Fictional Cabinet Nominees Seem Appropriate For Trump's Fictional World

Since President Elect Trump tells more lies than truths, it seems appropriate for him to have fictional cabinet members to match the fictional world he lives in.  He's already extolled Hannibal Lector as though he was a real person.  Which got me thinking about a where Hannibal would fit in the cabinet.  And then what a whole cabinet of fictional characters might look like.  

Such a cabinet would have benefits - though I'm still trying to figure out who will benefit most.  Probably Trump, but perhaps the rest of us will too.

• These nominees won't testify in the Senate saving Trump the embarrassment of scorching questioning of his picks and saving the upper house many, many hours and saving GOP Senators the embarrassment of debasing themselves and their honor to defend Trump's picks
• Though it's possible that before long they can be recreated virtually to testify
• The nominees don't have actual records that can be dug up by journalists trying to uncover their past misbehaviors 
• Though perhaps scholars of literature and film will be called upon to write opinion pieces about them.  
• Trump can probably have them serve without getting approval of the Senate at all.  
• And none of these appointees will take actions to block Trump's will, nor will they take action to forward it.  

This is merely a list I came up with.  My grandkids helped with a few of the nominees.  A couple of friends made excellent suggestions too.  But if readers feel they have better nominees, or alternatives if any of these can't or won't serve, be sure to let me know.  

Some of these nominees, most everyone should know, or at least have heard the name.  Others are a bit more obscure.  But they all can be easily googled.  There is one that has an asterisk because more than one person bears that name.  But I'll remind you it's a fictional character and there is only one that I know of that clearly first the position.  

I would also remind readers that this blog is called "What Do I know?" and a key theme is how we know what's real and what's true.  Many people, myself included, have said that Trump's followers live in a fictional world.  We point at evidence such as climate change, and scientific research on a variety of other subjects from medicine to crime, demographics, and paleontology, to name just a few. 

But within a society, truth, ultimately, is what the vast majority of the population believes it to be. And sometimes there's a gap between the truth that people profess and the truth their eyes (and other senses) tell them.  Hans Christian Anderson's story The Emperor's New Clothes gives us that example.  

Different religions believe their holy books describe truth.  Truths which are not compatible with the truths of the holy books of other religions.  Yet hundreds of millions of people believe without a doubt the different truths of the different major holy books in the world.  

So by electing Trump, many USians have created a reality that we will all have to endure.  It's a reality in which Donald Trump is president.  A man who, in his first presidency build pieces of 'wall' along parts of the US border with Mexico, which the Mexican government didn't pay for.  

There were also over a million US residents who died of COVID, many of whom would have lived if Trump had lived in a different mental world.  And more people will die in Trump's second presidency because that's how his world thinks it should be, or because the laws of science in my world, won't bend to his will.  

A Fork In The Road Of US And World History

This is one of those historic moments when the world will pull back from the bring of disaster or go crashing into a new world of callous destruction.  The US AID (Agency for International Development) [poster] from Thailand in the late 1960s isn't too dramatic for the choice we face right now.  On the left side it says "Communism,"  in the middle it says "or" and on the right side it says "Freedom." Our choice now is Authoritarian vs. Democracy.  

Despite its many flaws, the US Democracy has been one of the better examples of how humans can work together to build a society based on law and aspirations of peace, of freedom, and of comfort.  The reality has favored some more than others - in terms of freedom, justice, and economic and social security.  And it has had serious negative impacts on the environment.  

But we're at a critical fork in the road.  To the right, we crash into the despotic world ruled by Trump and those who pull his strings, like Putin and his meddling into our election as he has meddled in the Brexit vote, Hungary, France, Italy, and, of course, Ukraine.  He's a force of evil turning the world toward chaos that he thinks he can better thrive in.  

If we go the Trump route, it's not Trump so much I'm worried about.  But it's his backers - from Putin, to the Christian Nationalist mob, and the wealthy cabal on the far right who have been plotting for decades and have already successfully captured the Supreme Court.  

The left fork would give us the first woman president, who is also part East Indian and part Black.  And she's incredibly capable as her career and short campaign has demonstrated.  

There should not even be any doubt that Kamala Harris should win this election.  That there is reflects serious failures in our system.  Failures in the education system that has produced tens of millions of voters who would choose a candidate with hundreds of flaws and misbehaviors any one of which would have destroyed any other presidential candidate.  

Failures in our system that have allowed foreign propaganda to be broadcast through outlets like Fox News and all sorts of internet sites to sow seeds of distrust in our system and in the idea of Truth itself.

Failures in our justice system that allow a convicted felon, who is ineligible to vote in most states, to be a candidate for the presidency.  Who would be ineligible to join our military to be its Commander in Chief.  

Fairlure in our electoral system that disregards the popular vote for an arcane system that focuses all the attention on seven purple states.  

A Harris administration will face many serious problems (including the disgruntled cult members), but it would work on them rationally and in good faith.   And that a Trump administration would exacerbate.  

Often such turning points aren't realized until after they happen - Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the election of FDR, for example.  

But we know today.  We've known a long time that this election is a choice between two very different futures.  One continues to move us toward greater equality, and one hopes, more equal economic prosperity, and continued fights to minimize CO2 emissions and the worst ravages of climate change.  

The other unleashes nasty brutish anger and hate on our country and the world.  

