It’s a dangerous time, epitomized by the President


Bob Sheak, Jan 25, 2025

Trump intended his second inaugural address to be uplifting and unifying, though it is riddled with questionable claims, downright lies, and is hardly unifying. (See a transcript of the address at: https://nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/trump-inaugural-speech.html.)

As of Jan. 20, his first day in office, he began implementing many of the policies to which he referred in the address as well as in speeches during the presidential campaign, and, in some cases, over many years. There are some issues that he avoided discussing; for example, whether he will issue a federal ban on abortions. By the end of his first days in office, he issued hundreds of “executive actions,” many of which will be contested in courts (https://apnews.com/article/what-has-trump-done-trump-executive-orders-f061fbe7f08c08d81509a6af20ef8fc0). Here are some examples of Trump’s actions and anticipated actions and the effects. They threaten to destroy the tenuous democracy that we know, and replace it with a authoritarian system that is the antithesis of democracy.

He has not unified the country

He asserts in his inaugural address, for example, “National unity is now returning to America” and “I [Trump] want to be a peacemaker and a unifier.” His rhetoric and actions belie such claims. Rather, his views have been and continue to be disruptive and anti-democratic, more to generate fear and ignorance rather than relief or understanding.

The vote count does not support Trump’s claim that his victory reflects national unity. The 2024 presidential vote indicates that the presidential vote was close and that there are 75+ million Americans who voted against him, 77+ million who voted for him, and, according to data from the University of Florida Election Lab, “an estimated 89 million Americans, or about 36% of the country’s voting-age population [who] did not vote in the 2024 general election” (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2024-11-15/how-many-people-didnt-vote-in-the-2024-election#google_vignette).

His bizarre notion that he is the country’s savior

With respect to the earlier attempt on his life, he says, “I was saved by God to make America great again.” In Trump’s view, he is America’s savior. If people do what he wants, America will thrive. This pseudo-religious self-characterization is arrogant and even psychopathological. But millions of Americans voted him into the White House. Indeed, the largest segment of Trump’s base are Christian Nationalists who believe America should be viewed as a right-wing evangelical Christian country, disregarding the constitionally-based separation of religion from politics (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/07/christian-nationalists-embrace-trump-as-their-savior-will-they-be-his).

Here’s another report on Trump’s beliefs by Ken Bensinger of the New York Times (https://nytimes.com/2024/01/11/us/politics/trump-god-video-pastors-iowa.html).

“A viral video praising former President Donald J. Trump has offended a key Iowa constituency in the lead-up to next week’s critical Iowa caucuses: faith leaders.
The video, which Mr. Trump first posted to Truth Social last Friday and then played before taking the stage at several rallies in Iowa over the weekend, is called ‘God Made Trump.’ In starkly religious, almost messianic tones, it depicts the former president as the vessel of a higher power sent to save the nation.
“God looked down on his planned paradise and said, ‘I need a caretaker,’ so God gave us Trump,” begins the video….”

Trump wants to increase US production of fossil fuels, ignoring or denying the climate effects

Trump notes in his inaugural address that America “has the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on earth and we are going to use it.” As is well known, he has long rejected the scientifically-proven realty of a growing climate crisis that is caused mostly by fossil fuels (80%). Nonetheless, if he has his way, there will be more fossil fuels extracted and utilized in America and liquified natural gas exports will go up.

In an in-depth article for The Guardian, Oliver Milman and Dharna Noor report on the Trump’s executive orders boosting fossil fuels (https://theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/22/trump-big-oil-energy-priorities-explained). Here’s some of what they write.

“Through a flurry of executive orders, a newly inaugurated Donald Trump has made clear his support for the ascendancy of fossil fuels, the dismantling of support for cleaner energy and the United States’ exit from the fight to contain the escalating climate crisis.

“‘We will drill, baby, drill,’ the president said in his inaugural address on Monday [Jan. 20, 2025].

‘We have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have – the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth, and we are going to use it. We’re going to use it.’

Milman and Noor continue. “Trump has promised to cut Americans’ energy costs in half within a year and he claimed removing all restraints on drilling for ‘liquid gold’ will achieve this, even though the US is already producing more oil and gas than any other country in history.”

There is little place for climate treaties, wind or solar energy, and electric vehicles in Trump’s energy plans.

Milman and Noor write: “Climate treaties, wind energy and electric vehicles are not part of this vision, with Trump signing orders to ditch or stymie them.” Trump ignores scientists who say “the world must urgently move away from fossil fuels to avoid the ever-worsening impacts of the climate crisis, as evidenced by last year being the hottest ever recorded and Los Angeles suffering ruinous wildfires.

The energy oligarchs invested in Trump’s presidential campaign and are now being rewarded, as Milman and Noor point out.

“It was a good day, though, for the fossil fuel executives who poured tens of millions of dollars into Trump’s election campaign. Some celebrated a few blocks away from the inauguration in Washington at a party where they sipped champagne and nibbled on pastries with Trump’s face on them.

“Trump declared a “national energy emergency” on Monday – part of a spate of actions meant to boost the already-booming fossil fuel industry. Invoked under the National Emergencies Act, the order aims to unlock an array of executive powers to fast-track the production and distribution of energy.”

Manish Bapna, president and CEO of the green non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council, says there is no energy emergency. Rather, there is a “climate emergency.”

And despite the existential threat of fossil-fuel-driven climate disasters, “Trump has again initiated the U.S. exit from the Paris climate deal, a non-binding agreement to avoid the world hitting temperatures that would deliver disastrous heatwaves, floods and storms upon societies and economies already strained by extreme events. In joining just three other countries – Yemen, Iran and Libya – outside the Paris process, the world’s second-largest carbon emitter is walking away from this shared goal while also halting funding for poorer countries at most risk of climate-driven calamities.”

Trump also overturned two of Joe Biden’s attempts to restrict fossil fuel development. One, which the former president put forth earlier this month, meant to withdraw swaths of the US coasts from future oil and gas drilling, including the entire US east coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, parts of the Pacific coast and portions of Alaska’s Bering Sea. Another 2023 order limited drilling in nearly 3m acres of the Arctic Ocean in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska….”

Make the U.S. military ever more globally dominant

Trump points out in his inaugural address that America has the world’s ‘strongest military’ and he plans to make it even stronger by increasing military spending. It is well known outside of Trump’s circles that we have an inflated and wasteful military budget that needs to be reduced.

William Hartung, an expert on military spending and its effects, substantiates this point in many articles, including this one in Counter Punch
(https://counterpunch.org/2024/02/28/war-is-bad-for-you-and-the-economy). Here’s some of what he writes.

“…the opportunity costs of throwing endless trillions of dollars at the military means far less is invested in other crucial American needs, ranging from housing and education to public health and environmental protection. Yes, military spending did indeed help America recover from the [1930s] Great Depression but not because it was military spending. It helped because it was spending, period. Any kind of spending at the levels devoted to fighting World War II would have revived the economy. While in that era, such military spending was certainly a necessity, today similar spending is more a question of (corporate) politics and priorities than of economics.

“In [recent] years Pentagon spending has soared and the defense budget continues to head toward an annual trillion-dollar mark, while the prospects of tens of millions of Americans have plummeted. More than 140 million of us now fall into poor or low-income categories, including one out of every six children. More than 44 million of us suffer from hunger in any given year. An estimated 183,000 Americans died of poverty-related causes in 2019, more than from homicide, gun violence, diabetes, or obesity. Meanwhile, ever more Americans are living on the streets or in shelters as homeless people hit a record 650,000 in 2022.

Extending and sealing off US territory

Trump is hardly a unifier or peacemaker in the U.S. or abroad. He wants to acquire Greenland and retake control of the Panama Canal. He wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. He has even said that he would like to annex Canada as the 51st state. And he has toyed with the idea of using the military to invade Mexico to stop the flow of immigrants into the U.S. He will withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Peace Accord. And has opened up the door to removing the U.S. from NATO.

In an article in Foreign Policy, Alexandra Sharp delves into what we know about Trump’s foreign policy (https://foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/21/donald-trump-executive-orders-day-one-us-immigration-who-tiktok). Here’s some of what she writes.

“U.S. President Donald Trump hit the ground running for his first day in office on Monday, signing 26 executive orders and issuing a slew of other promises intended to prioritize Washington’s interests on the global stage. ‘The golden age of America begins right now,’ Trump vowed at the start of his inaugural address.

“Among his first acts, Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border, fulfilling a key campaign pledge to curb migration. To address border security, he ordered the deployment of troops; resumed construction of the border wall; reinstated the ‘Remain in Mexico’ program, which forces asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico during immigration proceedings; and shut down the CBP One app, a Biden-era program that allowed some migrants to enter the United States legally through an appointment lottery system. Trump also designated cartels and foreign gangs as ‘global terrorists’ in an effort to expand government efforts to combat human trafficking and drug smuggling.”

“To drive home his America First approach, Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America,” implemented a 90-day pause on U.S. foreign development assistance, and signaled his intention to leave the World Health Organization within 12 months” [He has already pulled America out of WHO.]

Trump also ordered the United States to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement in a major blow to global efforts to limit climate change.”

Attempting to end birthright citizenship

Sharp continues.

“In addition, Trump directed federal agencies to stop recognizing birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented migrants, a right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Attorneys general for 18 states, the city of San Francisco, and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit on Tuesday challenging the order.

A Line-by-Line Breakdown of Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

Elie Mystal offers a “line-by-line” breakdown of Trump’s birthright Citizenship Executive Order in an article for The Nation, Jan 22, 2025
(https://thenation.com/article/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order).

Mystal starts out arguing that “Almost every sentence of the order is wrong, misleading, or flagrantly unconstitutional.” Here’s more.

“I cannot tell you the worst thing Trump did in his first hours—“the worst” is a subjective assessment largely based on how close you are to the people Trump would like to harm. There is, however, one executive order that attempts to nullify an entire constitutional amendment by fiat, so that is the one I have decided to focus on.”

“Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—better known as the birthright citizenship executive order—attempts to cancel the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Getting rid of constitutional amendments via executive order is new, and, for me at least, “the worst.”

“Nearly every line of this order is wrong, misleading, or flagrantly unconstitutional. To appreciate the depths of racism and lawlessness embedded within it, you need to read every line. Lawyers have done that, and a lawsuit has already been filed attempting to stop the order. But I believe every single person in this country who is not a mouth-breathing racist deserves to understand just how despicable this thing is. I want you to be able to fight the racists in your family, chapter and verse, on this unmitigated piece of trash.”

Mystal considers Trump’s order in depth. Here are highlights.

“Section 1. Purpose. The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift.”

“This is simply wrong. Citizenship is a privilege, but it is not a “gift.” It’s not bestowed by individual benevolent white folks when they happen to be in a good mood. Birthright citizenship is a right, one that has been enshrined in the organizing document of our country.

“There is a legal process for taking away rights, but that process has nothing to do with the bigoted orders of an aging despot. Taking away the right to birthright citizenship requires nothing less than a constitutional amendment. Trump wants you to forget that by pretending that citizenship is a gift.”

“The Fourteenth Amendment states: ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ That provision rightly repudiated the Supreme Court of the United States’s shameful decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), which misinterpreted the Constitution as permanently excluding people of African descent from eligibility for United States citizenship solely based on their race.”

Mystal continues.

“Even if the courts do get around to ‘stopping’ the order, Trump controls the military. He controls the State Department and the Justice Department. He controls the Social Security Administration. I don’t have a lot of belief that he will follow a court order on this, even if the courts order him to stop.

