Skip navigation

Category Archives: Trumpedation


DAN RATHER AND TEAM STEADYJAN 23

Here it is January 2024, and we find ourselves reminded anew that we are in a difficult, dangerous, and deepening political reality. As the first primary ballots are being cast in New Hampshire, the country is forced again to face the fact that one man has fundamentally changed us. Simply stated, it’s as sobering and unsettling as that. 

He has changed what was until recently considered unacceptable behavior for our leaders. He has normalized bigotry, misogyny, racism, ageism, ableism, sexism.

He has changed our relationships with facts. Now there are phony “alternative facts.” And, lest we forget, wave after wave of outright lies. Scientific truths are scoffed at if they don’t fit his extremist narrative. Rational discourse is a thing of the past, because how can you argue with someone who, in effect, refuses to accept that two plus two makes four.

He has changed the lives of every woman in America whose bodily autonomy has been severely curtailed by a Supreme Court he stacked with anti-choice jurists.

He has changed how we show our discontent, unleashing long-held furies and granting permission to behave badly. Because he does. Can you imagine any other president heavily encouraging, if not outright creating, the January 6 insurrection — and then praising those who stormed the Capitol? 

He has changed how we socialize in public places. If politics comes up in conversation, we’re more often inclined to speak softly, if at all, and glance around to make sure we aren’t overheard. Not because we are ashamed of our views, but because we are concerned for our safety.

He has changed the lives of millions who lost loved ones to COVID-19 (400,000 American deaths by the time he left office) because he a) didn’t act to stem the rise of the virus and b) actively made things worse.

He has changed how we interact with family members. We now have to remember which uncle or cousin is a MAGA supporter and make sure to stay away from any topics other than weather and sports at Thanksgiving dinner or a 4th of July barbecue.

He has changed our ability to fight climate change by rolling back policies and bowing out of international agreements at a moment when we don’t have time to backtrack. 

He has changed how safe we feel driving in our cars. We hold the steering wheel just a little tighter when a giant pickup truck pulls up alongside us adorned with inflammatory bumper stickers. 

He has changed how we start relationships. We now have to find out where a new acquaintance falls on the political spectrum to make sure we align enough to even bother moving forward with a friendship.

He has changed how we educate our children, giving revisionists carte blanche to sanitize history and remove even dictionaries from school libraries.

He has changed where we feel comfortable living. He has divided us to such an extent that some feel compelled to move to other states because of the extreme politics he has fomented and the state laws passed in the wake of such severity. 

Why are we allowing this one man to remake us — as individuals and as a country? 

As we ponder that question, we remember that Republicans in New Hampshire are widely expected to vote today for this man to return to the White House.

Even if he is upset by Nikki Haley in New Hampshire, he will remain a heavy favorite for the nomination because he and those who support him are enthusiastic, organized, and focused.

For those who oppose Donald Trump? It will take all of their collective efforts to make sure he doesn’t return to the Oval Office. 

I’m sure you have your own thoughts. Feel free to join in the respectful conversation below.



Texas governor pushes on immigration, caring little about the law or the people he hurts in the name of politics

By BRIAN KAREM\

Columnist

PUBLISHED JANUARY 22, 2024 5:45AM (EST

To rule is easy, to govern difficult.

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

At the end of the day, you have to wonder if Texans are comfortable being a part of the United States.

I’m not just talking about the Dallas Cowboys, who have choked so often in the NFL playoffs that they need the Heimlich maneuver when they step on the field, particularly at home against the Green Bay Packers. I mean, in general, you have to question it.

Governor “Hey, Abbott!” – with apologies to Lou Costello – Greg Abbott is certainly among those who think that Texas is still its own country. He has stood stupidly defiant against the federal government for the last few months on the issue of Southern border security and kept the Border Patrol from doing its job while claiming the state of Texas has the right to defend its “sovereignty.”  

Abbott’s “Operation Lone Star” has bused more than 35,000 immigrants to Washington, D.C, New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver and Los Angeles since April of 2022. He claims that the operation “continues to fill the dangerous gaps created by the Biden administration’s refusal to secure the border.” More on that in a moment.