And even if Harris wins the election decisively, we know the depraved one will fight to overturn the election.  

Fortunately, this time round we know his past behaviors and are better prepared.  The public is more aware because, except for his cult members, we've seen how he operated after the last election.  Our government is better prepared for the same reason.  And more importantly, Joe Biden is still president and in control of the military and the national guard and other resources that might be needed.  

My logical brain tells me that it will be a Harris victory.  Reason says that the world has changed in ways that disfavor Trump.

Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes.   

Biden beat Trump by over 7 million votes.  

Since the 2020 election, we've learned so much more about Trump's evil ways.

He was impeached for the second time.

He created a plot to challenge Biden's victory

He instigated the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol

He stole boxes and boxes full of classified documents and stored some of them in a bathroom in Mar-A-Lago. And shared them, well, we don't know for sure with whom.

He's become a convicted felon and rapist.

He has several serious indictments and trials still waiting for him

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade

His public appearances have shown him to be more and more deranged

He's presided over a Nazi rally in New York City

Many of the 'very fine people' he selected to serve in his administration have publicly warned us what a disastrous president he was.  

I can go on and on, but the point is that we know so many more terrible things about him.  Even if his cult stays loyal, there have to be other Republicans and Independents who voted for him last time who either won't vote for Trump, and many who will vote for Harris.  And young people who now are eligible to vote, but weren't four years ago.

We know that the Dobbs decision has galvanized women, especially in light of the Republican states who have passed draconian anti-abortion laws that are killing women who have had miscarriages and other problems with pregnancy.  And we're hearing about many women forced to give birth to their rapists' children.  

Conservative states like Kansas and Ohio have put the right to abortions in their constitutions through ballot measures, by-passing their legislatures.  

The numbers of early voters shows Democrats returning their ballots more than Republicans, shows women outvoting men, shows young voters voting at higher than past levels.  So everything points to a Harris victory.  

But nothing is certain until the votes are counted and whatever gimmicks Trump pulls if he loses are blocked.  

This is one of those huge moments in history where human destiny hangs in the balance.  

[Soon after I arrived in Thailand in 1967 as Peace Corps teacher in rural Thailand, I was taken out one night to a village by an AID employee.  A village not unlike the one on the right of the poster.  He hung a sheet up across the road and showed movies about the danger of communism.  I suspect, in hindsight, I was being tested and I failed dismally - to my credit, I'd like to think.  AID (CIA?) never approached me again, to my knowledge.  But I did end up with this poster.]

Why LATimes and Washington Post Presidential Non-Endorsements Are So Problematic

The previous post concerned how the billionaire owners of the LA Times and Washington Post blocked their editorial boards from endorsing Kamala Harris for president and why I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times. [I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post.] 

We know that Jeff Bezos has other business deals with the US government [sorry, there's a paywall] - with Amazon and with other ventures - that a Trump presidency would, in Bezos' mind - be quashed.  And he may be right.  Patrick Soon-Shiong also has other businesses that possibly could be jeopardized by a Trump presidency.  Plus Trump has said that he would punish media and others who oppose him.  

I focused on what appears to be their fear that if Trump were elected, they would be punished for such an endorsement.  I compared that behavior to the behavior of the Washington Post and NYTimes when they published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 - a daring display of courage and the power of press.  

I spent more time on the Pentagon Papers than I intended to, because I realized that while I was a young adult at the time, anyone under 53 today, hadn't even been born yet.  If 'Pentagon Papers' means anything to most of them, it probably is pretty superficial.  

Think what people born after next year will know and understand about the 2024 election in 2077!  The historic lessons get lost if we don't keep them alive.  

So I decided to postpone the second part of that post to another post.  

Here's the part I left for a future post - putting their actions into context using Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless."  You can see the whole essay at the link.  Or a much briefer overview at Wikipedia.

It's a long essay, written by then Czech playwright, and later, president, about how people in an authoritarian regime could still maintain their freedom.  He's specifically talking about the Soviet form of dictatorship that ruled Czechoslovakia at that time.  There are many people with greater expertise on Havel's work than I.  But this is my limited take on this situation.  

When I heard about the two billionaire owners of two major newspapers killing editorials that would have endorsed Kamala Harris for president, the part I thought of was the story of the greengrocer putting up signs in his shop window.   You can read it below.  I've highlighted some of it in red.  

"III 

"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

"I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

"Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

"Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

"Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe."

The situation of the greengrocer under Soviet authoritarianism and the Bezos and Soon-Shiong is not a perfect analogy, but it shows how the no-holds-barred style of Trump causes even billionaires to modify their behavior rather than draw unwanted attention to themselves.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message

In the case of both newspaper owners, not publishing an endorsement of Harris was a sign to Trump with a clear message that they didn't want him upset at them if he were elected.  They didn't want their companies punished for supporting Harris.

the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. 

Not endorsing Harris was the equivalent of putting the a sign in the window that says, 'we will not oppose you' to Trump.  The low foundation of their obedience. We do not want you to punish us in some way.  And the low foundation of Trump's power is that the endorsements were perfectly legal and normal, yet they were afraid to publish the endorsements.  

The 'ideology' they were hiding behind was the idea that newspapers should  maintain "political neutrality," should be objective observers that don't take sides, but impartially report the news.  Of course, impartiality is not possible.  A news outlet can try to report objective facts, but the employees and owners all have values that color what events are reported and how they are reported.  Or, in this case, not reported.  