“All I can do is tell you that the order is unconstitutional, and racist, and obviously so. The people who support this order are wrong, and racist. The journalists who promote and normalize the order are wrong and racist. This order violates one of the fundamental principles of the United States, and people should react to it like it does”.

Pardoning insurrectionists

On January 20, 2025, his first day as president, Trump pardoned 1,500 or 1,600 people who were imprisoned for their violent participation in the Jan. 6 insurrection. This is a reflection of Trump’s “big lie,” that is, despite the overwhelming evidence, he denies that they engaged in destructive actions on Jan. 6 and continues to insist they were wrongly punished and incarcerated.

Dan Barry and Alan Feuer analyze “How Trump Inverted the Violent History of Jan. 6 (https://nytimes.com/2025/01/05/us/politics/january-6-capitol-riot-trump.html).

“In the wake of the attack on the Capitol, Mr. Trump’s volatile political career seemed over, his incendiary words before the riot rattling the leaders of his own Republican Party. Myriad factors explain his stunning resurrection, but not least of them is how effectively he and his loyalists have laundered the history of Jan. 6, turning a political nightmare into a political asset.

“What began as a strained attempt to absolve Mr. Trump of responsibility for Jan. 6 gradually took hold, as his allies in Congress and the media played down the attack and redirected blame to left-wing plants, Democrats and even the government. Violent rioters — prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned — somehow became patriotic martyrs.”

The violence

The facts tell a different story. Barry and Feuer give this well-documented account of events.

“That day [Jan. 6, 2021] was an American calamity. Lawmakers huddled for safety. Vice President Mike Pence eluded a mob shouting that he should be hanged. Several people died during and after the riot, including one protester by gunshot and four police officers by suicide, and more than 140 officers were injured in a protracted melee that nearly upended what should have been the routine certification of the electoral victory of Mr. Trump’s opponent, Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Trump explains away the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, pardons the insurrectionists, and wants to punish those who investigated those who were incarcerated

“But with his return to office,” Barry and Feuer write, “Mr. Trump now has the platform to further rinse and spin the Capitol attack into what he has called ‘a day of love.’ He has vowed to pardon rioters in the first hour of his new administration [which he has done], while his congressional supporters are pushing for criminal charges against those who investigated his actions on that chaotic day.”

When asked about the reframing of the Capitol riot, and whether Mr. Trump accepts any responsibility for what unfolded on Jan. 6, his spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, instead referred in a statement to the “political losers” who tried to derail his career and asserted that “the mainstream media still refuses to report the truth about what happened that day.” She added, “The American people did not fall for the Left’s fear mongering over January 6th.”

“The Republican-controlled Senate acquitted him of incitement, but its leader, Mitch McConnell, declared him ‘practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day’ — a sentiment apparently shared by most Americans, with nearly 60 percent saying in polls that he should never hold office again.”

The denial

Barry and Feuer write, “Before the Capitol had even been secured, Representative Paul Gosar, Republican of Arizona, was asserting on Twitter that the events had ‘all the hallmarks of Antifa provocation.’ Hours later, the Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham was telling viewers that ‘there are some reports that antifa sympathizers may have been sprinkled throughout the crowd.’ And by morning, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, was claiming on the House floor that some rioters ‘were masquerading as Trump supporters and in fact were members of the violent terrorist group antifa.’ (Mr. Gaetz would become President-elect Trump’s first choice for attorney general before being derailed by scandal.)

“According to M.I.T. Technology Review, this fabrication was repeated online more than 400,000 times in the 24 hours after the Capitol attack, amplified by a cast of MAGA influencers, Republican officials and members of Mr. Trump’s family.”

Through the spring and summer of 2021 [and into the present], Mr. Trump’s Republican allies sought to sow doubt and blame others.

Glorifying the rioters

“Amid the conspiratorial swirl of antifa agitators and deep-state plots, a related narrative was gaining traction: the glorification of those who had attacked the Capitol. Instead of marauders, vandals and aggressors, they were now political prisoners, hostages, martyrs. Patriots.”

“At a mid-January rally in Florence, Ariz., he [Trump] described the Jan. 6 defendants as persecuted political prisoners. Later that month, in Conroe, Texas, he promised that if he was re-elected, and if pardons were required, ‘we will give them pardons because they are being treated so unfairly.’”

“His efforts seemed to be working. By mid-2022, an NBC News poll found that fewer than half of Americans still considered Mr. Trump ‘solely’ or ‘mainly’ responsible for Jan. 6.”

Indictments

“In August 2023, Mr. Trump was indicted twice on charges of interfering with the 2020 election results: at the state level, for illegally seeking to overturn the results of the election in Georgia, which he had narrowly lost; and at the federal level, for conspiring to impede the Jan. 6 certification of Mr. Biden’s election.

“A subsequent court filing by Jack Smith, the special counsel leading the federal investigation, cited Mr. Trump’s steadfast endorsement of the rioters and of the prison choir, ‘many of whose criminal history and/or crimes on January 6 were so violent that their pretrial release would pose a danger to the public.’ The former president, it continued, ‘has financially supported and celebrated these offenders — many of whom assaulted law enforcement on January 6 — by promoting and playing their recording of the national anthem at political rallies and calling them ‘hostages’”

Promising Payback

“An emboldened Mr. Trump has already indicated that his presidential agenda will include payback for those who declared him responsible for the Capitol attack. He has said that Mr. Smith ‘should be thrown out of the country,’ and that Ms. Cheney and other leaders of the House select committee — ‘one of the greatest political scams in history,’ his spokeswoman, Ms. Leavitt, said — should ‘go to jail,’ without providing evidence to warrant such extreme measures.

Creating a paramilitary force

Joan Walsh reports in an article for The Nation on Jan. 23, 2025 on how Trump liberates his own paramilitary force (https://thenation.com/article/politics/trump-january-6-pardons-paramilitary-force).

She writes: “Convicted felon Donald Trump, also known as our 47th president, unleashed such tyranny, cruelty, and idiocy on his first day in office that I can’t tell you which of his moves is ‘worst.’

“Trump’s quick move to pardon or commute the sentences of roughly 1,600 January 6 prisoners has to be at the top. It’s like he just liberated his own paramilitary force. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 18 and 22 years in prison, respectively, got out Tuesday. They and others who helped plan the violent insurrection [of Jan. 6, 2021] are now back on the streets.”

If I were being charitable, I might say this is one rare example of Trump showing loyalty to others. Just as Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts made sure Trump didn’t have to pay for inciting the January 6 riots, so did Trump bestow his own special form of ‘immunity’ on his followers who were charged for that bloody day. He continued to call them “hostages.”

Trump declared at a Tuesday night news conference, “they have already served years in prison and they’ve served them viciously,” Trump declared at a Tuesday night news conference. “It’s a disgusting prison. It’s been horrible. It’s inhumane. It’s been a terrible, terrible thing.”

Walsh continues her report. “At least three Jan. 6 defendants pleaded guilty to assaulting Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officer Michael Fanone, who reportedly “suffered a heart attack and a traumatic brain injury during the attack” and was forced to retire from the police force. Daniel Rodriguez pleaded guilty on Feb. 14, 2023 to tasing Fanone, as well as other charges. Another defendant, Kyle Young, pleaded guilty on May 5, 2022 to assaulting Fanone, as he ‘held the officer’s left wrist’ and ‘pulled’ Fanone’s arm away from his body.’ During the attack on officers in a Capitol tunnel, Young also ‘held a strobe light toward the police line and pushed forward a stick-like object.’ A third man, Albuquerque Head, pleaded guilty to dragging Fanone into the crowd of rioters, yelling ‘I got one!’ Rodriguez was subsequently sentenced to more than 12 years in prison, while Young received more than seven years and Head was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison.”

“The Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police… criticized the pardons and commutations, not only those of the January 6 prisoners but also of individuals whose sentences President Joe Biden commuted, saying they were “deeply discouraged” by both presidents’ actions. “The IACP and FOP firmly believe that those convicted of [killing or assaulting law enforcement officers] should serve their full sentences,” the groups said in a joint statement.
Maybe the most poignant testimony on Tuesday came from former Capitol Police sergeant Aquilino Gonell, who shared the messages alerting him when every convicted felon he’d testified against got released.

“Each email and call log is a different violent rioter who assaulted me in the tunnel. If you are defending these people who brutally assaulted the police, maybe you ARE NOT a supporter of the police and the rule of law to begin with. If you did you would want accountability.”

“On Patriots.Win, a Trump-boosting website, at least two dozen people hoped for the executions of Democrats, judges, or law enforcement linked to the January 6 cases, Reuters reported. “They called for jurists or police to be hanged, pummeled to death, ground up in wood chippers or thrown from helicopters.

“Gather the entire federal judiciary into a stadium. Then have them listen and watch while the judges are beaten to death,” one wrote. “Cut their heads off and put them on pikes outside” the Justice Department.

“Jacob Chansley, known as the Q-Anon shaman, had already served his three years in prison. But he celebrated his pardon this way: ‘NOW I AM GONNA BUY SOME MOTHA FU*KIN GUNS!!!’”

Concluding thoughts

We are now at a moment in history, when Trump and his allies are in control of many of the pillars of government, both houses of the U.S. Congress, many courts including the Supreme Court, and the White House. He has even been bestowed by the Supreme Court with legal “immunity” while he is president. Trump and his allies can, so it seems, act with impunity and not suffer any penalty. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed.

In his book, The Reactionary Spirit, Zack Beauchamp suggests that Trump’s forces can be stymied, diverted, or slowed down. He writes:

“The contest for democracy’s future is…different in some respects from the one previous generations faced, but at its heart the struggle is the same. It is a conflict over whether democracy’s champions are as committed to equality as its rivals are to hierarchy. Previous generations of democrats showed that they were up to the challenge. The great question facing all of us today is whether we are” (p.246).

Examples of genuine reforms

Timothy J. Heaphy also offers a hopeful statement in his book, Harbingers.

“To fix our broken democracy, we should pursue three basic goals. First, we should do all we can to encourage people to participate and make it easy for them to vote, stay informed, and voice their concerns.

“Second, we need to find ways to teach and model constructive engagement, giving people the tools to sift information, pursue and consider alternative points of view, and listen to and learn from their fellow citizens. This should start early in public schools that help young people navigate the systems by which they receive information and encourage them to pursue the first goal of participation.

“Finally, we need to create systems for Americans to come together in common purpose – working together in service to their communities and finding ways to help one another” (p. 226).

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).

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)

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).

Judicial rulings boost fascism

Bob Sheak – July 5, 2024

Rulings by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court favor Trump and right-wing, anti-democratic interests and values, threatening to upend an already weakened American democracy. The right-wing bias of the court goes back to Trump’s successful nominations of three reactionary justices to the court while he was president. As it stands now, there are six right-wing justices on the court and 3 “liberals.”

In one of its most disturbing recent rulings on June 2022 the court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 law that gave women the right to an abortion. The story of this ruling is told in masterful detail by Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer in their book, “The Fall of Roe, The Rise of a New America” (publ. 2024).

In this post, the contention about the court’s right-wing bias is exemplified by three recent Supreme Court rulings dealing with expanding gun ownership rights, deregulation, and presidential immunity.

————-

Bump Stocks

Supreme Court Rejects Ban on Gun Bump Stocks

Abbie VanSickle reports on this issue (https://nytimes.com/2024/06/14/us/politics/supreme-court-gun-bump-stocks.html).