Now Abbott seems to be making the case for going it alone again in the Lone Star state.

Two of my sons were born in Texas, and I am often reminded that anyone can become an American, but you have to be born a Texan. I used to think that was cute and funny – like the businessman I knew in the early 90s whose wife went into premature labor while they were visiting New York. He had a San Antonio neighbor overnight him 10 pounds of dirt from his backyard that he then placed into a container, so when his son was born he could legitimately say his son’s ass first touched Texas soil. Turns out, what I find cute and funny is deadly serious in Texas. They take their state pride seriously – even if there are (or once were) a sizable number of people in Texas who don’t support much of the lunacy from the state’s Republican Party. When it comes to Texas, they still fully believe they live in their own country. 

As recently as December, Newsweek reported on a strong separatist movement in the Lone Star state. The Texas Nationalist Movement, an organization that supports Texas’ independence from the U.S., warned the GOP they have enough signatures to force a vote on the question of whether Texans support secession. Texas nationalists have for years pushed for a referendum on Texas secession, despite the fact there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution for a state to do so. Of course, that hasn’t kept the wildly independent Texans from doing whatever they want. The state first seceded from Mexico in 1836 and spent nine years as its own nation (remember the Alamo!) before it became the 28th U.S. state on Dec. 29, 1845. Texas also seceded from the U.S. in 1861 before being readmitted following the end of the Civil War.

Now Abbott seems to be making the case for going it alone again in the Lone Star state. There’s little practical chance of that, however. The federal government owns and operates 15 military bases in the state with an economic impact of more than $100 billion. San Antonio alone has four bases, with others being scattered from Corpus Christi to El Paso, and other points north and south throughout the state.

Still, it’s a touchy subject for Abbott. I tried all this week to get someone to speak to the issue in the governor’s office. My emails were ignored and when I finally reached someone by phone in Abbott’s press office, they hung up on me. Nothing like transparency in Texas. But, this isn’t unusual, I once got thrown out of the Texas Senate for asking a senator to move so my station’s news photographer could get a better shot. Texans can be arrogant and ignorant – and in government they are often that way all the time. 

The Biden administration is deeply frustrated with Abbott’s moves – and while he continues to play politics with a very serious issue, the federal government – including the U.S. Border Patrol which is far from a bastion of liberals – has tried to get Abbott and Texas to see reason. The general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security recently sent state officials a letter, portions of which read, “Texas’s actions are clearly unconstitutional and are actively disrupting the federal government’s operations. We demand that Texas cease and desist its efforts to block Border Patrol’s access in and around the Shelby Park area and remove all barriers to access in the Shelby Park area,” of Eagle Pass.

DHS gave Texas until January 17 to “cease and desist” its efforts to block the Border Patrol’s access to the park and to remove all barriers to access to the U.S. – Mexico border before referring the matter to the Department of Justice “for appropriate action and (to) consider all other options available to restore Border Patrol’s access to the Border.”

Sounds ominous, but what other options are there? Abbott certainly doesn’t think the Border Patrol will fire upon Texas law enforcement working the border, does he? No rational human being thinks so. That would be disastrous, and yet, we are still at a tipping point in Texas. God only knows what the lunatics may do – and there are plenty of gun-happy lunatics in Texas.

During the 80s I was assigned to cover a story when members of the KKK showed up on the border after President Reagan claimed godless Sandinistas were just a two-hour plane ride away from our southern border. There were many guns on the border on that day. And Texans, of course, love to take matters into their own hands. There’s a long history of that.

As the current drama in Texas was playing out, The Hill reported, “The House on Wednesday approved a resolution condemning the Biden administration’s border and immigration policies, a move by GOP lawmakers to maintain pressure on the politically polarizing issue in the weeks ahead. The legislation pins the blame on President Biden’s “open-border policies”, highlighting the stark partisanship behind immigration and border policy. It passed 225-187, with 14 Democrats voting in favor.”

The Biden administration has angrily accused the GOP of duplicity, noting that Biden has proposed reforms to immigration that include hiring more Border Patrol agents, but the GOP has refused to take up the issue. Of course, it’s hard to get the GOP to do anything in Congress – they can barely pass legislation for funding the government.