And the idea that newspapers must be objective observers and non-partisan is one that many hold, but it is not historically the only norm.  

Early Colonial newspapers were often "a sideline for printers."  Benjamin Franklin was such a printer with a newspaper on the side.  And they were quite partisan.  During that era John Peter Zenger was found innocent when a governor tried to shut down his partisan attacks.  Do kids still learn about Zenger in school these days?

The fact that Trump has threatened to attack the media as president and more recently to talk about his political enemies being executed - as he let the January 6 mob erect a gallows for his then Vice President - is all the more reason that they should have endorsed his opponent.  

Another issue this raises is the phenomenon of billionaires buying existing newspapers.  On the one hand, this is a way for some newspapers to survive.  And it's probably better than newspapers being owned by corporations that own many newspapers and thus limit the number of different voices available to the public.  I say newspapers here, but this also applies to radio and television.  

And yet, at the same time, the internet has provided access to way more voices than ever.  Perhaps we're just waiting for the dust to settle.  Or the Musks of the world are going to buy up those voices.  It's a time of change and we have to just hold on until it becomes more settled.  

But the problem of billionaires owning papers is that they have large financial interests that can easily come into conflict with the objectivity of the paper they own.  In Bezos' case, Amazon has interest in large government contracts which some have suggested as a reason he vetoed the endorsement.  

The key point in all this for me, the reason I thought it important enough to cancel my LA Times subscription, is the issue Havel raises about having personal freedom, no matter how small, and to use it.  

Authoritarians have control because people voluntarily obey them.  Even when there is no law and no order, people anticipate what the regime wants them to do, and do it.  People cede their autonomy voluntarily.  As did the two owners of the newspapers.  And as the many Republican politicians who trashed Trump during the 2016 primaries - Cruz, Graham, Rubio, etc. - but then fell in line to support him.  Trump is ruthless, but Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll stood up to him and won.  

If Trump wins Tuesday, and we get conflicting reports on how close it is, we will all be facing life in an authoritarian state.  Understanding Havel will be important.  

Cancelling My LA Times Subscription [Updated]

[UPDATES:  Here's the link to the second post on this topic. The Nov 3 UPDATE is at the bottom of the original article]

Overview:  I'm giving context to why I cancelled my subscription.  I look back to heroic actions taken by the  New York Times and the Washington Post during the Vietnam war to compare to what appears to be the cowardly action of the Post and the LA Times owners today.  

I'd note that while other papers have discussed the LA Times' decision, the LA Times as so far not had any article about this issue. 

So we start with the Pentagon Papers story.  Then we go to the vetoing of editorials supporting Kamala Harris for president by the owners of the two newspapers this week.  

Then I mention an important article by Vaclav Havel that directly addresses what happens when owners of businesses voluntarily comply to pressure from authoritarian governments.  But I'll save that discussion for the next post.  

 In 1971, The New York Times and the Washington Post were given copies of "The Pentagon Papers."  This was a classified report on the Vietnam War.  .  

One of the researchers, Daniel Ellsberg, was disturbed that the research showed that the US government was lying to the people of the United States about major aspects of the Vietnam war.  

Student protests had been going on constantly.  In spring of 1970, four students at Kent State were shot dead by National Guardsman called to quell the protests on campus.  This led to huge protests all over US campuses.  

While I was a young adult during the times of the Pentagon papers and it is all still vivid in my mind, I'm writing all this because I realize that every US citizen under the age of 53, was not even born then.  Even though they may have heard about the Pentagon Papers, most are probably have a very fuzzy understanding of the significance.  I know that was my experience of current events that took place in recent history but before I was born. I'm just summarizing some highlights.  You can read more at Wikipedia.  Their article starts with the contents of the Papers.  You have to scroll down to learn about the politics of publishing them in the newspapers.  

Ellsberg copied the Pentagon Papers.  In those days you generally had to copy page by page.  He took them to Kissinger (who he knew) and to  key Members of Congress, but didn't get the support he needed.  Then he went to the New York Times and shared them.  The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13.

The Nixon Administration tried to stop the publication by the Times with an injunction.  The Washington Post then began to publish the documents.  Also, Alaska US Senator Mike Gravel placed the full Pentagon Papers into the public record.

The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

— Justice Black[56]"  [Wikipedia]

Unfortunately the court's decision doesn't appear to be a compelling value to the owners who quashed the endorsements in their papers.  

[Another interesting comparison to today: the Times published the first piece on June 13.  The US Supreme Court announced its decision on June 30!]

Ellsberg was personally charged but was not found guilty.  

I offer you this because this week the owners of both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post overruled their editorial boards' decisions to endorse Kamala Harris for president.  There have been resignations by editors of both papers over this.  

We can speculate why the owners took these actions.

The MSNBC headline was:

"The Billionaire Owners of the Washington Post and LA Times Just Capitulated to Trump"

NPR's headline didn't attribute a motive to the Washington Post's decision, 

"Washington Post' won't endorse in White House race for first time since 1980s"

but quoted former Washington Post former Executive Editor Martin Baron:  

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

This is, of course, why I have included the story of the Pentagon Papers.  This is a far different action this week by  the owner of the Washington Post than we saw from Katherine Graham, the owner of the Post in 1971.  

Jeff Bezos, of course, is the owner of Amazon and one of the richest men in the world.  