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a ban on bump stocks, which enable semiautomatic rifles to fire at speeds rivaling those of machine guns.” The case against the bump stock law was brought by Michael Cargil, “a gun shop owner in Texas, backed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, an advocacy group with financial ties to Charles Koch, a billionaire who has long supported conservative and libertarian causes. The organization primarily targets what it considers unlawful uses of administrative power.”

The 6-3 decision broke down along ideological lines. Justic Clarence Thomas wrote the decision and identified the main justification for it, arguing that “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had exceeded its power when it prohibited the device by issuing a rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns.” But, as subsequent commentary and analysis have noted, and as liberals on the court pointed out, bump stocks do transform an assault weapon into a weapon that fires like a machine gun.

Liberal dissent

VanSickle points out that “Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.” The three dissenting judges, all Democratic appointees, argued that the majority’s reasoning served to ‘legalize an instrument of mass murder.’”

“Justice Sotomayor summarized her dissent from the bench, a practice reserved for profound disagreements and the first such announcement of the term. ‘The majority puts machine guns back in civilian hands,’ she said.

“‘When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,’ Justice Sotomayor wrote. ‘A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”

“The congressional law outlawing machine guns is named ‘the National Firearms Act of 1934.’ Under that law, ‘Congress outlawed machine guns, defined as ‘any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ That definition was expanded under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to include parts that can be used to convert a weapon into a machine gun, a category heavily regulated by the A.T.F.”

Biden opposes the court’s ruling to allow the device and has urged Congress to ban the device.

———–

The Chevron decision

This decision is an example of how Trump and right-wing forces want to extend deregulation measures by the federal government. Now they have the Supreme Court in their corner.

The 6-3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and supported by the five other conservative justices, could make it easier to block climate and wildlife regulations involving “the environment, public health and other fundamental aspects of American life.” It replaces the authority and expertise of executive branch agencies with the judgements of the courts, and of the Supreme Court as the final rule enforcer or maker.

Matthew Daly informs readers that the Chevron precedent was made 40 years ago and “has been the basis for upholding thousands of regulations by dozens of federal agencies, but has long been a target of conservatives and business groups who argue that it grants too much power to the executive branch, or what some critics call the administrative state” (https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment).   

Maxine Joselow, staff writer who covers climate change and the environment, considers some of the implications (https://washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-environmental-rules).

What did the Supreme Court decide?

“The pair of cases — Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce —challenged a federal rule that requires the herring industry to cover the costs of observers on fishing boats.

“In the decision released Friday [June 26, 2024], the Supreme Court struck down the rule, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service, finding it to be overly burdensome.”

“The decision effectively overturns a long-standing precedent known as the Chevron doctrine.”

What is the Chevron doctrine?

“The doctrine says that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law, as long as that interpretation is reasonable. It was established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1984 ruling in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.”

Environmental groups challenged the rule, saying it violated the Clean Air Act and would cause more air pollution. But in the unanimous 6-0 1948 decision, “Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the court should defer to the EPA’s reading of the Clean Air Act, and to other agencies’ interpretations of other statutes.”

Who supported overturning Chevron?

“A wide array of conservative advocacy groups have urged the court to overturn Chevron. But petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch has played a particularly influential role.

“Both cases were backed by conservative legal organizations — the Cause of Action Institute and New Civil Liberties Alliance — that have received millions of dollars from the Koch network, founded by Charles Koch and his late brother, David Koch. Charles Koch is the CEO of Koch Industries and a fierce critic of federal regulations.

Environmental groups wanted the retention of the Chevron rule.

“Two heavyweights in the environmental movement — the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council — both submitted amicus briefs urging the justices not to overturn Chevron. The environmental law firm Earthjustice also filed a joint brief in defense of the doctrine on behalf of Conservation Law Foundation, Ocean Conservancy and Save the Sound.

“Additional support for Chevron came from a wide range of other individuals and groups, including Democratic senators, the American Cancer Society and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.”

The ruling will reduce efforts to combat climate change

Joselow cites David Doniger, senior strategic director of the climate and clean energy program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He “argued the Chevron case. Doniger said the ruling released Friday could prevent agencies from using older environmental laws to tackle newer environmental problems — such as climate change — as they arise.”

What right-wing interest groups want

“‘The real goal of the interest groups on the right that are backing this litigation is to enfeeble the federal government’s ability to deal with the problems that the modern world throws at us,’ Doniger said. ‘We could end up with a weaker federal government, and that would mean that interest groups would be freer to pollute without restraint.’”

The decision reverses efforts by the Biden administration

“…President Biden’s signature climate law gave the EPA more authority to curb planet-warming emissions,’ Doniger said. For the first time, the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, defined greenhouse gases as air pollutants that the EPA can regulate under the Clean Air Act.”

How the Supreme Court’s Chevron Decision Benefits Big Oil and Gas

L. Delta Merner, lead scientist on climate litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, considers how the Chevron ruling benefits big oil and gas in an article published on July 1, 2024 (https://blog.ucsusa.org/delta-merner/how-the-supreme-courts-decision-benefits-big-oil-and-gas).

“Last Friday [June 28, 2024], the Supreme Court overruled the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, fundamentally changing the landscape of federal regulatory power.”

“Ironically, the downfall of the Chevron doctrine will give Chevron and other major oil and gas corporations more latitude to slow down and block regulations, allowing them to pollute with near impunity. At the end of the day, this decision means that courts will play a more active role in interpreting regulatory statutes, undermining scientific expertise, slowing regulatory processes, and creating obstacles at a time when urgent action is needed to address the climate crisis.”

Understanding the Chevron Doctrine

“Under Chevron, when a statute was ambiguous, courts would typically side with the agency’s interpretation, recognizing the specialized expertise of agencies in their respective fields. This doctrine has played a crucial role in enabling agencies to enforce regulations on complex issues such as environmental protection, public health, and consumer safety. The ambiguity in statutes is often intentional, acknowledging that Congress isn’t equipped to design prescriptive policies across the whole suite of issues before them—let alone in a way that can evolve as science and technology evolve over time. This intentional ambiguity enables expertise to shape rulemaking as needed. During the 40 years Chevron was law, federal courts cited the doctrine more than 18,000 times.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling

“Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, declared that courts must now exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, rather than deferring to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. He emphasized that this change does not retroactively affect past cases decided under Chevron deference but will influence all future regulatory interpretations.”

“Lobbying for Favorable Decisions: Judges will have more leeway and more need to rely on Amicus, or ‘Friend of the Court’ briefs in writing opinions. Fossil fuel companies and their attorneys will have the incentives and funding to file such briefs aggressively. The views expressed by oil companies will have equal weight compared to agency scientists and experts. It should be noted that the plaintiffs in both cases leading to the overturning of Chevron were represented pro bono by attorneys from conservative law firms with ties to the Koch brothers.”

The upshot

“By employing a range of tactics, these corporations can delay public health and environmental protections, effectively postponing climate accountability cases for years. This strategy not only prevents plaintiffs from achieving justice through the courts but also allows these companies to use the courts to delay essential regulations. During this time, they can continue their operations with minimal restrictions, further exacerbating environmental and public health issues.”

————-

Supreme Court Delivers Anti-Democracy Win to Trump in Immunity Case

Chris Walker reports for Truthout, July 1, 2024, on how Trump benefits from the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity (https://truthout.org/articles/supreme-court-delivers-huge-win-for-trump-in-january-6-case). Walker is a news writer at Truthout, and focuses on both national and local topics.

Benefits Trump

“Following 123 days of delay in the pre-trial stage of the case regarding former President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a ruling on Trump’s claims of absolute immunity, granting him a huge win and creating an unprecedented burden for prosecutors.

The Court found that a president is presumed to have immunity for acts that fall within their office’s authority, and should have wide leverage to argue that their actions as president were consistent with those protections. While the Court stated that such standards wouldn’t apply to non-official acts, the ruling gives tremendous leeway for future presidents to facilitate illegal actions without criminal consequence, so long as they’re done using constitutionally granted tools within the executive branch.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority opinion, offered the following self-serving rationale for the decision.

“The system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Chief Justice Roberts explained the rationale for the immunity ruling. “‘The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law….But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.’

‘The President therefore,” Roberts argued, “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.’”

Trump’s thirst for revenge

“Indeed, in public statements over the past year, Trump has promised ‘revenge’ against his adversaries if he’s elected in November, which he would be able to pursue without criminal consequence under the standard created on Monday.”

David Corn refers to it as an “obsession.” (https://motherjones.com/politics/2024/06/trumps-obsession-with-revenge-a-big-post-verdict-danger). “Three days after a New York City jury turned Donald Trump into the first former president branded a felon, the onetime reality television host told Fox News, ‘My revenge will be success.’ This above-the-fray rhetoric was not to be believed, for Trump, through much of his life, has exhibited an intense obsession with vengeance and seeking retribution against those he considers his foes and detractors.

“In subsequent interviews, Trump adopting contradictory stances on the matter of retaliation. Appearing on Newsmax, he said that if he is elected his political opponents might face prosecution.

“Despite all this back-and forth, the historical record is clear: Trump has long had a love affair with revenge—to such an extent that this fixation should be added to the list of concerns reasonable people ought to have about a Trump restoration. If Trump, with his authoritarian impulses, returns to the White House, it is rather likely he will use his power to extract payback—for this conviction, the other civil and criminal cases filed against him, and all perceived slights and assaults. There will be a revenge-a-thon.”

Corn points out, “Commenters on pro-Trump websites called for violence against the judge in Trump’s hush-money/election-interference case and against liberals in general. Trump supporters also tried to dox the jurors—setting them up as targets—and posted violent threats against the prosecutors. John Eastman, the indicted lawyer who helped Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election (and whose law license has been suspended in California and Washington, DC), came close to justifying violence when he warned that if Trump is sentenced to prison, Trump supporters will be ‘taking matters into their own hands’ and ‘seeking remedies on their own.’”

“All these responses—and other similar reactions—were extremely Trumpian. Throughout his presidency, Trump condoned and encouraged violence. And for decades, Trump has cited revenge as one of his key motivators. He has even touted it as crucial to his success.”

The liberal dissent

Walker [cited earlier] notes that Justice Sonia Sotomayer authored the liberal view.

““Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,’ Sotomayor wrote. ‘It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.” Sotomayor continued.

“The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.

Sotomayor condemned the Court’s conservative bloc for essentially stating that a president cannot be prosecuted if they’re using their constitutionally granted powers.”

Walker continues citing Sotomayor.

“‘The main takeaway of today’s decision is that all of a President’s official acts, defined without regard to motive or intent, are entitled to immunity,’ Sotomayor added. Quoting precedent established by the conservative justices in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, she went on, ‘This official-acts immunity has ‘no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.’”

She is quoted as follows. “This historical evidence reinforces that, from the very beginning, the presumption in this Nation has always been that no man is free to flout the criminal law. The majority fails to recognize or grapple with the lack of historical evidence for its new immunity. With nothing on its side of the ledger, the most the majority can do is claim that the historical evidence is a wash.”

Sotomayor concluded her dissent by adding, “Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law.”

Further objections to the immunity ruling

“‘Welp, that’s all folks. The President is immune from prosecution so long as he says he committed crimes as part of his ‘official’ duties,” said The Nation’s Elie Mystal. ‘So ends the part of the American experience where our leaders were bound by the rule of law. Thanks for playing.’”