On Wednesday, Biden met with members of Congress to talk about additional funding for Ukraine – something GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson said is linked to immigration reform. After the meeting, Biden was asked – as he walked to Marine One on the South Lawn  – what the sticking points were on immigration reform. Biden said, “I don’t think we have any sticking points left.”

When Johnson and other members of Congress came out to the sticks on the North Lawn to talk to reporters, Johnson shut the door on “comprehensive immigration reform,” telling reporters, “I don’t think now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform, because we know how complicated that is.”

Of course, there won’t be reform – it would ruin the GOP’s chances to run on that issue if they solved the problem. This is a true do-nothing Congress. The GOP doesn’t want to solve problems – it wants to blame Democrats for problems in order to get elected. 

You’ve got a better chance of the Dallas Cowboys winning the Superbowl than finding any common sense in Congress as Republicans continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth. While Johnson said there obviously won’t be any long term reform he also said, “We must insist that the border be the top priority. I think we have some consensus around the table. Everyone understands the urgency of that.” Try to wrap your mind around that lack of logic.

Senator Chuck Schumer saw things differently. He told reporters, “We also talked about the border and how it’s so important to deal with the border. The President himself said over and over again that he is willing to move forward on the border. And so we said we have to do both. There were a couple of people in the room that said let’s do the border first. We said we have to do both together.”

The response in Texas?

Texas authorities arrested migrants at Shelby Park in Eagle Pass, Texas, late Wednesday evening and charged them with criminal trespassing, marking the first arrests of migrants since the state took control of the area at the US-Mexico border last week, an official said. In response to the federal government’s cease-and-desist letter, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton admitted that Border Patrol has “warrantless access to land within 25 miles of the border, but only ‘for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States.’”

Texas is inching closer to a confrontation and a clash that can never occur and both sides do not want to recognize the root cause of the problem: American politics.

Illegal immigration has been a problem for nearly half a century because of the Mexican oil economy crash in the 70s as well as the US demand for cheap labor and cheap drugs. In the 1980s the US, during the Reagan administration, made some steps toward solving the problem, but there has been nothing done since then by both political parties. The truth is Big Business wants and demands cheap labor – as do most Americans. No one wants to pay $10 for a tomato, and the demand for cocaine, heroin and even fentanyl remains huge, so Big Business holds up a welcome sign while politicians act disingenuously about solving a problem they all had a part in creating. 

Thus, Abbott is willing and able to use the poor and downtrodden to skewer Democrats by saying immigrants are lazy and living off of the welfare state, while at the same time claiming they take all of the jobs. The Christian Republicans scream the loudest about this – ignoring the teachings of the Jesus they claim to worship and ignoring the fact that the nation was built by immigrants – or as Bill Murray reminded us in Stripes, “We’re Americans, with a capital ‘A’, huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We’re the underdog. We’re mutts!” And those that weren’t immigrants were brought here as slaves, but that’s another issue.

American hypocrisy has never been so evident as in how we deal with new arrivals to our shores.

Protect our borders from caravans of foreign illegal immigrants? When Native American tribes tried to stem the tide of illegal immigration it didn’t go so well – and it won’t go well for us now either.

Friday, top U.S. and Mexican officials met in Washington to discuss strengthening cooperation and continuity in addressing the migration issues at the U.S.-Mexico border. This occurred as several Border Patrol sectors on the Southern Border, including Tucson and parts of Texas are reporting a decline in illegal immigration during the last few weeks. The decline is widely attributed to Mexican government efforts, and while the Biden administration wasn’t promising anything concrete from the Friday meetings, they were “cautiously optimistic,” that things will continue to get better on the border.

“That’s the irony of the Texas situation,” a Biden official told me on background. “They’re doing this when the numbers are relatively low.”

This matters little in the world of politics today. 

Maybe at the end of the day, the federal government ought to send in Matt LeFleur and the Green Bay Packers. Governor Abbott wouldn’t stand a chance. Like the Dallas Cowboys, he’s all hat and no cattle!