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a billionaire doctor who got rich based on medical technology he developed.  His parents fled China during the Japanese occupation in WW II and Soon-Shiong was born in South Africa in 1952.  I don't know exactly what his situation was, but here's a description of the status of Chinese in South Africa in Wikipedia:

"In 1966 the South African Institute of Race Relations described the negative effects of apartheid legislation on the Chinese community and the resulting brain drain:

No group is treated so inconsistently under South Africa's race legislation. Under the Immorality Act they are Non-White. The Group Areas Act says they are Coloured, subsection Chinese ... They are frequently mistaken for Japanese in public and have generally used White buses, hotels, cinemas and restaurants. But in Pretoria, only the consul-general's staff may use White buses .. Their future appears insecure and unstable. Because of past and present misery under South African laws, and what seems like more to come in the future, many Chinese are emigrating. Like many Coloured people who are leaving the country, they seem to favour Canada. Through humiliation and statutory discrimination South Africa is frustrating and alienating what should be a prized community.[5]: 389–390"

One would think that both Bezos and Soon-Shiong are rich and powerful enough to be able to stand up to Trump.  But I'm guessing they both have goals and ambitions about what they still want to do with their companies.  And they have put these ambitions above risking the possibility of retribution from Trump if he gets elected.  

And I'm guessing Soon-Shiong, while treated as a non-white in South Africa, also took some solace that he wasn't treated as Black.  It would be interesting to know how he felt when Nelson Mandela was freed from prison and eventually became the president of South Africa and won a Nobel Prize.  

His behavior in this matter suggests those events didn't really register with him positively.  He's certainly now showing Mandela's courage in fighting an authoritarian government.

This post is long enough.  I wanted to also talk about Vaclav Havel's essay, "The Power of the Powerless" which is highly relevant to the actions of actions of these two wealthy newspaper owners.  I'll do that in another post.  For those who want to get ahead, here's a link to the essay.  It's very good.

Here's the link to the follow up post on Havel's essay.

Cancelling the LA Times subscription was a clear choice, though not an easy one.  I grew up in LA and when my mother died, I inherited the house that I lived in from 6th grade through the beginning of college.  It's the house my mother lived in for 65 years, that we visited often, and that my children spent time when they visited their grandmother.  In addition to getting reasonably good news coverage, I also got local news that was relevant to owning a house there and visiting.  

But various social media folk have suggested other newspapers to switch to and I'll look into that.  Though I won't get  the local LA and California news.  I'd note that when you cancel, you get a list of one or two word reasons to let them know why you cancelled.  The best I could do was 'editorial policy' or something like that.  Leaving comments elsewhere limits you to very few words.  

[UPDATE Sunday November 3]

From an October 25, 2024  article in the LA Times, we learn what Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner, said about the decision not to endorse anyone for president, even though the editorial board was about to endorse Harris:

“'I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,' he said in an interview with The Times on Friday afternoon. 'The process was [to decide]: how do we actually best inform our readers? And there could be nobody better than us who try to sift the facts from fiction' while leaving it to readers to make their own final decision."

Today's LA Times editorial page seems to belie that policy.  Instead of "leaving it to readers to make their own decisions," the LA Times has a long list of ballot measures and candidates they endorse for other offices from local and state to federal.    

"Election 2024

The Times’ electoral endorsements for Nov. 5

STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES

Proposition 2: Yes

Proposition 3: Yes

Proposition 4: Yes

Proposition 5: Yes

Proposition 6: Yes

Proposition 32: Yes

Proposition 33: No

Proposition 34: No

Proposition 35: No

Proposition 36: No

LOS ANGELES CITY

City Council District 2: Adrin Nazarian

City Council District 10: Heather Hutt

City Council District 14: Ysabel Jurado

Charter Amendment DD: Yes

Charter Amendment LL: Yes

Charter Amendment HH: Yes

Charter Amendment II: Yes

Charter Amendment ER: Yes

Charter Amendment FF: No

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

District attorney: George Gascón

Measure A: Yes

Measure E: Yes

Measure G: Yes

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Seat 1: Andra Hoffman

Seat 3: David Vela

Seat 5: Nichelle Henderson

Seat 7: Kelsey Iino

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

District 1: Sherlett Hendy Newbill

District 3: Scott Schmerelson

District 5: Karla Griego

Measure US: Yes

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

Office No. 39: Steve Napolitano

Office No. 48: Ericka J. Wiley

Office No. 97: Sharon Ransom

Office No. 135: Steven Yee Mac

Office No. 137: Tracey M. Blount

STATE LEGISLATURE

Assembly District 52: Jessica Caloza

Assembly District 54: Mark Gonzalez

Assembly District 57: Sade Elhawary

Senate District 35: Michelle Chambers

U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE

U.S. Senate: Adam B. Schiff

27th Congressional District: George Whitesides

30th Congressional District: Laura Friedman

45th Congressional District: Derek Tran

47th Congressional District: Dave Min

Read the full endorsements online at latimes.com/opinion."

Farrago Follow Up - What Will Trump Do?

The previous post, Farrago, meandered into the power struggles in the US and the assault on science in favor of fantastic explanations of things.  [I prefer 'fantastic explanations' to 'conspiracy theories' because there are in fact conspiracies and people who pursue real conspiracies - like the Federalist Societies 40 year plan to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rule their way - aren't always 'crackpots.'] 