“The Supreme Court originally stalled the case in February, agreeing at that time to hear an appeal from Trump’s lawyers over claims that his ‘presidential immunity’ should have protected him from being charged in the first place. That argument rested on the dubious premise that Trump had been acting in his capacity as president during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, and that his attempt to usurp the Electoral College process through the use of fake electors was somehow a legitimate part of his job as then-head of the executive branch.

“The Supreme Court did not rule on Monday whether Trump’s actions were official. But their decision will return the case to the lower court, where those arguments will be made. Even if the lower court determines that the former president wasn’t acting in an official capacity when he ordered the mob of his loyalists (some of whom he knew were armed) to the Capitol, Trump can appeal the ruling to the High Court, which will have the final say on whether or not his actions were official.”

Concluding thoughts

The principal implication of this analysis is that very right-wing Supreme Court cannot be counted on to rule on the basis of the best evidence or to uphold the integrity of the presidency or executive branch agencies. If Trump wins the presidential election in November, this court will likely continue to make decisions that are extreme, that undermine American democracy, and that threaten to enshrine Trump as a king. What is worrisome is that Trump as president would be in a position to nominate persons to replace older justices who favor extremist remedies. What is also worrisome is that he and his allies will manipulate the law and law enforcement to punish his opponents and critics. Will we hear a knock on our door in January 2025?

Challenging Trump’s anti-democratic vision

Bob Sheak, May 8, 2024

The anti-democratic thrust of Trump’s views, widely endorsed by Republicans, is continuously being modified. However, it is clear that if he is elected in November 2024, he wants to institute reforms that will end American liberal democracy, replace it with an illiberal political order, with the president in command, all the while looking for ways to diminish or eliminate the influence of his critics and Democrats.

Robert Kagan analyzes this threat in his book, Rebellion: How Antiliberalism IS Tearing America Apart – Again. In effect, Trump wants the Republican Party to win absolute control, which would mean control by a “minority” of the voting population, particularly by the rich and powerful. Ari  Berman delves into this issue in his new book titled “Minority Rule: The Right-Wing Attack on the Will of the People – and the Fight to Resist It.”

Autocratic confirmation

Trump also looks abroad for confirmations of his views, for example from authoritarian leaders in Russia and Hungary. His friendly relations with Putin are well known. Kate Sullivan gives some examples of the relationship (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html).

“As president, Trump privately threatened multiple times to withdraw the United States from NATO, according to The New York Times. Trump has described NATO as ‘obsolete’ and has aligned himself with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who wants to weaken the alliance. Trump has long praised Putin and went as far as to side with the Russian leader over the US intelligence community over Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election.”

Trump as messiah

Trump welcomes support for his power bid from wherever it comes. For example, he seems to welcome being thought of as a messiah, however outlandish the notion, because it helps to boost his ego and because it reflects support for him among Christian Nationalists, his most numerous constituency. (See Tim Alberta’s book, The Kingdom, The Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism).

David French analyzes this fabrication and contends obviously that Trump is no savior and that a “significant part of American Christianity is spiraling out of control” (https://nytimes.com/2024/03/31/opinion/donald-trump-dune-savior.html). Here’s some of what he writes.

“The signs are everywhere. First, there’s the behavior of the savior himself, Donald Trump. On Monday of Holy Week, he compared himself to Jesus Christ, posting on Truth Social that he received a ‘beautiful’ note from a supporter saying that it was ironic’ that ‘Christ walked through his greatest persecution the very week they are trying to steal your property from you.’

“On Tuesday, he took to Truth Social to sell a $60 ‘God Bless the USA Bible’ (the ‘only Bible endorsed by President Trump’), an edition of the King James Bible that also includes America’s founding documents. ‘Christians are under siege,’ he said. The Judeo-Christian foundation of America is ‘under attack,’ Trump claimed, before declaring a new variant on an old theme: ‘We must make America pray again.’

“Two weeks ago, Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, told a Christian gathering that Democrats ‘want full and complete destruction of the United States of America.’ Kirk is a powerful Trump ally. He has millions of followers on social media and is hoping to raise more than $100 million in 2024 to help mobilize voters for Trump.

“‘I do not think you can be a Christian and vote Democrat,’ Kirk said, and ‘if you vote Democrat as a Christian, you can no longer call yourself a Christian.’”

French continues.

“All of this is unfolding against the backdrop of so-called prophetic utterances that place Trump at the center of God’s plan to save America. According to these prophecies, Trump is God’s choice to lead America out of spiritual darkness, to save it from decline and despair. In this formulation, to oppose Trump is to stand against the will of God.

“There are Trump prophecy books and a Trump prophecy movie. The prophecies can be very strange. The prophet will speak as though God talked to him or her directly. In this widely watched video, for example, the prophet says, ‘Donald Trump will be in power once more’ and ‘he will reign again; it’s only a matter of time.’ In this prophecy, the prophet says there is ‘actually a scripture appointed for the day’ that Trump was born. As he explains the prophecy, the crowd applauds; its belief is palpable.”

There is a “method” underlying this belief in Trump’s spiritual lordship. French writes: “The MAGA method is clear. First, it whips up its people into a religious frenzy. It lies to convince them that the Democrats are an existential threat to the country and the church. It tells worried Christians that the fate of the nation is at stake. Then, just as it builds up the danger from the Democrats, it constructs an idol of Trump, declaring his divine purpose and spreading the prophecies of his coming return. He is to be the instrument of divine vengeance against his foes, and his frenzied foot soldiers are eager to carry out his will. They march eagerly to culture war, flying the flag of the House of Trump.”

French points out that Trump’s religiosity is hardly in the authentic Christian tradition. “Jesus was emphatic. In Matthew 25, Jesus said he would know his followers as people who served: ‘I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you took care of me; I was in prison and you visited me.’ And how do we serve Jesus in that way? Christ’s answer was clear: ‘Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”

The fuller agenda

Certainly, there is much more to Trump’s anti-democratic and politically and existentially threatening agenda. Here are eleven examples.

  • believes he cannot be defeated in upcoming 2024 presidential election, unless the election is “rigged”
  • encourages the maximum production and consumption of fossil fuels, despite the steady rise of global warming
  • claims to be a job creator, though his record here is weak
  • appoints sycophants to his cabinet and staff, and eliminate civil service protections for thousands of executive-branch workers
  • pursues a draconian migration policy, including the detention and removal of millions of undocumented migrants living in the U.S. carried out with military troops – and extends the wall on the southern border
  • facilitates efforts to make voting more difficult, especially for lower-income and black and Latino Americans
  • keeps taxes low for corporations and the super-wealthy and support a regime of deregulation and privatization
  • diminishes the already fragile social safety net
  • supports efforts by the states to virtually end legal access to reproductive health care and abortion
  • encourages easy access to gun ownership
  • will promote violence against opponents when necessary to maintain social order

—————

#1 – The Big Lie

Trump has claimed over and over again that Biden’s presidential victory in 2020 was based on massive election fraud. 

Trump remains the leader of the Republican Party. He unceasingly claims that he won the 2020 presidential election, despite the overwhelming evidence that he did not (e.g., The January 6 Report by the House January 6th Committee). The evidence. “In total, the Trump Campaign and allies of President Trump filed 62 separate lawsuits between November 4, 2020, and January 6, 2021, calling into question or seeking to overturn the election results. Out of 62 cases, only one case results in a victory for the President Trump or his allies, which affected relatively few votes, did not vindicate any underlying claims of fraud, and would not have changed the outcome in Pennsylvania.” Indeed, “In every state in which claims were brought, one or more judges specifically explained as part of the dismissal orders that they had evaluated the plaintiffs’ allegations or supposed proof of widespread election fraud or other irregularities, and found the claims to be entirely unconvincing” (p. 210).

The Big Lie is widely accepted by Republicans

Most Republicans in the U.S. Congress accept or go along with this false claim, as reflected in the vote on choosing a Speaker taken by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. The litmus test for House Republicans was that a Speaker should be someone who accepts Trump’s lies about winning the 2020 presidential election and his right-wing agenda. Marc Elias provides some information on the new Speaker Mike Johnson’s views and record (https://democracydocket.com/opinion/a-big-lie-ring-leader-becomes-speaker-of-the-house). The article was published on Oct. 30, 2023.

“The newly elected Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (La.) is no ordinary Republican election denier. He was a ringleader in one of the most dangerous efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. He used his position as a lawyer and member of Congress to legitimize the fringe legal theory underpinning the ‘Big Lie.’ Other than former President Donald Trump, he is arguably the most culpable federal elected official in what transpired on Jan. 6, 2021.

Johnson “combines MAGA Republicanism with Christian nationalism. Shortly after becoming speaker, Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that anyone looking to understand his world view should ‘go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it.’ 

“When it comes to issues of democracy, Johnson is an avid vote suppressor and an accomplished election denier. He is best thought of as a cross between Jim Jordan and John Eastman.”

#2 – A retrograde climate/environmental policy

One of the most disturbing aspects of Trump’s discourse is his dismissal of the indisputable evidence on the climate crisis.

Lisa Friedman identifies “Five Major Climate Policies Trump Would Probably Reverse if Elected” (https://nytimes.com/2024/04/26/climate/climate-politics-trump-would-reverse.html).

1. Coal and Gas Power Plants

“The fossil-fuel-burning plants that keep our lights on or power our heat and air conditioning are responsible for a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by the United States. Reducing them is key to Mr. Biden’s plan to tackle climate change.” For example, “Environmental Protection Agency regulations finalized on Thursday would force coal plants to either deploy technology to capture virtually all their emissions, or shut down. New gas plants constructed in the U.S. also would have to meet strict emissions standards.”

“Mr. Trump has deployed a mixture of truth and falsehoods when describing this policy. He has said it will force coal plants to shut down, which is likely accurate. He also said it will force gas plants to close, which is not true. And he has said that renewable energy cannot keep the lights on, also untrue.

“If elected, Mr. Trump said he will reverse the regulation on coal-burning electricity and ‘green-light the construction of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of brand-new, beautiful power plants that actually work.’”

2. Automobile Emissions Standards

“Mr. Biden has imposed limits on pollution from automobile tailpipes, rules designed to ensure that the majority of new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States are all-electric or hybrids by 2032.

“Mr. Trump has said those regulations will lead to a ‘blood bath’ in the U.S. economy, ‘kill” the auto industry and trigger an ‘assassination’ of jobs. He has pledged to reverse them.”

3. The Inflation Reduction Act

President Biden signed into law in 2022 the nation’s largest investment in fighting climate change. “It contains more than $370 billion in tax credits over 10 years to help shift the U.S. toward cleaner forms of energy, offering incentives to companies to make electric vehicles, batteries and to consumers to buy those vehicles, switch to solar energy and buy things like electric heat pumps to heat and cool their homes.

“Mr. Trump, who has called the I.R.A. ‘the biggest tax hike in history,’ is widely expected to try to gut much of the law.

“Incentives for people to buy electric vehicles, which Mr. Trump has called ‘one of the dumbest’ decisions he’s heard, would certainly be on the chopping block, Republicans said. So would measures to support businesses that install electric-vehicle charging stations.

“Tax credits for solar- and wind-power, could be in the cross hairs of his administration, as could incentives for consumers to buy heat pumps or make their homes more energy efficient.”

4. Oil and Gas Drilling

“If he wins a second term, Mr. Trump has promised to ‘unleash domestic energy production like never before.’ Primarily he is talking about coal, oil and gas, the three main fossil fuels.”