DAN RATHER AND TEAM STEADY JAN 18
 
 
 

Right after his victory in Iowa, where he received 53% of the evangelical and born-again Christian vote, Donald Trump traveled to New York to plead his case — literally. He was in federal court today, where he’ll soon find out how much he’ll have to pay for defaming a woman he’s also been found liable for sexually abusing. You may want to think about that for a moment. And let us remember it’s only January. There are more trials to come starring the leading GOP presidential candidate.

Here’s the quick backstory: Trump has already been found to have sexually abused and defamed columnist E. Jean Carroll. The jury in this current trial is only determining how much Trump will pay in compensatory and punitive damages. The contentious day in court — the judge threatened to toss Trump from the courtroom for his antics — is in sharp contrast to the warm and fuzzy reception he received from Iowa’s Republicans, especially the state’s evangelicals.

It is no secret that Donald Trump is the political choice of white evangelical Christians, albeit a counterintuitive one. He is a three-times married, twice divorced, admitted sexual abuser who is mired in six civil and criminal cases either in court now or headed for trial this year. Not exactly the picture of morality. But to the modern evangelical, that doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

Why this is true remains for many an open question.

Once upon a time, evangelicals believed in the teachings of Jesus Christ, in the moral imperative of helping one’s neighbors, of being a “compassionate conservative.” But we are living in an up-is-down, black-is-white world in which a man who admitted to grabbing women by their genitalia is embraced by one of the largest religious groups in the United States. What accounts for this dichotomy? What accounts for the growth of Trump’s popularity among this group? According to Ruth Graham and Charles Homans of The New York Times, “Today, [EVANGELICAL] is often used to describe a cultural and political identity: one in which Christians are considered a persecuted minority, traditional institutions are viewed skeptically and Mr. Trump looms large.” 

They care more about opposing abortion and curtailing LGBTQ+ and minority rights than about the teachings of their savior — the original one. Many see Trump as a modern savior, “rescuing” the country from Democrats, drag queens, and immigrants. Inexplicably, they do see him as a person of faith, more so than any other politician. In a November poll of Republican voters by HarrisX, Trump ranked highest as a person of faith at 64%, higher than profoundly religious former Vice President Mike Pence (56%), higher than Mormon leader Senator Mitt Romney (34%), and significantly higher than weekly church-going Catholic President Joe Biden (13%). 

It may not be surprising that the number of evangelicals who regularly attend church has dropped; 40% go to church once a year or less. But that’s against a backdrop of church attendance generally declining among Americans and in Western civilization as a whole. 

A group of Trump supporters recently produced a video called “God Made Trump” in which he is depicted as the second coming. It has quickly made its way around the MAGA-sphere. 

Perhaps it was Romney who best put this all in perspective. “I think a lot of people in this country are out of touch with reality and will accept anything Donald Trump tells them,” Romney told CNN. “You had a jury that said that Donald Trump raped a woman. And that doesn’t seem to be moving the needle. There’s a lot of things about today’s electorate that I have a hard time understanding.”

So it is with many Americans as we ponder in this election year what our country has become, where it appears to be headed, and why.  

As always, we welcome your comments and thoughts.


The Steady newsletter is supported by the Steady community. Please consider subscribing if you aren’t already a member.


Jennifer Bendery

Huffpost

Tue, January 9, 2024 at 7:27 PM CST·2 min read

3.7k

Donald Trump is fueling a lie on social media that Nikki Haley isn’t eligible to be president because she’s not a natural-born U.S. citizen ― the same lie he spread about former President Barack Obama, Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas.).

It’s almost as if there is something ― something! ― about all of these people who happen to be not white and who happen to have immigrant parents that makes Trump wonder if they are real Americans. What could it be!

In Haley’s case, Trump on Monday posted a screenshot to his Truth Social account of a false story claiming that his Republican presidential opponent is disqualified from being president or vice president because “reports indicate that her parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth in 1972.”

That story, published by the far-right website, The Gateway Pundit, and shared by Trump to his 5.5 million Truth Social followers, is as ugly as it is nonsensical. Haley was born in South Carolina. She is a natural-born U.S. citizen. She is eligible to be president.