Reader Jacob left a lengthy comment which you can see there.    Rather than answer it there, I've decided to answer it in a new post.  

Well, since I know many of you won't go back to see what he wrote, I've decided to put it here again.

"Jakob in IrelandSunday, October 6, 2024 at 5:07:00 AM AKDT

Hi Steve. Just a thought from across the pond...

When you started your enquiry last year asking HOW we got to this point (of finding more & more people believing the unproven in so many things around us) you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels. 

I felt, and still do, that you do have the view of someone from the world of questions, of successfully negotiating the discipline of the academic reasoning & rewards. I also acknowledge that you (graciously) agreed that talent isn't limited to intellectual gifts, but also those of the 'multiple intelligences' view of human ability & talents.

So with all that, we plunged (as so many did then) into just HOW we could be at this political junction of PRO and CON re what we thought to be ‘dictator-in-waiting’ Donald Trump. We didn't succeed in pinning the tail-on-that-donkey, did we?

So today, I’m wiping my slate clean: I’m with many, if not most here, asking this question: Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?

Given these past years of many quick checks and deep dives with so-many streams of thought & analysis, I have honed my own little thought for this presidential election in America, if anyone wishes to consider it. Mr Trump’s preparation is laid, his goal easy to know. He only awaits the day in which his blow will be struck.

Mr. Trump’s seizure of the presidency (at precious cost to a Republic) can be affirmed by his Supreme Court and a Congress with too-narrow mandate to intervene in a politically effective way. But most importantly, far too many Americans have ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’.

I am nearly 18 years from living in the USA now; I am also a person born to its promise & culture, to its history & dreams. I moved countries to know other histories, other ways of seeing law, culture & dreams. I can admit my shock to see so many Americans willing to surrender rule-of-law to a man of autocratic instincts, hoping his constitutional betrayal will deliver their aspirations. I have told European friends (here) that Americans have bedrock faith in their Constitution and its rule-of-law standards. It will win out.

Now I suspect I held a child’s faith: Too many Americans are faith-weary. So many flock to a ‘strong man’ promising his so-sweet nothing, “I’ll take back control for you.”

I am sorry to say that I am relieved to live where I do, where so very many here are asking, “What is happening to the USA?”"

Here's my response.  

Jacob,  

Lots of questions rolled up into the reply.  And lots of answers too.  

First, your comment “you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels.”  I suspect that reflects more what you hear than what I’ve said over the years.  I have indeed argued that good education does train students to think logically and critically (among other things.)  That could start happening in elementary school and be honed further in middle and high school in a good school with good teachers.  At good schools the attentive students graduate with varying levels of those skills.  And I've acknowledged that a rigorous logical, left brain, education is the best way to start all kids.  But I would add that all kids should be given the space to work on something that interests them, and a good school would then use their areas of interest, to cultivate logical reasoning in a context that makes sense to each kid.  

As students go deeper into those topics at the university level, they can improve on those skills.  Statistics that show college educated voters tend (note ‘tend’) to lean more Democratic than people with fewer years of education.  

“The last few election cycles have been marked by an increasing divergence in outcomes based on education levels, with Democrats making serious gains with college-educated voters while Republicans win far greater shares of non-college educated white voters.” from Politico  

But you don’t have to get those skills only in school.  People who are different in some significant way from the ‘average’ - different religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. - often grow up in at least two different worlds: 1) their family and group world and 2) the larger white world that has traditionally ruled the US.  And for those with non-conforming gender identity, they can be in a different reality from their family.  

The dissonance between how these citizens who experience one reality at home and a different reality at school often gives them a leg up on seeing the big picture, on seeing there isn't just one reality.  

And there are lots of others who get the dissonance even if they don’t go to college.  And there are many college graduates who got by without learning how to think critically.  Or who can, but have blind spots where they can’t apply those skills.  Or they apply them in a twisted way.  Like logically justifying white nationalism or misogyny based on odd facts and premises.    

Getting back on track

Hoping people would come to their political senses when they were given the facts was not something I held out much hope for, though it’s my natural flex.  I used to tell students writing reports for actual administrators that emotions always trump reason if there’s a conflict between the two.  So they needed to know their clients’ values so they could write their reports not so it made sense only to the student, but also to the client.  

I did hold out hope that enough US voters would choose the Democratic candidate over Trump.  That isn’t unreasonable since that happened in 2016 and 2020.  Though the way the electoral college works, that’s not enough.  Harris has to win big so the GOP can’t fight with any credibility over crumbs in swing states.  And can’t plausibly argue that Trump won.  Of course there will always be those who deny reality as the 2020 election has shown.

Now to your first question, which you essentially answered yourself affirmatively.  

"Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?"

I agree that he does plan to challenge the election no matter what.  All the talk of rigging elections is meant to get people ready for such a challenge. The bigger the margin of victory the harder that will be.  The many lawyers and others who have been fighting Trump’s original challenges in 2020 are well versed in his strategy and paying close attention to new ones.  

And this time round, Biden is in charge of the military and national guard and other levers of power that will be much better prepared than in 2021 post election.  

And the people he has working for him are skilled administrators - as we can see in the preparations for Helene and the coordinated efforts after the storm hit, getting inflation down, implementing the Infrastructure bill, etc.  

Will Trump supporters, those who believe all his lies, come out with weapons and raise hell?  Possible.  Even likely in some places.  