“Mr. Trump has promised to immediately lift that pause and greenlight pipelines and other energy projects.

“‘We’re going to drill, baby, drill, right away,’ Mr. Trump told supporters in January.” As president, Trump is expected to “revive drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the country’s premiere wildlife sanctuary. Mr. Biden canceled seven oil leases in the refuge last year.”

5. Global Climate Negotiations

“As president, Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris agreement, a 2015 accord in which all nations agreed to cut their greenhouse gases to keep global warming within relatively safe limits.

“Mr. Biden returned the U.S. to the global deal on his first day in office and has pledged to cut U.S. emissions roughly in half this decade, and to stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere before 2050.

“Mr. Trump’s likely policies would add four billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, according to a study by Carbon Brief, a climate analysis site.

“Many foreign leaders felt that the four-year absence of the world’s superpower during the Trump administration was a setback. They fear another American withdrawal would delay progress at a time when time is running short to avert the most catastrophic impacts from global warming.”

#3 – Hardly a big job creator

Lawrence Wittner analyzes Trump’s “empty promises on jobs” (https://counterpunch.org/2024/05/02/donald-trumps-empty-promises-on-jobs).

Wittner reminds us that in mid-2015, Trump announced his candidacy for president of the United States and declared that he would “be the greatest jobs president that God ever created.”

“With Trump’s election, however, just the opposite occurred.  During the four years of Trump’s presidency, the United States lost 2.7 million jobs.  As a result, he was the only president since 1939, when the U.S. government began compiling such employment statistics, to preside over a net loss of jobs.

“Indeed, when it came to job creation, Trump was vastly outperformed by the other presidents.  Bill Clinton oversaw the biggest gain, 23 million additional jobs, followed by Ronald Reagan (16 million), Joe Biden (14 million), and Lyndon Johnson (12 million)―all the way down to George W. Bush (1.4 million).  During the presidency of Barack Obama, Trump’s much-reviled predecessor, the United States added 11.6 million jobs.

Trump’s defenders point to the disruptive effect the Covid-19 pandemic had on the American economy.  Although the disease crisis certainly undermined employment during his presidency, it’s also true that his denial and mismanagement of the public health emergency deepened its human and economic impact in the United States.  Furthermore, even before the pandemic hit, job creation during the Trump presidency was relatively weak.  During Trump’s first 31 months in office, employment growth in the United States averaged 176,000 jobs per month.  During Biden’s first 31 months in office, employment growth averaged 433,000 jobs per month.”

#4 – Plans to appoint sycophants and radical right experts to his cabinet and staff, and eliminate civil service protections for thousands of executive-branch workers

Bob OrtegaKyung LahAllison Gordon and Nelli Black, report in-depth on Trump’s plan in a second term to purge the executive branch of workers who are not expressly committed to him (https://cnn.com/2024/04/27/politics/trump-federal-workers-2nd-term-invs/index.html). Here’s some of what they write.

“At one campaign rally after another, former President Donald Trump whips his supporters into raucous cheers with a promise of what’s to come if he’s given another term in office: ‘We will demolish the deep state.’

“In essence, it’s a declaration of war on the federal government—a vow to transform its size and scope and make it more beholden to Trump’s whims and worldview.

“The former president’s statements, policy blueprints laid out by top officials in his first administration and interviews with allies show that Trump is poised to double down in a second term on executive orders that faltered, or those he was blocked from carrying out the first time around.

“Trump seeks to sweep away civil service protections that have been in place for more than 140 years. He has said he’d make ‘every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States’ at will. Even though more than 85 percent of federal employees already work outside the DC area, Trump says he would ‘drain the swamp’ and move as many as 100,000 positions out of Washington. His plans would eliminate or dismantle entire departments.”

“While Trump’s plans are embraced by his supporters, policy experts warn that they would hollow out and politicize the federal workforce, force out many of the most experienced and knowledgeable employees, and open the door to corruption and a spoils system of political patronage.”

“But if, as promised, Trump were to change thousands of civil service jobs into politically appointed positions at the start of a second term, huge numbers of federal workers could face being fired unless they put loyalty to Trump ahead of serving the public interest, warn policy experts.”

Donald Moynihan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, told CNN making vast numbers of jobs subject to appointment based on political affiliation would amount to ‘absolutely the biggest change in the American public sector’ since a merit-based civil service was created in 1883.

“One of the architects of that plan for a Trump second term said as much in a video last year for the Heritage Foundation. ‘It’s going to be groundbreaking,’ said Russell Vought, who served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump. He declined interview requests from CNN.”

“Vought focused on a plan he drafted to reissue Trump’s 2020 executive order, known as Schedule F. It would reclassify as political appointees any federal workers deemed to have influence on policy. Reissuing Schedule F is part of a roadmap, known as Project 2025, drafted for a second Trump term by scores of conservative groups and published by the Heritage Foundation.”

“Ostensibly, a reissued Schedule F would affect only policy-making positions. But documents obtained by the National Treasury Employees Union and shared with CNN show that when Vought ran OMB under Trump, his list of positions to be reclassified under Schedule F included administrative assistants, office managers, IT workers and many other less senior positions.

NTEU President Doreen Greenwald told reporters at the union’s annual legislative conference that it estimated more than 50,000 workers would have been affected across all federal agencies. She said the OMB documents ‘stretched the definition of confidential or policy positions to the point of absurdity.’”

“‘We will clean out all of the corrupt actors in our National Security and Intelligence apparatus, and there are plenty of them,’ Trump said in a video last year. ‘The departments and agencies that have been weaponized will be completely overhauled so that faceless bureaucrats will never again be able to target and persecute conservatives, Christians, or the left’s political enemies.’

Project 2025’s blueprint envisions dismantling the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI; disarming the Environmental Protection Agency by loosening or eliminating emissions and climate-change regulations; eliminating the Departments of Education and Commerce in their entirety; and eliminating the independence of various commissions, including the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.”

#5 – Trump Again Vows Mass Deportations and Won’t Rule Out Political Violence

Michael Gold writes on this issue

(https://nytimes.com/2024/04/30/us/politics/trump-time-migrants-election.html).

“Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Former President Donald J. Trump told Time magazine in an interview published Tuesday morning that if elected in November, he would deploy the U.S. military to detain and deport migrants, hedged on the possibility of political violence after the 2024 election and said he would permit states to decide whether to prosecute those who violate abortion bans.”

“At one point, Mr. Trump told Time that he would be willing to deploy the military as part of an extreme deportation operation he has said he plans to conduct if elected, and that he would be willing to bypass a law that prohibits using American troops against civilians.

“‘Well, these aren’t civilians,’ Mr. Trump said. ‘These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country.”

Unlike Democratic leaders in Washington, D.C., “Republicans want to cut benefits despite overwhelming opposition from the American people,” Altman said of federal lawmakers and the former president. Additionally, “Trump plans to sharply restrict immigration. This would harm Social Security by reducing the number of workers paying in.”

#6 – Facilitate efforts to make voting more difficult, especially for lower-income and black and Latino Americans

Trump and his allies and followers want to advance the interests of white Christian supremacists. Ari Berman refers to the rationale in his book Minority Rule. He writes:

“To entrench and hold onto power, shrinking conservative white minority is relentlessly exploiting the undemocratic feature of America’s political institutions while doubling down on a wide variety of antidemocratic tactics, such as voter suppression, election subversion, dark money, legislative power grabs, immigration restrictions, census manipulation, and the whitewashing of history” (p. 9).

#7 – Tax policy for the rich

Jake Johnson, writes on how tax rates for big corporations fell by nearly half after Trump cuts and, if re-elected, Trump plans to extend the cuts (https://commondreams.org/news/itep-trump-tax-law).

Johnson writes: “Large, profitable U.S. corporations have seen their effective tax rates fall by more than 40% since Republicans and their presumptive 2024 presidential nominee, Donald Trump, rammed through an unpopular law that they want to preserve and extend.

“According to a new report published Thursday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the tax rates paid by big and consistently profitable corporations dropped from 22% to 12.8% after the enactment of Trump’s tax law, which slashed the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.”

“ITEP’s analysis examines 296 Fortune 500 and S&P 500 companies that were consistently profitable between 2013 and 2021. Even as the companies’ combined profits surged by 44%, they ‘paid $240 billion less in taxes from 2018 to 2021 than they would have paid under the effective rates they paid before the Trump law,’ according to ITEP.”

#8 – Diminish the already fragile social safety net

Trump and the Republicans want to limit the reach of Social Security and Medicare. Jessica Corbett writes that these programs must be defended. (https://commondreams.org/news/social-security-medicare). The article was published on May 6, 2024.

Corbett points out that these programs are financially viable for another 10 years at least due to the robust economy and high rates of employment. But Trump and the Republicans are attacking them and want to reduce benefits and access.

Corbett refers to the annual trustee reports that show that, contrary to right-wing criticisms, “Social Security is projected to be fully funded until 2035, a year later than previously thought, while Medicare is expected to be fully funded until 2036, five years beyond the earlier projection.” Nevertheless, “Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in November, ‘proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare every year he was in office, he’s said repeatedly he would cut them, his allies openly plan to target them, and just this weekend he dismissed them as bribes,’ noted James Singer, a spokesperson for the Democrat’s campaign.

“‘Let’s be clear, Donald Trump will steal the hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits Americans have been paying into their entire lives and he’ll use it to fund tax cuts for rich people like him,’ Singer warned. ‘President Biden keeps his promises. He has and will continue to protect Social Security and Medicare from MAGA Republican efforts to cut them—Donald Trump won’t.’”

Corbett continues.

“Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said Monday that ‘current and future American retirees should feel confident about both Medicare and Social Security, which [are] stronger due to the robust economy under President Biden. But the future of these earned benefit programs depends on who is elected this fall—both as president and to Congress.’

“Fiesta highlighted that Biden’s latest budget ‘calls for strengthening’ the programs whereas Trump recently said that ‘there is a lot you can do… in terms of cutting’ them and ‘the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which includes around 80% of House Republicans, stands ready to make cuts as well.’”

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security & Medicare, also asserted that “Congress must act NOW to strengthen Social Security for the 67 million Americans who depend on it. We cannot afford to wait to take action until the trust fund is mere months from insolvency, as Congress did in 1983.”

According to Richtman:

Democrats in Congress “strongly support revenue-side solutions that would bring more money into the trust fund by demanding that the wealthy pay their fair share. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has offered legislation that would do just that—by maintaining the current payroll wage cap (currently set at $168,600), but subjecting wages $400,000 and above to payroll taxes, as well—and dedicating some of high earners’ investment income to Social Security.”

“‘The Social Security 2100 Act is co-sponsored by nearly 200 House Democrats and would improve benefits across the board while extending solvency until 2066, while Donald Trump and House Republicans continue their calls to slash Americans’ hard-earned benefits!’ Larson said.”

“Social Security is the greatest anti-poverty program in history, and ensuring its solvency for future generations has been one of my top priorities in Congress,” Boyle said Monday, promoting the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, his bill with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “Unfortunately, while Democrats and President Biden want to protect Social Security and Medicare, Republicans have made clear they want to tear them down.”

#9 – Support efforts by the states to virtually end legal access to reproductive health care and abortion

The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in June 2022, giving the anti-abortion movement added vigor and justification to fight for further restrictions on access to abortion. The ruling allows states decide on whether to outright ban abortion. Anti-abortion activists want more, a national ban on abortion. Trump wants the individual states to decide, or so he says. But he also wants to placate the right-wing evangelicals, a crucial constituency, who would like to eliminate or severely limit access to abortion and have Trump, if president, issue a ban on abortion.