Donald Trump is fueling a lie on social media that Nikki Haley is not eligible to be president.

But just like he did to Obama, Harris and Cruz when they were his primary political opponents, Trump pushing the racist idea that because Haley has immigrant parents (her parents are from India), she must not be a real American and is therefore disqualified from running for president.

Trump aggressively spread this lie about Obama, for years, fueling wild conspiracy theories about Obama being born in Kenya instead of Hawaii, where he was actually born. Trump routinely demanded that Obama release his full birth certificate to prove where he was born, and when Obama actually did, Trump questioned its authenticity.

After five years of doing this, Trump abruptly reversed course in September 2016, admitting that Obama was born in the United States and moving on as if nothing had happened.

In August 2020, Trump tried the same attacks on Harris. A Trump campaign spokesperson questioned Harris’ citizenship in an interview with ABC News, and later that day, Trump said that Harris possibly “doesn’t meet the requirements” to serve as vice president.

Harris was born in Oakland, California.

Trump also tried to claim that Cruz was disqualified from being president because he was born in Canada. During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, Trump repeatedly raised questions about Cruz’s qualifications. Cruz, whose mother was born in America and whose Cuban father was born in Canada, has long maintained that he qualifies as a natural-born citizen by virtue of being born abroad to a U.S. citizen.

Ironically, Trump may be the one who ends up disqualified from being president because he incited an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.


Alan Gomez

USA TODAY 2019

President Donald Trump’s decision to cut $450 million in foreign aid to three Central American countries – collectively known as the Northern Triangle – will end dozens of projects designed to bolster security, the economy, education and judicial systems.

The goal of the programs is to improve conditions in the countries so citizens don’t flee to the U.S. While Trump wants to cut the assistance, former officials say the programs are seeing results. For example:

In Honduras, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) officials have been working in local communities to reduce violence, contributing to a drop in the homicide rate every year between 2011 and 2018.

In El Salvador, where a struggling economy has pushed people to make the trek north, USAID helped small- and medium-sized businesses create more than 22,000 jobs between 2011 and 2016.

And in Guatemala, where the judicial system has been wrought with corruption and inefficiency, U.S. money has helped the government hire more judges and provided security for justice officials to protect them from cartels they are trying to prosecute. 

Trump said the aid cuts, and his threat to close the southern border entirely, will punish governments of those countries for failing to prevent people from fleeing.

Where does the money go?

James Nealon, a former U.S. ambassador to Honduras, said Trump’s explanation of foreign aid sounds as though “somebody tried to explain to him where the money goes and he just didn’t get it.”

Some U.S. money does go directly to government agencies, including grants to support police, border security agents and judicial employees in those countries. But Nealon, who resigned from the administration last year over policy disagreements, said most of the money goes to U.S. contractors, non-profit organizations, and other private groups under close supervision from USAID and the State Department.

Get the On Politics newsletter in your inbox.

Get in the conversation with political analysis, election news and breaking insights from our politics team.

Delivery: Mon – Thu

Your Email

Some supporters of Trump’s immigration policies are also questioning the decision to cut off foreign aid to Central America.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, said he doesn’t understand why the president would punish the governments of El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala when they cannot legally stop citizens from leaving.

Krikorian said he is skeptical that foreign aid cuts will change anything, and urged Trump to focus instead on pushing Congress to overhaul immigration laws to limit the ability of asylum-seekers to enter the United States.

“By focusing attention on Honduras and Guatemala and El Salvador, we’re distracting attention from the real culprits: Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer,” Krikorian said, referring to the Democratic House speaker and Senate minority leader.

Violence, poverty, hunger

El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have struggled for years with violence, poverty and insecurity.

El Salvador was recently dubbed the murder capital of the world. In Honduras, citizens are still protesting the contested 2017 election. Guatemala’s president has taken heat for trying to end a United Nations-backed anti-corruption commission that has successfully prosecuted corrupt officials.

All the while, the three countries are struggling with a historic drought that has put more than two million people at risk of food insecurity, according to the United Nations.