One other point I’d like to make concerning reason and non-reason.  It’s clearer and clearer that Putin and Iran and North Korea have all been using the internet to stir up conflict in the US (not to mention in UK and France and other parts of the world.).  We know about it explicitly in 2016.  It's been noted in every election since.  It’s likely they were at it earlier during the time they were grooming Trump as an asset.  They played a role in Brexit.   They’re at it over Gaza and Israel.  Taking down democracies strengthens their message to their own people that democracy is inherently unstable and bad.  It also makes their aggression much easier.  

Playing on people’s fears - of immigrants, of crime, of economic disaster - is always going to capture a certain number of people.  Trump’s non-stop lies, amplified by Fox, and main stream media,  is a well planned strategy to make it impossible to tell truth from fiction.  Everything Trump says is projection of his own actions onto his opponents.  With AI and hard to spot fake video, the ability to tell truth from lies gets harder.  All traditional authorities are challenged - scientists, universities, doctors, teachers, anyone who ‘can prove’ something with more than sweeping declarations of how things are, are targets.  The Right’s attack on public education is part of that package.  They want to get public money funneled to private schools that they can control.  

It’s ironic that until Reagan began attacking government, it was usually the Left that challenged government and the Right that defended it.  

Trump has good reason to fight for power, even after he loses.  If there is a Harris administration he will be on trial still and very likely sentenced to prison. At which point I wouldn’t be surprised if he fled to Cuba or another Russian ally.  Or Saudi Arabia.  

When he’s gone this isn’t over.  Our authoritarian enemies will continue to do what they can to weaken the West.  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society will continue to fight for the power of the rich white elite to control the country.  

Fortunately their perfect candidate is also a huge liability.  Republicans’ eagerness to exercise their post Roe power at the state level has alerted and alarmed sensible voters.  And their demands for abject loyalty has resulted in less than stellar candidates in down ballot races - like North Carolina’s Mark Robinson, candidate for Governor.  

We’ll know in a month how the election goes, and then we’ll have to wait and see how the post election goes.  

You may well have made a good decision when you established yourselves in Northern Ireland.  But if the US goes down, no one is safe.   

Some Much Needed Civil Service History

From the August 31, 2024 LA Times: [Note the digital and facsimile editions have different titles.]

 

As someone who taught public administration at the graduate level, I'm well aware of the lack of knowledge of what 'the civil service' is.  So let me give you some background.  

Before the civil service was created in local, state, and federal governments, we had what is often called "the spoils system."

Briefly, 'to the victor, go the spoils.'  Winning candidates gave jobs to the campaign supporters.  This was the payoff for working on a campaign.  Qualifications were not nearly as important as loyalty.  This included positions as low as garbage collector and as high was head of the budget.  

Aside from the incompetence and corruption this led to, it also meant that whenever someone from a different party won, the whole government was thrown out and new people were put in place.  And had to learn from scratch, generally without any help from the fired former workers.

Political machines, like Tammany Hall in New York, would recruit new immigrants coming off the ships to work on their campaigns with the promise of a job if they won.  [US citizenship was not required to vote back then.  That changed later.  The Constitution gave the states the power to run elections and decide qualifications to vote.  The Constitution didn't ban women from voting, the states did.]

At the national level, this came to a head when Andrew Jackson was elected president and invited 'the riffraff' that elected him to the White House in 1830.  But it wasn't until a disgruntled office seeker assassinated President Garfield in 1881 because he didn't get the position he sought, that Congress got serious. 

In 1883 they passed the Pendleton Act that set up a civil service system based on merit.  

Merit, as in the 'merit system' means that positions are filled based on merit, or on one's qualifications for the job, not who you know.  

Local governments in New York and Boston didn't move to merit systems until the early 20th Century.  

Those merit systems weren't perfect.  The inherent biases of the day meant that women and Blacks weren't qualified except for what Trump would call 'women's jobs' and 'Black jobs.'  

And even today, the top level jobs in most governments are still filled with people who are loyal to the head of the government - whether that's a mayor, governor, or president.   Not only does that include cabinet officials but a top layer of 'exempt' positions.  Exempt meaning they are not covered by the merit system.  They can be hired and fired at will.  Usually the newly elected official picks people based on their loyalty to his policy as well as his professional qualifications to do the job.  But clearly that second part doesn't always happen.  The only check on this, is a required vote of approval by a legislative body - the US or state Senate, a City Council.  But if the newly elected executive  has a majority in the legislative branch too, that approval is often pro forma.

People hired through a merit system process also have job protections.  They cannot be fired except for cause - for violating the law, the policies or procedures, for gross incompetence etc.  Whereas the appointed (exempt) positions don't have such protections.  

After his 2016 election, Trump was frequently frustrated by career civil servants, who didn't jump to follow his often illegal instructions. The media have dubbed these people (who included many appointed positions as well) 'the guardrails' that kept Trump somewhat in line. He wanted the Justice Department to punish people who opposed him.  He did battle with the civil servants in various regulatory agencies who followed the law rather than Trump's illegal bidding.  

So, when we hear that Trump wants to destroy the civil service, as stated in the LA Times headline above, this is what we're talking about.  

He doesn't want a system that hires qualified people who cannot be fired except for cause.  (Again, for cause, means they have to do something that violates the laws, the rules, or is grossly incompetent or corrupt.)  He wants government workers that do his bidding without any resistance, without them telling him 'it's against the law.'

