryo/fetus has a “soul” or is a “person” requiring the protection of the government and courts.

Dias and Lerer write, “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the main association for ob-gyns in the United States, pointed to research showing that a fetus could not perceive pain until perhaps the third trimester. But the antiabortion movement used the still-evolving and disputed science to point out doubt” (p. 56)

Leonard Leo

Dias and Lerer describe the important role played by Leonard Leo in building the anti-abortion movement. Leo was involved in the Federalist Society, established in 1982, “with the goal to train, credential, and grow a generation of conservative lawyers who could ascend to the highest levels of American government, academia, and the judiciary, even the Supreme Court” (p.106).

Republican women

Dias and Lerer – “Across the country, Republican women made up less than 10 percent of state legislators from 2008 to 2017, but they were significantly overrepresented as sponsors of antiabortion bills, according to an analysis of the period. Of the more than 1,600 antiabortion bills that were introduced during this stretch in state legislatures, nearly half had a female Republican cosponsor, and a third had a female Republican as the primary sponsor” (p.208).

More states are Republican controlled

Dias and Lerer – “Since 2010, Republicans had dramatically expanded their power in the states. They now had unified Republican control of state governments in twenty-three states. Democrats held only fourteen. Their party controlled thirty governors’ mansions, nearing their all time high in modern political history, in the 1920s” (p. 14). In 2011, “Republican statehouses pushed through a whooping ninety-two new restrictions on abortion, more than in any previous year…” (p. 16)

Chipping away at Roe and abortion rights

“For years, opponents have chipped away at abortion rights, with laws creating extensive rules for doctors, patients, and clinics that made it more difficult to get an abortion in the state” (Texas) (Dias and Lerer, p. 22)

“While Planned Parenthood remained the biggest abortion provider in the county in 2019, it wasn’t performing the majority of abortions in America. About 60 percent of abortions happened in small, unaffiliated independent clinics, which performed most of the controversial procedures later in pregnancy” (p. 253). – “The flood of state restrictions had forced more than a third of those clinics to close their doors. In 2012, when Obama was president, there were 510 independent abortion clinics, according to the Abortion Care Network, the national association of independent clinics. By 2019, their numbers were down to 344” (Dias and Lerer, p. 254).

Shefali Luthra informs us in her book, Undue Burden: Life and Death Decisions in Post-Roe America (publ. 2024) that the restrictions and extremist rules had already had unwelcome effects. Luthra writes: “Even prior to 2022, pregnancy related deaths had been on the rise in the United States, a stark contrast to other wealthy nations….In large swaths of the country, it’s impossible to find an ob-gyn within fifty miles, let alone one who accepts health insurance or who is comfortable caring for a patient with other health conditions in addition to being pregnant” (p. 53). She also refers to the Turnaway Study, which “demonstrated indubitably that when people are denied access to abortion, they are more likely to fall into poverty and then stay there” (p. 66). Luthra documents how the number of women forced to leave their state (e.g., Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi), creating problems for abortion providers in states that had not banned or had not unduely restricted abortions. For example, “in 2022, Kansas recorded 12,318 abortions – a 57 percent increase from the year before, fueled entirely by out-of-state patients, who that year made up close to 70 percent of the people getting abortions in the Sunflower State” (p. 95).

Trump the antiabortionist

Dias and Lerer refer to Trump’s anti-abortion policies. Just weeks into his administration,

“The Trump administration announced it would ban any organization that performed or referred patients for abortions from receiving money through Title X – the federal program that pays for contraception and other reproductive health care for millions of low-income Americans. The policy change would eliminate as much as $60 million funding from the program for Planned Parenthood clinics” (p. 232). Trump added to his anti-abortion position by picking three justices who opposed abortion (p. 275). And then Trump “appointed nearly 230 judges to the federal bench, just one fewer powerful federal court judges in four years than Obama appointed in eight, and three judges to the Supreme Court” (p. 279). This was not the end. Trump also selected anti-abortionist J.D. Vance as his 1984 presidential pick.

JD Vance as vice president

Extremist

The “Democrats” website provides some information about Vance’s extreme anti-abortion position (https://democrats.org/news/%F0%9F%9A%A8-breaking-jd-vance-who-wants-abortion-to-be-illegal-nationally-says-extremists-pushing-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-have-a-seat-at-this-table). Here’s some of what it reports.

“JD Vance is leaving zero doubt about his extreme anti-choice agenda, telling the radically anti-choice Faith and Freedom Coalition they’ll ‘have a seat’ at the Trump-Vance ticket’s table less than 24 hours after audio surfaced of him admitting he wants ‘abortion to be illegal nationally.’ It’s no surprise that Vance spent one of his first speeches as the GOP vice presidential nominee pandering to an organization led by Ralph Reed – a Trump ally who backs a total abortion ban – since he’s just as hellbent on ripping away our basic rights. Every day, Trump and Vance remind us that their anti-choice Project 2025 agenda to restrict reproductive freedom is too dangerous, out-of-touch, and extreme for the American people.”

“After new reporting revealed he wants abortion to be ‘illegal nationally,’ JD Vance told far-right anti-choice extremists they’ll ‘always have a place at the table’ at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event.”

Vance: “There has been a lot of rumbling in the past few weeks that the Republican Party of now, the Republican Party of the future is not going to be a place that’s welcoming to social conservatives. And really from the bottom of my heart I would say that is not true. Social conservatives have a seat at this table and they always will so long as I have any influence in this party, and President Trump I know agrees.”