But a study published by Vanderbilt University said U.S. aid has helped improve conditions little by little.

The aid has paid for computer labs and job training for at-risk youths, grants for women entrepreneurs and programs to bring underground businesses into the legal economy. It has also funded community policing programs, the purchase of law enforcement equipment and training for police, judges and prosecutors.

Mexico border closing: Trump and US face logistical nightmare if he follows through with threats

Researchers at Vanderbilt’s Latin American Public Opinion Project surveyed 29,000 people living in five Central American countries, and found that those living in neighborhoods with U.S.-funded projects saw less violence. In those communities, 51% reported fewer murders and extortion attempts, 35% said they no longer avoided walking through dangerous areas and 25% said they saw a drop in drug sales. 

“It’s an extraordinarily rigorous study, and it’s very persuasive,” said Michael Clemens, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, who was not part of the report but has studied the reasons young people flee Central America for the United States. 

Rising migration

Trump sees things differently.

The combination of violence, poverty and food insecurity in Central America has driven record numbers of families to head north to seek U.S. asylum.

On Tuesday, State Department spokesman Robert Palladino said rising migration showed that U.S. aid was not working.

Border Patrol agents apprehended more than 36,000 members of family units in February – a record – and border communities are being overwhelmed trying to care for them. That figure has steadily increased in recent months, with Border Patrol officials predicting a further rise for March.

“The president has determined that these programs have not effectively prevented illegal immigration from coming to the United States, and they’ve not achieved the desired results,” Palladino said. “It’s not succeeded in stemming this flow.”

Still, Clemens said cutting off funding was misguided. He said the evidence, including the Vanderbilt study, shows that U.S. aid has led to gradual progress in living conditions in Central America.

“There is literally zero evidence that bludgeoning the (Central American) governments and long-time partners of those governments is somehow going to produce security in the region,” he said.


Donald Trump’s recent public proclamations, in which he presents himself as a godly figure and explicitly threatens to behave like a dictator if re-elected, have raised concerns among experts and observers.

Trump’s behavior is indicative of what experts call a “God complex”, a deep-seated belief in one’s own infallibility and superiority. This is a classic element of a cult and a key ingredient of why and how Trumpism works among his followers. In this context, the profane and the sacred are conflated in the same way as the Nazis did.

This isn’t the initial instance of Donald Trump asserting divine authority. Over the past seven years, Trump has consistently professed to possess clandestine and omnipotent wisdom, urging his supporters to have faith in him over facts, reality, or anyone else. He purports to hold knowledge beyond anyone else’s grasp, makes daring future forecasts akin to a mystic or psychic, and overall maintains a belief in his omnipotence, considering himself beyond the law and any form of accountability.

During a speech in Iowa last weekend, Trump told his MAGA cultists that, “But I think if you had a real election and Jesus came down and God came down and said, ‘I’m going to be the scorekeeper here,’ I think we’d win there [in California], I think we’d win in Illinois, and I think we’d win in New York.”

Trump’s “narcissistic injury” following his loss in the 2020 election to President Joe Biden has escalated into a more severe threat to American democracy, as per psychology experts. His recent remarks about targeting judges, pardoning the traitorous individuals from Jan. 6, and removing his ‘enemies’ are not novel concepts, but rather indicate that his veneer of decency and normality is eroding under the pressure of being answerable for his actions for the first time in his life.

“Mr. Trump is an obvious and severe sociopath, an antisocial person lacking the capacity for honesty, empathy or respect for the rule of law,” said an anonymous psychology expert, who added that Trump’s mental illness made him dangerous, especially as his legal problems grow worse.

As Trump faces mounting pressure from his criminal and civil trials, he is now publicly declaring himself as the Chosen One, chosen by “god” and “Jesus Christ” to be the next President of the United States. This marks a notable departure from his previous rhetoric and raises concerns about his mental state and the potential influence on his followers and the wider political landscape.