He wants to fire all those people who were hired based on merit (their qualifications to perform the job).  These include Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan employees, and replace them with people whose main qualification is undying loyalty to Trump.  

That's pretty much all I want to say.

One of the very best books on this subject is Robert Caro's The Power Broker.  It's a biography of Robert Moses who played a major role in getting a merit system in place in New York.  It's a massive [1168 pages] book.  But it is also riveting as it goes into detail on how the idealist young Moses evolved into the powerful and corrupt power broker of New York. And in doing so tells the story of the civil service. Not only did the book win the Pulitzer Prize, it was also selected on most lists of the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th Century. I challenge you to read the first hundred pages and not want to turn the page.

Brian Taylor Cohen Interviews Heather Cox Richardson - Watch This!

This is an important interview by Brian Taylor Cohen, one of the brightest and most articulate commentators (I want to say on the air, and he does appear on cable news, but he's also a powerful presence on the internet via Twitter, YouTube, and other platforms) and Heather Cox Richardson, an important US historian who uses history to inform current events.  

A couple of points they make that jumped out at me. 

1. Taking Over World Money Supply. She talks about how Trump is 78 years old and not in great health, and could leave Vance in charge.  Vance is Thiel's pawn.  Peter Thiel is a 'tech bro' interested in crypto currency and this could lead to taking control over the world money supply.  

2. Whenever there is a new technology, and she lists mining, cotton, diamonds, copper, oil as examples, there are no regulations at first and a few people get very rich and powerful to the detriment of everyone else.

(#1 and #2 are intertwined starting around 5:45 to about 7:40)

3.  Trump's succeeded because his actions are so outrageous that people can't conceive he's being real.   They want to take away abortion, get rid of medicare, etc. people don't believe it.  They're planning that.  We need to take it seriously. (about 8:30 min)

4.  The Big Lie. If your roommate steals $20 you can get mad at him.  But if he schemes to take over your family's bank account, retirement funds, your family's  house, it's beyond comprehension.  Don't have emotional groundwork to get mad because it's too outrageous to imagine.  That's what Trump has done.  Of course the Supreme Court wouldn't give the President to commit crimes in office, but they did.(about 10:50)

5. History- Turning on a Dime - History taught me that American society can turn on a dime.  I've been waiting and it didn't happen.  But since Biden pulled out of race, the US has turned on a dime.  (about 17 min)

There's a lot in between that links each of the points together worth listening to.  

This video has two very bright people dissecting what's happening and where we seem to be going.  

At the end they push two of their books probably worth reading:

Richardson:  Democracy Awakening coming out in paperback in October

Cohen:  Shameless  How Republicans used long term plans to change the US, which we can see most clearly with the Supreme Court.  

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.  

New Speaker, Quick Show Of Bi-Partisanship, But Don't Hold Your Breath

 I try not to write about things getting saturation coverage if I don't think I have some insight no one else has shared.  Furthermore, I've been advised by people who care about me, not to put a target on my back by writing about Israel.  

But the House finally getting a speaker followed by an immediate, overwhelming bi-partisan vote to support Israel is too much to pass up.  [I began this Thursday evening.  Reviewing this draft on Friday, it's clear discussing Johnson AND Israel in one post, while an admirable goal since they are related, is beyond what I can expect any readers to endure.  So let's just focus in this post on Johnson's speech.] [Quotes are from the transcript at REV.com]

Johnson's speech

1.  The amount of time he spoke about religion and how he spoke about it is troubling, but given his background, not surprising.

"I want to thank my dedicated wife of almost 25 years, Kelly. She’s not here, we [is 'we' her preferred pronoun?] couldn’t get a flight in time. This happened sort of suddenly, but we’re going to celebrate soon. She spent the last couple of weeks on her knees in prayer to the Lord and she’s a little worn out, we all are."

Truly, I have no idea if he was being serious about her being literally on her knees in prayer for two weeks or he was just being metaphorical to make his point.  At the time of the speech, I took it literally.  Now I'm not so sure.  I suspect his fellow Baptists didn't even notice anything unusual in this phrasing.

Later in his speech he said, 

"I don’t believe there are any coincidences in a matter like this. I believe that scripture, the Bible is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you, all of us, and I believe that God has ordained and allowed each one of us to be brought here for this specific moment in this time."

Where to even start?  

A.  Given all the evil leaders the world has seen, this isn't much of a recommendation for God's choices.  But it would help explain why his wife might have been praying so fervently for two weeks - she was trying to get God to promote her husband.  

B.  And, of course, there's the oft pointed out contradiction between the professed beliefs of Christians and their support of the past president's thoroughly un-Christian behavior and life.  I know they would tell us "God works in mysterious ways" but that doesn't cut it for me.  Especially since those folks who display the most Christlike behavior - helping the poor, the outcasts, the strangers etc. -. are so roundly condemned by Evangelical Christians.  

A good portion of the rest of the speech also focused on God - how "In God We Trust" got engraved above the rostrum in the House chambers in 1964.  But that should be a reminder that before 1956, "E Pluribus Unum" was the unofficial motto of the US until "In God We Trust" was made the official motto, in the height of the McCarthy hearings and the demonization of the Communist Soviet Union.  These changes don't just happen on their own, but I couldn't quickly find much detail about who lobbied or who funded that lobbying, to make it happen.  But my point is that God wasn't that intimately part of our official national identity until about 150 years after the US' founding.  It wasn't with us from the beginning.  