Public opinion is opposed to abortion bans

The anti-abortion movement has momentum in many states, but public opinion today is on the other side, supporting “choice.” Steven Shepard looks at some of the evidence (https://politico.com/news/2023/04/08/republican-party-abortion-trap-00091088).

He refers to a 2022 national exit poll that found “29 percent of voters believed abortion should be ‘legal in all cases,’ while another 30 percent thought it should be ‘legal in most cases.’ That left 26 percent who thought it should be ‘illegal in most cases and only 10 percent who said it should be illegal in all cases.’” That is,

“roughly six-in-10 voters supporting legal abortion in most cases — with the median voter supporting some restrictions — and just over a third who want it to be entirely or mostly illegal.” Another 2022 midterm exit poll in Wisconsin found

“a combined 63 percent of Wisconsin voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while only 34 percent thought it should be illegal in all or most cases.”

Republicans want to portray “Democrats as too permissive, willing to support ‘abortion on demand, for virtually any reason, up until the moment of birth,’ according to a press release from the Republican National Committee on Thursday [April 6, 2023].

“‘But” Shepard points out, ‘those attacks are largely falling flat. President Joe Biden has said repeatedly he supports the Roe v. Wade framework, which allowed states to impose modest restrictions on abortion later in pregnancies. And according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 1 percent of abortions in 2020 occurred after 20 weeks of pregnancy,” that is, after 5 months of pregnancy.”

#10 – Encourage easy access to gun ownership

The argument for gun regulation rests most fundamentally on the premises that the ownership of guns should be regulated, and that gun ownership is not an absolute, unlimited right of citizenship. It is commonsense for most people who think about gun rights and control to exclude children, those with violent criminal records, the certified mentally ill who are a danger to others, from the right to gun ownership, and, more controversially, to limit the places at which people can have weapons.

However, for decades since the early 1970s, opponents of gun regulation, most prominently the National Rifle Association (NRA), have used their political influence to foster a one-sided interpretation of the Second Amendment to keep the federal government and many states and local governments from adequately regulating access to guns (gun ownership) by private citizens. Trump is an outspoken supporter of the NRA and of maximum gun rights.

Meredith McGraw reports on Trump’s remarks at a meeting of the NRA on February 9, 2024 (https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/09/trump-promises-nra-that-if-elected-no-one-will-lay-a-finger-on-your-firearms-00140818). At the meeting, Trump promised that if elected “no one will lay a finger on your firearms” and he would roll back Biden-era gun restrictions. McGraw quotes Trump,

“‘Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day,’ Trump said at the NRA’s Presidential Forum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

“The former president specifically said he would roll back the Biden administration’s ‘Zero-Tolerance’ policy that revokes federal licenses from firearm dealers that violate gun laws. And he said he would undo regulations on pistol braces, or stabilization devices that have also been used in gun massacres.”

“In a statement released ahead of Trump’s speech, John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety said, ‘With Trump recently telling Americans to ‘get over’ school shootings, we know what a second term would be like: The NRA would once again treat the White House like its clubhouse, and the bipartisan, life-saving progress we’ve made on gun safety will be in grave danger.’”

#11 – Violence against opponents may be necessary

Kenny Stancil cites research that “12 Million US Adults Think Violence Is Justified to Put Trump Back in White House” (https://commondreams.org/news/12-million-us-adults-think-violence-justified-to-restore-trump-presidency). The article was published on June 9, 2023. He writes,

More than two years after the deadly January 6 insurrection, 12 million people in the United States, or 4.4% of the adult population, believe the use of violence is justified to restore former President Donald Trump to power, The Guardian reported Friday.”

“We’re heading into an extremely tumultuous election season,” Robert Pape, a University of Chicago professor and CPOST director, told The Guardian. “What’s happening in the United States is political violence is going from the fringe to the mainstream.” [CPOST is the University of Chicago’s Project on Security and Threats.]

“The CPOST survey conducted in April found that 20% of U.S. adults still believe ‘the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump and Joe Biden is an illegitimate president,’ down only slightly from the 26% who said so in 2021.

“‘What you’re seeing is really disturbing levels of distrust in American democracy, support for dangerous conspiracy theories, and support for political violence itself,’ Pape told The Guardian.”

“‘Once you have support for violence in the mainstream, those are the raw ingredients or the raw combustible material and then speeches, typically by politicians, can set them off,’ said Pape. ‘Or if they get going, speeches can encourage them to go further.’”

“Several right-wing candidates who echoed Trump’s relentless lies about President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory lost in last year’s midterms. But more than 210 others—including at least two who participated in the January 6 rally that escalated into an attack on the U.S. Capitol—won congressional seats and races for governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, underscoring the extent to which election denialism is now entrenched in the GOP and jeopardizes U.S. democracy for the foreseeable future.”

“The research center’s most recent survey found that ‘almost 14%—a minority of Americans, but still a significant number—believe the use of force is justified to ‘achieve political goals that I support,’ the newspaper reported. More specifically, 12.4% believe it’s justified to restore the federal right to abortion, 8.4% believe it’s justified to ensure members of Congress and other government officials do the right thing, 6.3% think it’s justified to preserve the rights of white Americans, and 6.1% believe it’s justified to prevent the prosecution of Trump.’”

“More optimistically, the survey found that over 77% of U.S. adults want Republicans and Democrats in Congress to issue a joint statement condemning any political violence.

“‘There’s a tremendous amount of opposition to political violence in the United States,’ Pape remarked, ‘but it is not mobilized.’

Meanwhile, the country is awash with privately owned firearms, according to political scientists Bruce Hoffman and Jacob Ware in their book, God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America. They cite the research of American University scholar Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who estimates “at least 75,000 to 100,000 individuals are actively involved with white supremacist extremist groups, in addition to the 15,000 to 20,000 people who belong to militia organizations comprising some three hundred different groups….” (pp. 226-227).

Concluding thoughts

Trump wants power and, as the record indicates, will do anything to obtain it. The point is that to understand well what he and his supporters want and to reveal their anti-democratic intentions and subversive tactics. Such knowledge and understanding may not in the end by sufficient to prevent an illiberal and violence-tolerant movement from destroying American democracy, but they are absolutely necessary to help rouse citizens to become informed and active, and at least vote to  keep the anti-democrats out of government.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel calls for a “bold, populist, popular, and progressive domestic agenda” that is reflected in the 2025 Congressional Progressive Caucus’s “Progressive Proposition Agenda (https://thenation.com/article/politics/democrats-progressives-election-congress). The CPC platform “details reforms vital to our nation’s security. It lays out the next steps in addressing the climate crisis. It calls for reforms vital to democracy—including instituting same-day voter registration, ending partisan gerrymandering, and curbing the role of Big Money in our politics. It would eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, ban congressional stock ownership and trading, and strengthen judicial ethics, while boldly demanding expansion of the number of Supreme Court justices.

“It also lays out a populist agenda to counter the choke hold of wealth and entrenched interests on our political economy—expanded anti-trust measures, higher taxes on stock buybacks, a minimum tax for the rich, and a crackdown on private equity and hedge fund rapaciousness, particularly in healthcare and housing.”

In 2024, the stakes are far greater than saving the Republic from Trump and his reactionary agenda. If Democrats take back the House, expand their majority in the Senate and keep the White House, reforms that can make a fundamental difference in the lives of all, especially poor and working people, are possible. In 1944, amid a war abroad, Franklin Roosevelt called for an economic bill of rights as central to the postwar recovery. With the Proposition Agenda, the CPC offers bold steps towards fulfilling that goal. And the CPC’s growing power adds credibility to that promise.

The escalation of right-wing violence and intimidation

Bob Sheak, Feb 24, 2024

Introduction

This post continues my criticisms of Trump and his allies. Here, I compile evidence supporting the view that they want to undermine the political processes of the country in ways that will end any hope of strengthening liberal and progressive democracy and replace it with an anti-democratic, autocratic (authoritarian, fascist) alternative. Their efforts are intensifying. If they should succeed in the 2024 elections, America’s democracy will be seriously, perhaps irreparably, corrupted. Meanwhile, they will do their best to keep Biden and Congressional Democrats from winning legislatively, distract and frighten people with cultural wars, and generally attack their opponents.

 What Trump and his allies want

 The Republicans want a society in which there is a strongman leader and have been steadfast in their support of Trump, the Republican Party, and seemingly content to be driven by grievances and conspiracy diatribes that reflect the worst aspects of America’s history and society.

 They want revenge against their Democratic opponents, appear little interested in supporting democratic institutions, are willing to live with political chaos as long as they or their leaders have political power, and dismiss or reject policy proposals that address important issues such as the climate crisis, corporate power, poverty, civility in public discourse. They have no regard for the common good or the civic norms of fairness.

 Little regard for verifiable evidence

 They also live in a post-truth world (see Lee McIntyre’s book Post Truth or Cass R. Sunstein’s book, Liars: Falsehoods and  Free Speech in an Age of Deception). McIntyre describes Trump’s no-viable-evidence “strategy” as follows.

 “1. Raise questions about some outlandish matter (‘people are talking,’ ‘I’m just reporting what I read in the newspapers’), for instance, Obama was not born in the United States or that Obama had Trump wiretapped.

 “2. Provide no evidence (because there isn’t any) beyond one’s own conviction.

 “3. Suggest that the press cannot be trustedbecause they are biased.

 “4.This will lead some people to doubt whether what they are hearing from the press is accurate (or at least to conclude that the issue is ‘controversial’)

 “5. In the face of such uncertainty, people will be more prone to hunker down in their ideology and indulge in confirmation bias by choosing to believe only what fits their preconceived notions.

“6. This is the ripe environment for the proliferation of fake news, which will reinforce items 1 through 5.

 “7. Thus, people will believe what you say just because you said it. Belief can be tribal” (p. 15).  Indeed, the Republican Party, led by Trump, has become the party willing to use any means, including violence and intimidation, to achieve their anti-democratic goals. Power, not truth, is the ultimate goal.

 Trump’s electoral base

 Trump’s political power in the Republican Party is based on his electoral base of millions of voters, perhaps at present representing 30-40% of the Republican electorate. Without its support, Trump’s power evaporates.

 Trump has so far been able to unify disparate right-wing forces into an unquestioning populist base of support for himself. This populous base includes advocates of unfounded and conspiratorial views of society, some committed to the use of violent methods to achieve their goals, along with overlapping special interest groups devoted to maximum gun rights, closed borders, Christian nationalism, white supremacy.

 This is a population that generally takes Trump’s word as definitive, while rejecting the views and evidence from scientists, experts, the “dark state” of government civil servants, and the “fake news.” Emotions and ideology trump evidence. Indeed, some see Trump as chosen by God. They love his admonitions invoking “law and order” and his disparaging statements on the “black lives matter” movement and immigration. And, of course, his continues to rant about “the big steal,” referring to his misbegotten, discredited, view that he won the 2020 presidential election.

 Many of the Trump supporters accept the idea that the Democrats are “radical socialists” and electing them will take the country down a path where all individual “freedoms” are lost.

 Trump’s base is motivated less by economic distress than by ideological commitments and special interests. Robert A. Pape, political-science professor at the University of Chicago and Keven Ruby, Senior research associate of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, find that “a closer look at the people suspected of taking part in the Capitol riot suggests a different and potentially far more dangerous problem: a new kind of violent mass movement in which more ‘normal’ Trump supporters—middle-class and, in many cases, middle-aged people without obvious ties to the far right—joined with extremists in an attempt to overturn a presidential election” (https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/the-capitol-rioters-arent-like-other-extremists/617895).