The implications of Trump’s behavior are far-reaching. His claims to be god-like are terrifying on their own but made much worse by the rapidly deteriorating democracy crisis. His endless self-centered drive for power at any cost makes him an extreme risk of discarding democracy in favor of his personal rule.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that Trump’s followers appear to be buying into his narrative. For them, Trump does not come from the normal political system, he comes from the world they come from, he’s been hugely successful, he’s enormously flawed, but who gives a damn, he’s chosen to turn the political system upside down and make it work for them.

As the country grapples with these developments, it is clear that the situation is fluid and evolving. The full impact of Trump’s rhetoric and behavior remains to be seen.


DAN RATHER AND ELLIOT KIRSCHNER
DEC 4    

Something important is happening in the conversation and coverage around the 2024 presidential campaign — and not a moment too soon. We’re hearing a lot more about the “D Word”: dictatorship.  Instead of only the usual fare one would expect six weeks before the Iowa caucuses — the latest polling, endorsement counting, comparisons of cash on hand — there is mounting attention to what a second Trump presidency would look like. He is, after all, running away with the race for the Republican presidential nomination. But that’s not all; what he is now proclaiming, proudly and publicly in speeches and online posts, would mean the end of American democracy. A system of checks and balances is built into our way of government by the Constitution. Let us see clearly that what Trump is promising is to demolish as much of that as he can — in short, a version of one-man rule. When Trump was first running for president, many journalists were loath to call his lies what they were — lies — because that word felt too loaded. But his tsunami of falsehoods changed that. Lies are, after all, lies. Similarly, there was a time when the press cast aside words like fascism, authoritarianism, and, yes, dictatorship, as hyperbole. Some are still reluctant to enumerate the danger so explicitly, but considering the violent coup attempt in the aftermath of Trump’s 2020 defeat and the vision he is promising if reelected, terrifying, formerly remote possibilities suddenly loom with greater likelihood. And it is imperative that they are articulated. Conservative scholar and Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, who left the Republican Party in 2016 over Donald Trump, recently wrote a must-read piece with a title that dispenses with subtlety: “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.” Kagan walks through all that we have seen since Trump first ran for president: the breaking of norms, the acquiescence of the Republican Party, Trump’s promise to prosecute his enemies, and his increasingly chilling rhetoric.  Kagan focuses on a moment from last month:  We caught a glimpse of his deep thirst for vengeance in his Veterans Day promise to “root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream.” Note the equation of himself with “America and the American Dream.” It is he they are trying to destroy, he believes, and as president, he will return the favor. And goes on to say: If eight years ago it seemed literally inconceivable that a man like Trump could be elected, that obstacle was cleared in 2016. If it then seemed unimaginable that an American president would try to remain in office after losing an election, that obstacle was cleared in 2020. And if no one could believe that Trump, having tried and failed to invalidate the election and stop the counting of electoral college votes, would nevertheless reemerge as the unchallenged leader of the Republican Party and its nominee again in 2024, well, we are about to see that obstacle cleared as well. In just a few years, we have gone from being relatively secure in our democracy to being a few short steps, and a matter of months, away from the possibility of dictatorship.  Kagan isn’t alone. Former Republican Representative Liz Cheney, who also broke with her party over Trump and was subsequently cast out, recently told CBS News, “One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.” There’s that “D Word” again.  Kagan’s and Cheney’s warnings were recently included as evidence of Trump’s authoritarian and fascist rhetoric in another Washington Post piece: “The fear of a looming Trump dictatorship.” Columnist Ishaan Tharoor, citing Post reporting, writes: As my colleagues have reported over the past year, Trump has made clear his stark, authoritarian vision for a potential second term. He would embark on a wholesale purge of the federal bureaucracy, weaponize the Justice Department to explicitly go after his political opponents (something he claims is being done to him), stack government agencies across the board with political appointees prescreened as ideological Trump loyalists, and dole out pardons to myriad officials and apparatchiks as incentives to do his bidding or stay loyal.  The New York Times published an article today with the understated headline, “Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First.” The article itself did not mince words: Mr. Trump’s violent and authoritarian rhetoric on the 2024 campaign trail has attracted growing alarm and comparisons to historical fascist dictators and contemporary populist strongmen. In recent weeks, he has dehumanized his adversaries as “vermin” who must be “rooted out,” declared that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country,” encouraged the shooting of shoplifters and suggested that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, deserved to be executed for treason. As he runs for president again facing four criminal prosecutions, Mr. Trump may seem more angry, desperate and dangerous to American-style democracy than in his first term. But the throughline that emerges is far more long-running: He has glorified political violence and spoken admiringly of autocrats for decades. The dangers are real, very real. And that’s why it is essential that they are called out, forcefully, consistently, and with a full accounting of what’s at stake. Trump cannot be treated as just another candidate for office. The challenges of the world, as complex, confounding, demoralizing, and difficult as they are, should not minimize the challenges we face to the very survival of American democratic governance.  Polls show Biden is vulnerable. Many Americans feel dissatisfaction over inflation, interest rates, and international affairs, such as the war in Gaza. There is concern over crime, immigration, and all the usual issues that dominate our elections. Those topics should be covered, and Biden and his administration should be held to account for their policies. But reporters should be fair and acknowledge how difficult these matters are.  Because Trump promises simplicity. He speaks in the equivalent of ALL CAPS. It’s boastful, empty rhetoric that rails against problems without offering any sense of how to fix them, other than his being allowed to rule the nation without constraint. We already know what that would mean. It was why he was rejected in 2020 and why the candidates he supported fared poorly in the 2018 and 2022 midterm elections.  A majority of Americans don’t want what Trump is promising. They don’t want a dictatorship. The more America understands the possibility of that grim prospect, the less of a chance that we will find ourselves confronting it. We should not minimize the threat, but we should also recognize that it can be defeated — and in a convincing way that would strengthen our nation after a dangerous era. That’s why it’s so important to call it what it is. And it is heartening to see that begin to happen. The Steady newsletter is supported by the Steady community. Please consider subscribing if you aren’t already a member.