2.  His apparent isolation from most United States citizens - isolated from other ideas about religion from his own and isolated from citizens who are not members of Congress. 

Sure, he's a member of Congress.  He talks to people who have different views from his, but despite that exposure, he seems either unaware that others might find his words jarring, or he simply believes he has an inside track on Truth and so he speaks what he thinks.  

Let's reintroduce his comment about his wife being on her knees for two weeks paying here.  

A.  While I understand there are probably millions of US citizens who might relate to this physical demonstration of one's belief in God's intervention in our daily lives, there are just as many of us, probably more,  for whom being on our knees praying for several weeks is not part of our life experience.   

I looked for specific data on this.  The Pew Trust has very detailed data on who prays daily, but it's too detailed for my purposes. I wanted something to compare religious believers who pray daily to others who never pray.  But going through the Pew charts,  I was a bit surprised to see that  Democrats pray daily almost as frequently (40%) as Republicans (42%).  That people who believe homosexuality should be accepted pray daily more (49%) than people who think it shouldn't (42%).  But I couldn't find methodology for that specific survey to find out how  'pray daily' was defined.  Was it left up to the respondents? Did it include a quick "Dear God, help me pass this test"?  Did it mean a daily prayer at dinner? A communal  ritual prayer in a synagogue, or at a Buddhist shrine, or five times a day facing Mecca, or in a church?  Or all of those things?  I couldn't find an answer.

B.  Another brief comment he made, that on the face of it, might seem benign or even a positive sign, was this: 

"I want to thank our children, Michael and Hannah and Abby and Jack and Will. All of our children sacrifice, all of them do and we know that and there’s not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress’ kid, right?"

I think thanking our children for the burdens we put on them is a very important thing to do regularly.  But when you have just become the head of one of the most powerful bodies of the US government (and thus the world)  and you're speaking to the nation, this is really an example of privilege and deafness to the rest of the population.  

"Not a lot of perks to being a member of Congress' kid."  I get it.  Their congressional parent is away a lot and always busy.  And if he were talking privately to other members of Congress, this would make sense.  But this was a speech to the world.

Lots of kids have parents who work long hours.  Have single parents.  Have no parents.  I imagine that Congress members' kids get a hell of a lot more perks than most kids get.  Especially in the current economy in the US where the divide between the very rich and everyone else has become so great.  Especially when conservatives are passing laws to require kids to bear the babies of their (often related) rapists. And when conservatives like Mike Johnson have tried to make being LGBTQ+ a crime.

That Johnson said this in a speech like this, tells me he doesn't understand how the vast majority of people in this country live. 

3.  On a more positive note, he also said this:  

"We stand at a very dangerous time, I’m stating the obvious. We all know that the world is in turmoil, but a strong America is good for the entire world. We are the beacon of freedom and we must preserve this grand experiment in self-governance. It still is. We’re only 247 years into this grand experiment. We don’t know how long it will last, but we do know that the founders told us to take good care of it."

At a time when many of us see the reelection of the former president as the end of US democracy, it's good to hear this.  But hearing it from the lips of an extreme conservative who voted against confirming Biden's election, and who has that ex-president's support, makes me question what he meant by this.  

A.  Does he define democracy the way I do?  He's a conservative Christian, former state legislature, from a state whose legislature was told to fix their gerrymandered voting districts and they refused.  It took the US Supreme Court to compel the changes. [And double checking this now, I see that all the Congressional chaos, plus the Israeli-Hamas war, has pushed to the background new developments in the Lousiana gerrymandering case -  that just last week the 5th Circuit has delayed this action further.

Does he have a different definition of democracy than I have?  Reports on his past statements tell us that belief in God is more important than the US Constitution. A Politico interview today reports: 

"Johnson has said that [David] Barton’s ideas and teachings have been extremely influential on him, and that is essentially rooting him in this longer tradition of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism essentially posits the idea that America is founded on God’s laws, and that the Constitution is a reflection of God’s laws. Therefore, any interpretation of the Constitution must align with Christian nationalists’ understanding of God’s laws. Freedom for them means freedom to obey God’s law, not freedom to do what you want. So really, Christian supremacy and a particular type of conservative Christianity is at the heart of Johnson’s understanding of the Constitution and an understanding of our government."

B.  Is this all a well rehearsed performance to appear to be the polite new leader who will welcome all to work through our issues?  Or is it just a cover for a far right religious radical who is now the leader of the US House of Representatives?  

I'm inclined to think it is just a cover.  But while Johnson has managed to keep out of the spotlight up until now, all the world's spotlights are shining brightly on him.  And the internet means everything he's ever publicly said in the past will be blown up and examined in detail.  It's already begun.  

And if the Republicans had a rare show of unity Wednesday when they elected Johnson to be Speaker, is it going to last?  The rules that allowed one member to call for ousting the Speaker are still in place.   One objector with four other GOP supporters could overthrow Johnson the way Gaetz overthrew McCarthy.  But for the moment the GOP house thugs appear happy with Johnson.  

The Democrats will clearly make Johnson a poster boy when they campaign to put Democrats back in the majority of the House of Representatives.   

Overall his speech, was just under 20 minutes and you can watch and listen to it here.