CNN: “JD Vance said in 2022 he ‘would like abortion to be illegal nationally’”

“‘I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally,’ Vance said in January 2022 on a podcast when running for Senate.

“During a podcast interview in January 2022, then-candidate JD Vance said he ‘certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally’ and was ‘sympathetic’ to the view that a national ban was necessary to stop women from traveling across states to obtain an abortion.”

“Reminder: Vance has previously backed a national abortion ban AND criticized exceptions for rape or incest, calling those circumstances ‘inconvenient.’”

Washington Post: “Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance argues against need for rape and incest exceptions in abortion laws”

Wants access to personal medical records, disregarding “privacy”

Julia Conley examines an example of Vance’s extreme anti-abortion stance in an article on Common Dreams, published on July 17, 2024 (https://commondreams.org/news/jd-vance-abortion-2668762874).

She cites reporting from The Lever, where MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow warned viewers about Vance’s endorsement of a request by at least 19 Republican attorneys general who asked the Biden administration to allow them access to the medical records of people who travel across state lines, including to states that allow abortion care.” Why? Maddow answers.

“They want the right to follow women from their states all over the country to see if they might be getting an abortion somewhere. or might be getting any other kind of reproductive care anywhere that they want to bring criminal charges about, so they can use those records for prosecutions.”

“Last year, Maddow added, Vance joined other GOP lawmakers in pressuring the Biden administration to withdraw a rule it introduced after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The rule prevents state and local police in states that ban abortion from using medical records to prosecute people who have obtained abortion care elsewhere.”

“If Donald Trump and JD Vance are elected in November, they will have the power to withdraw the Biden administration’s privacy rule on this issue,” said Maddow.”

Enforce the Comstock Act

Dan Diamond and Meryl Kornfield write on Vance’s efforts to have DOJ enforce the Comstock Act (https://washingtonpost.com/health/2024/07/17/jd-vance-abortion-comstock-vice-presidential-nominee).

“Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), newly tapped as the GOP vice-presidential nominee, last year joined an effort to enforce the Comstock Act, the 151-year-old federal law that has become a lightning rod in the nation’s abortion debate.

“The Comstock Act, which bans the mailing of abortion-related materials, has not been invoked for that purpose in about a century. The Biden administration maintains that its provisions are outdated today. But some Republicans have attempted to resurrect the law to limit or effectively ban abortion nationwide, a position that Vance and other lawmakers conveyed to Attorney General Merrick Garland in a January 2023 letter.

“‘We demand that you act swiftly and in accordance with the law, shut down all mail-order abortion operations,’ Vance and about 40 fellow Republican lawmakers wrote. The Republicans called on the Justice Department to potentially prosecute physicians, pharmacists and others ‘who break the Federal mail-order abortion laws,’ citing additional federal laws that apply to criminal conspiracy and money laundering.”

Writing for the ACLU on July 1, 2024, Andrew Beck delves into the issue over the Comstock Act and other abortion-related issues (https://aclu.org/publications/trump-on-abortion).

While misusing the Comstock Act is the most sweeping threat to abortion posed by a second Trump presidency, it is by no means the only one. For example, if he assumes the presidency again, Trump will attempt to eliminate medication abortion, which accounts for almost two-thirds of abortions nationwide,17 by ordering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to rescind approval of one of the drugs, mifepristone, used for such care.18 Anti-abortion activists recently brought a case seeking to take mifepristone off the shelves nationwide all the way to the Supreme Court. Indeed, a rabid anti-abortion judge appointed by President Trump initially did just what they asked, rescinding the approval of this medication used in most abortions in the U.S. today.19 Fortunately, in June, the Supreme Court turned these particular litigants away, finding that they did not have enough at stake to bring the lawsuit.20 But that very narrow ruling did not touch on the merits of those plaintiffs’ claims.

“Concerningly, the case has now been sent back to the lower courts and to the same anti-abortion Trump-appointed judge who initially ordered mifepristone off the market. That judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk, has already let three state attorneys general join the case,21 and they have vowed to pick up where the other litigants left off.2216

Biden administration attempts to reduce the damage

Dias and Lerer write on this. “He [Biden] rescinded the Mexico City policy, the rule blocking foreign nongovernmental organizations from providing information about abortion. On International Women’s Day, he signed an executive order establishing the Gender Policy Council, putting a longtime ally of the abortion-rights movement at the helm of a new office that aimed to protect sexual and reproductive health at home and abroad. That spring, he took steps to roll back the restrictions on Title X funding that had prompted Planned Parenthood to drop out of the programs and lose tens of millions in federal money. And after some lobbying, his first budget proposal dropped the Hyde Amendment, which banned the use of federal dollars for abortions, fulfilling his campaign promise” (pp. 284-285).

Now as Biden has withdrawn from the presidential race, his vice-president Kamala Harris may be the next Democratic presidential candidate. She is pro-choice, just as Biden is.

Concluding thoughts

There is a lot at stake in the upcoming November elections. There could not be clearer differences on abortion in the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats.

Shefali Luthra offers a fitting way to think about the future, as do the three liberal Supreme Court justices. They want something similar to Roe resurrected and write:

“…the government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life. It could not determine what the woman’s future would be.” The liberal justices added: ‘respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over the most personal and consequential of all decisions.’ The power to determine when and how one becomes pregnant is exactly that: one of the most personal and most consequential choices someone will ever make. In many cases, it is hardly even a choice; it is a medical necessity” (p. 290).