 A quick overview of their goals

 Trump, his massive electoral base, the Republican Party, and their allies push or go along with policies that are anti-democratic, even unlawful, including:

 (1)a strong unitary executive; (2) the disregard or hollowing out of the rule of law; (3) the political cleansing, curtailment, or elimination of programs advanced by Democrats or other opponents; (4) the institution of a xenophobic border policy; (5) the forced removal or imprisonment of undocumented residents; (6) the creation and support of alternative media based on right-wing partisan goals and values; (7) the support of programs that disproportionately benefit the rich and power; (8) the criminalization of dissent; (9) the use of the military to deal with dissenters (use of the insurrection act); (10) alliances with Putin and other autocratic leaders, and (11) an end to US participation in NATO

 In this post, I will focus on domestic issues that show the anti-democratic thrust of Trump and his allies.

 #1 – A dictatorship where the ends justify the means

If Trump wins the presidential election, he says that he wants to create a dictatorship – a goal with fascist overtones.

 Robert Reich argues that the Republican Party is already a fascist party (https://commondreams.org/opinion/the-united-states-now-has-a-fascist-political-party). Here are key points from Reich’s article.

I hate to say this, but America no longer has two parties devoted to a democratic system of self-government. We have a Democratic Party, which — notwithstanding a few glaring counter-examples such as what the Democratic National Committee did to Bernie in 2016 — is still largely committed to democracy. And we have a Republican Party, which is careening at high-velocity toward authoritarianism. Okay, fascism.”

Reich continues. “We are witnessing the logical culmination of win-at-any-cost Trump Republican politics — scorched-earth tactics used by Republicans to entrench their power, with no justification other than that they can.

“Democracy is about means. Under it, citizens don’t have to agree on ends (abortion, health care, guns, or whatever else we disagree about) as long as we agree on democratic means for handling our disagreements.

“But for Trump Republicans, the ends justify whatever means they choose —including expelling lawmakers, rigging elections through gerrymandering, refusing to raise the debt ceiling, and denying the outcome of a legitimate presidential election.”

“Without two parties committed to democratic means to resolve differences in ends, the one remaining (small-d) democratic party is at a disadvantage in seeking ends it deems worthy. The inevitable result: Eventually it, too, sacrifices democratic means to its own ends.”

Reich concludes: “I don’t believe Trump alone is responsible for the birth of modern Republican fascism, but he has legitimized and encouraged the vicious rancor that has led much of the GOP into election-denying authoritarianism.”

 #2 – Trump’s anti-democratic record and rhetoric

At a campaign reception in Boston on December 5, 2023, Biden spent part of a speech making a case against Trump’s threat to U.S. democracy. It is a useful summary (https://whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/01/05/remarks-by-president-biden-at-a-campaign-reception-weston-ma). Here’s some of what the president said.

 “Listen to what he’s [Trump’s] actually saying these days.  He’s saying it out loud.  He says, ‘2024 is the final battle.’  He goes on to say, ‘I am your retribution.’  He talks about, quote, ‘We’re a failing nation.’ He goes on to say — and these are all quotes — ‘Either they win or we win.  And if they win, we no longer have a country.’“Trump proudly proclaims himself an election denier.  You know, he’s the only losing candidate in American history to — not to accept the will of the American people.”

“The same man who encouraged supporters to go to the Capitol on January 6th, who for hours sat in the private dining room I have off the Oval Office watching him threaten his own vice president who refused to break his oath to the Constitution.

“And now, the same man promising pardons to those convicted felons and insurrectionists — ‘if I’m elected’ — he’s going to pardon them.  That’s what he says. “The same man who said it was time for, and I quote, ‘termination of all rules, regulation, and articles, even those… in the Constitution.’  This guy means it, and he’s saying it out loud. “Now his supporters are saying he should invoke the Insurrection Act — you know, the use of the U.S. military on domestic soil — against political opponents to — and in American cities.” “If — he said — if he’s returned to office, he said he’ll go after those who oppose him and root out what he called the ‘vermin.’  American vermin.  A phrase you may recall from history used in the ‘30s in another country — a specific phrase with a specific meaning, and it echoes the language you’ve heard in Germany in the ‘30s. “And it wasn’t the first time he used the language of the ‘30s.  Trump also said — and he talked about, quote, ’the blood of our country is being poisoned…. What in God’s name is going on?” “Trump’s new Speaker supports a national ban on abortion under any circumstances.  And as we’ve just seen, radical bans in states all across America have been supported by them.”

 “And Trump has vowed again to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would mean 40 million Americans would lose their health insurance, parents couldn’t keep their kids on their insurance plans up to — under age 26, and 100 million Americans with pre-existing conditions could be denied health insurance. It’s the 51st time they will have tried it.  Not a joke. 

“Extreme MAGA Republicans in Congress will not support the essential assistance to Ukraine unless we fi- — we follow the most draconian actions possible to keep immigrants out of America, building walls and the like. On my very first day, I sent a comprehensive immigration bill to Congress asking for a significant increase in the number of — of folks at the border — a significant increase in all the security we needed in terms of hi-tech [high-tech] stuff. But the Republicans refused to act.  They wouldn’t act — they won’t act on it.  I don’t think they want to solve it.  I think they want to keep it as a problem without the tools to make it any better. 
#3 – Trump’s reelection would mean chaos for the country

 There has been some reporting on how Trump says he wants to be a “dictator.” Contrariwise, William Cooper argues that his presidency is more likely to produce “chaos” than a dictatorship (https://cnn.com/2023/12/11/opinions/trump-elections-2024-dictator-cooper/index.html).

“Trump himself is on the bandwagon, telling Fox News host Sean Hannity Tuesday night that he would be a dictator, though only on ‘day one’ of his presidency. ‘We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling,’ he said. ‘After that I’m not a dictator.’ Last month, he used the rhetoric of history’s worst dictators against his political opponents, vowing to ‘root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country.’”

Cooper argues that, while Trump as president will have the power to cause social, economic, and political chaos, he will not be a dictator, even for one day.

“The widespread fear that Trump will actually be a dictator, however, is misplaced. If Trump wins the 2024 election, American democracy might be suspended, at least temporarily. But it won’t be replaced by a dictatorship, which is a coherent and recognizable system of government. Instead, if Trump wins, my view is that American democracy will be replaced by American ‘chaosracy’ — an incoherent, volatile and unpredictable mix of some government institutions that function democratically and some that don’t.”

For example, “The federal bureaucracy can’t simply be ‘purged.’ Valid federal legislation authorizes and funds government agencies — and powerful unions protect their workers — so the courts won’t allow federal employees to be fired en masse absent duly enacted legislation. Republican presidents have long tried to shrink the administrative state. They’ve failed miserably.

“Trump-appointed judges, all confirmed by a majority of the Senate, have shifted the federal courts sharply to the right. But they have also shown their independence and ruled against Trump repeatedly. The Supreme Court allowed a New York prosecutor to receive Trump’s tax returns, denied Trump’s effort to end DACA and rejected Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

“The Senate, furthermore, still has to confirm, by majority vote, all executive-level presidential appointments (including at the Department of Justice). Trump can’t just appoint, for example, Rudy Guliani as attorney general, Steve Bannon as secretary of defense or Michael Flynn as secretary of state. And pardons only apply to federal offenses, offer no protection under state law and may be voided in court if they are preemptive and not specific. They are hardly a license to go about committing major crimes. Just look at Bannon, who was pardoned by Trump in his border wall case and later convicted for refusing to cooperate with the January 6 committee in Congress.

“Unlike a dictator, Trump wouldn’t control most government activity — at the federal, state or local level. If the Democrats take the House in 2024, would Trump control how they vote on legislation? Would he force state court judges to govern how he wants them to? Local school boards?”

“Given his historic unpopularity ratings, the resistance to a second Trump term will likely be fierce at every level of government.”

But, Cooper writes, “[t]he one way Trump could actually achieve a dictatorship is if he commandeered the military to use force — or its threat — throughout the country on his behalf. But there’s no reason whatsoever to think he could pull that off. Trump has long had strained relations with military leaders, including his secretaries of defense John Mattis and Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley.

“As we saw with Milley — who actively opposed Trump’s attempt to reverse the 2020 presidential election results — military leaders won’t just obey Trump’s illegal initiatives. The military doesn’t ‘take an oath to a wannabe dictator,’ Milley said in his departing speech last September. ‘We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America — and we’re willing to die to protect it.

#4 – MAGA’s violent threats are warping life in America

 David French compiles evidence on how “MAGA’s Violent Threats Are Warping Life in America,” involving attacks on Democratic – and indeed all – opponents with the goal of driving them out of politics so that Republicans, led by Trump and other reactionaries, can dominate the political system at all levels (https://nytimes.com/2024/02/18/opinion/magas-violent-threats-are-warping-life-in-america.html).

 French refers to examples at all levels of the socio-political system.

 At the national level

He refers to a new book by journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman titled Find Me the Votes, in which they “report that Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had trouble finding lawyers willing to help prosecute her case against Trump. Even a former Georgia governor turned her down, saying, ‘Hypothetically speaking, do you want to have a bodyguard follow you around for the rest of your life?’

French adds: Willis received an assassination threat so specific that one evening she had to leave her office incognito while a body double wearing a bulletproof vest courageously pretended to be her and offered a target for any possible incoming fire.”

 French also points out that “Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing Trump’s federal Jan. 6 trial, has been swatted as has the special counsel Jack Smith. For those unfamiliar, swatting is a terrifying act of intimidation in which someone calls law enforcement and falsely claims a violent crime is in process at the target’s address. This sends heavily armed police to a person’s home with the expectation of a violent confrontation. A swatting incident claimed the life of a Kansas man in 2017.”

 He continues. “The Colorado Supreme Court likewise endured terrible threats afterit ruled that Trump was disqualified from the ballot. There is deep concern for the safety of the witnesses and jurors in Trump’s various trials.

 “Mitt Romney faces so many threats that he spends $5,000 per day on security to protect his family. After Jan. 6, the former Republican congressman Peter Meijer said that at least one colleague voted not to certify the election out of fear for the safety of their family. Threats against members of Congress are pervasive, and there has been a shocking surge since Trump took office. Last year, Capitol Police opened more than 8,000 threat assessments, an eightfold increase since 2016.”

 At the sub-national level

 “In2021,” French writes, “Reuters published a horrifying and comprehensive report detailing the persistent threats against local election workers. In 2022, it followed up with another report detailing threats against local school boards. In my own Tennessee community, doctors and nurses who advocated wearing masks in schools were targets of screaming, threatening right-wing activists, who told one man, ‘We know who you are’ and ‘We will find you.’

My own family has experienced terrifying nights and terrifying days over the last several years. We’ve faced death threats, a bomb scare, a clumsy swatting attempt and doxxing by white nationalists.” [Doxing is a form of cyberbullying that uses sensitive or secret information, statements, or records for the harassment, exposure, financial harm, or other exploitation of targeted individuals.] People have shown up at our home. A man even came to my kids’ school. I’ve interacted with the F.B.I., the Tennessee Department of Homeland Security and local law enforcement. While the explicit threats come and go, the sense of menace never quite leaves. We’re always looking over our shoulders.”

 This intimidation “is systemic and ubiquitous, an acknowledged tactic in the playbook of the Trump right that flows all the way down from the violent fantasies of Donald Trump himself. It is rare to encounter a public-facing Trump critic who hasn’t faced threats and intimidation.”

 The ominous result. “The threats drive decent men and women from public office. They isolate and frighten dissenters. When my family first began to face threats, the most dispiriting responses came from Christian acquaintances who concluded I was a traitor for turning on a movement whose members had expressed an explicit desire to kill my family.”

 #5 – Trump and allies plot militarized mass deportations, detention camps

 Heather Cox Richardson offers this summary in her missive of Feb 19, 2024.

 Trump has promised his supporters that in a second term he would launch ‘the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’ To deport as many as ten million of what he called ‘foreign national invaders,’ Trump advisor Stephen Miller explained on a November podcast, the administration would federalize National Guard troops from Republican-dominated states and send them around the country to round people up, moving them to ‘large-scale staging grounds near the border, most likely in Texas,’ that would serve as internment camps.”

 Isaac Arnsdorf, Nick Miroff, and Josh Dawsey also delve into the immigration issue (https://washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/20/trump-mass-deportation-immigration).

 “As president, Trump sought to use military planes and bases for deportation. Now, he and his allies are talking about a new effort that current and former officials warn could be impractical and dangerous.”

 “Trump pledges that as president he would immediately launch ‘the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.’ As a model, he points to an Eisenhower-era program known as ‘Operation Wetback,’ using a derogatory slur for Mexican migrants. The operation used military tactics to round up and remove migrant workers, sometimes transporting them in dangerous conditions that led to some deaths. Former administration officials and policy experts said staging an even larger operation today would face a bottleneck in detention space — a problem that Trump adviser Stephen Miller and other allies have proposed addressing by building mass deportation camps.”

 Arnsdorf and his colleagues continue. “Throughout his current campaign, the former president has exerted his influence on the immigration policy debate on several fronts. He pressured congressional Republicans to reject a bipartisan compromise to expand enforcement funding and powers, arguing that it would give the Democrats a political victory and that it was not restrictive enough. He has also escalated his use of dehumanizing language to describe migrants, accusing them of ‘poisoning the blood of our country’ and calling the record unauthorized border crossings an ‘invasion,’ an ‘open wound’ and a source of imminent terrorist attacks.

“But his deportation proposal is one part of his emerging platform that experts, current and former government officials and others described as especially alarming, impractical and prone to significant legal and logistical hurdles.

 “‘You’re talking about officers in tactical gear going into communities, being videotaped in the streets, putting kids in car seats, carrying baby formula. Then what do you do with those families?’ said Jason Houser, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s chief of staff from January 2022 until March 2023. ‘Are you going to go into neighborhoods in Philly, New York, Baltimore and start tugging people out of communities? That’s what they want. It puts law enforcement and the communities at risk.’

 “Reflecting on the ideas Trump and his team discussed during his presidency, Houser said, ‘Their ideas were psychotic.’”

 “While advisers agree on border security, building a wall on the southern border and deporting migrants who have committed crimes after entering the country as winning political issues, one adviser expressed concern that promising to deport massive numbers of people who haven’t been convicted of a crime could hurt Trump in a general election campaign. Trump’s language and proposals are already under heavy criticism from the Biden campaign, as well as pro-immigration and civil liberties groups.”

 “The Trump campaign has also said he would sign an executive order on his first day in office to withhold passports, Social Security numbers and other government benefits from children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States. The idea of challenging the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship would be sure to draw a court challenge. The proposal has been raised by Trump and Miller before, but the specific promise of an executive order indicated the campaign has put further effort into fleshing it out.”

“The pool of potential deportees is large. There are about 11 million immigrants in the United States without legal status, according to the most recent estimates. Nearly 7 million of those are known to ICE, which maintains a vast database of people eligible for deportation whose asylum claims and immigration cases are still pending.

“A smaller subset of that caseload — about 1.3 million people — remain in the United States despite having received a deportation order from an immigration judge. These potential deportees, if taken into custody, are the easiest for the government to send home, because they have already received due process. But ICE often doesn’t know where they are.

“Beyond those challenges, there are other major logistical and operational obstacles to the kind of mass deportations Trump has promised. The first is available personnel: ICE only has about 6,000 deportation officers nationwide. The amount of time it takes to recruit, hire, screen and train a new deportation officer is about two years, according to current and former ICE officials.

 “Detentionspace is also squeezed. The Biden administration is using about 38,000 beds at immigration jails and other facilities that hold migrants awaiting deportation. During the Trump years, the number exceeded 50,000, but never reached the kinds of capacity levels necessary for the kind of mega-deportation system Trump envisions.

 “Some ICE officials said the agency could find more available beds in county jails. But Trump surrogates have gone further, suggesting they would put migrants in “camps” or “tents.”

 “To arrest and deport families with children, the preparations are even more time-consuming. An operation targeting 20 to 30 families for arrest takes two to three weeks of planning, said Houser, the former ICE chief of staff. For ICE to reach a target of 300,000 to 500,000 deportations per year — a far more modest goal than Trump’s — Houser said the agency would need two to three times as many deportation officers as ICE has.

“‘You’re talking about building a major logistics apparatus that would still have to meet court and legal requirements for health care and child care,’ he said.

ICE officers and staff are burned out by the pace and intensity of their work over the past several years, according to a veteran DHS official who was not authorized to speak to reporters. For other law enforcement agencies, the drain on their resources would come at the expense of other legitimate priorities, the former DHS official said, and the operation would have to be continuous to deter new arrivals.

 “‘It feels shortsighted, stupid and an enormous waste of money,’ the official said.

Another problem is so-called ‘recalcitrant countries’ that limit or refuse to take back deportees. Nations such as Venezuela and Cuba are already under U.S. economic sanctions, leaving Washington with reduced leverage to compel them to take more deportation flights.

“Even other nations that remain U.S. allies in Latin America set conditions on the number of flights and deportees they’re willing to accept. Passenger manifests have to be sent several days in advance. It’s not as simple as loading hundreds of people into a military transport plane and dropping them off wherever the president wants.”

“Trump pledged to immediately deport 2 million to 3 million people after his 2016 win but never came close to hitting those targets. At his administration’s high-water mark in 2019, ICE carried out 267,258 deportations and returns, Department of Homeland Security data show.”

“As the number of people in ICE custody jumped 22 percent in Trump’s first two years, the DHS inspector general uncovered ‘egregious violations of detention standards,’ including inadequate medical care, expired food, lack of recreation, moldy bathrooms and inadequate clothing and hygiene supplies. A separate inspector general’s investigation found ‘dangerous overcrowding’ in an El Paso facility, where a cell built for 25 people held 155.

 “In June 2018, reporters and human rights activists toured a facility in McAllen, Tex., where children slept under foil sheets surrounded by chain-link fencing, after DHS acknowledged separating children from their parents at the border. Public outrage over an audio clip of a sobbing child forced Trump to halt the practice. DHS later identified 4,227 separated children, 3,147 of whom were reunited with their parent as of November 2023.

 “Asked in 2023 whether he might reimpose family separation as president, Trump declined to rule it out and defended the policy. ‘I know it sounds harsh,’ he said in a CNN town hall. When you say to a family that if you come we’re going to break you up, they don’t come. And we can’t afford to have any more.’”

 “As the president’s top adviser on immigration matters, Miller advocated for invoking the Insurrection Act to mobilize the Department of Defense, according to the former officials. Pentagon officials balked at the idea of using military bases and planes, current and former officials recalled, citing concerns of getting mired in an open-ended commitment or compromising troop readiness.”

#6 – Trump’s second presidency would mean more gun violence

 Brett Samuels takes up this issue in an article for The Hill on Nov 2, 2023

(https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4319050-biden-trump-gun-violence-2024). Samuels refers to a memo the Biden campaign shared with the public. The memo, titled “Trump’s America in 2025: More Guns, More Shootings, More Deaths,” cites past Trump comments to argue the Republican front-runner would allow more firearms in schools and push for a national concealed carry law.” 

“In a speech at an annual NRA meeting earlier this year, Trump vowed to protect the Second Amendment and argued the rise in school shootings was a result of widespread mental health problems in the country. 

“He said if elected, he would support putting more guns in schools to protect them from future shootings, proposing a new tax credit to reimburse any teacher for the cost of a concealed carry firearm and training from a qualified expert.

“Trump also said he would ask Congress to pass a bill to create “national concealed carry reciprocity.”

At the same time, “President Biden has repeatedly pushed for congressional action on gun control and has taken executive action to try and address the problem, giving his campaign a clear contrast with what it views as a record of inaction from Trump.

“Since taking office, the president has signed executive actions to target the proliferation of ghost guns, which are difficult to track, and to bolster background checks. Biden in September established the Office of Gun Violence Prevention to focus specifically on the issue of mass shootings. He has repeatedly called on Congress to reimpose a ban on assault weapons.”

Biden in 2022 signed bipartisan legislation that enhanced background checks for gun purchasers between the age of 18 and 21, made obtaining firearms through straw purchases or trafficking a federal offense and clarified the definition of a federally licensed firearm dealer, among other measures.”

The president has the backing of major gun safety groups for his 2024 reelection, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady and Team ENOUGH, Community Justice Action Fund and Giffords.

Joe Biden is, hands down, the only candidate in this race who has both the track record and the guts to stand up to the gun lobby and protect Americans from gun crime,” Peter Ambler, Giffords co-founder and executive director, said in a statement.”

Concluding thoughts

 Trump and his allies want to undermine U.S. democracy. If they win control of the White House and both chambers of the U.S. Congress, they will have ample opportunity to do this.

 U.S. history is, at least in part, a history of violence against indigenous people, people of color (especially, African-Americans), immigrants, workers and unions, women’s rights, and others. It is reflected in the Civil War, as southern white plantation owners and their government and grassroots supporters fought a losing and bloody war to expand slavery in the west. Adam Hochschild recaptures the government’s suppression of war opponents, socialists, and trade unions during WWI in his book, American Midnight: The Great War, A Violent Peace, and Democracy’s Forgotten Crisis. Kevin M. Krouse and Julian E. Zelizer edit a collection of essays by historians “to take on the biggest legends and lies” in American history. The book’s title: Myth America. Dana Milbank analyzes the “twenty-five year crack-up of the Republican Party” in his book, The Destructionists. Dan Pfeiffer focuses his book on the “big lie” promoted by right-wing media (Battling the Big Lie: How Fox, Facebook, and the Mega Media are Destroying America). Among the most troubling books is the book by Malcolm Nance, They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency.

 Malcom Nance does not mince words. He is a globally renowned expert on terrorism, extremism, and insurgency and best-selling author. He offers the following description of Trump’s electoral base in his book titled They Want to Kill Americans: The Militias, Terrorists, and Deranged Ideology of the Trump Insurgency (publ. 2022). This base is anti-democratic and willing to accept violence if necessary to achieve their goals.

 “The Trump worshipping base has become an openly fascist movement. It endangers the nation with near constant threats to take up arms and create political instability through violence. The goals of TITUS [Trump Insurgency in the United States] are not just to alter and coopt the national dialogue but to dismantle the framework of government and the Constitution itself. They openly advocate the destruction of America’s diversity, multiculturalism, and equality. They continue to demand that an unelected dictator be put back into office. They want a strongman who will impose the will and ideology of forty million misguided people over the voices and lives of all other Americans” (p. 241).