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 13, 2023

On Friday, while the political world was focused on the federal indictment of a former president, the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee released their new tax plan.

Not two weeks after threatening to refuse to raise the debt ceiling because of their stated concerns over the nation’s mounting debt, Republicans are calling for tax cuts. The nonprofit public policy organization the Committee for a Responsible Budget estimates that over a decade those cuts will cost $80 billion as written and more than $1.1 trillion if made permanent. The frontloading in the measure, they estimate, will make it cost $320 billion by the end of 2025.

Meanwhile, the House Freedom Caucus is also demanding steeper cuts in spending than House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) agreed to in the budget deal he cut with President Joe Biden before agreeing to suspend the debt ceiling. The extremist Republicans have shut down House business for a week to protest what they considered a betrayal. But they cannot admit they want to cut Social Security and Medicare (although McCarthy has promised a commission to study such cuts).

Neither one of their measures will make it through the Senate. Even Republicans there are unhappy with the extremists’ attack on defense spending.

It feels like the end of an era. The idea that tax cuts and spending cuts will automatically expand the economy—the argument that Ronald Reagan rode to the White House in 1981—is no longer believable.

In the last week, two of the key architects of President Ronald Reagan’s administration have died. One was religious broadcaster and minister Pat Robertson, who ushered evangelicals into the Republican Party and blamed feminism, abortion, homosexuality, and “liberal” college professors for what he considered the decline of America.

The other was evangelical James G. Watt, Reagan’s first secretary of the interior. Watt embraced the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, a movement to privatize federal lands in the West or, barring that, to hand them to states to lease as they saw fit. Watt took the theme of privatization to Washington, D.C., where he reversed the government’s policy of protecting the environment and embraced the commercial exploitation of resources, opening nearly all of the nation’s coastal waters to drilling, for example, and easing regulations on strip mining.

Like Robertson, Watt believed he was a warrior in a crusade to save the United States from those who believed that the government should regulate business, provide a basic social safety net, promote infrastructure, and protect civil rights. “I never use the words Democrats and Republicans,” he often said, “It’s liberals and Americans.” He called environmentalists “a left wing cult which seeks to bring down the type of government I believe in.” “Compromise,” he added, “is not in my vocabulary.”

People like Robertson and Watt believed they were at war with those Americans of both parties who approved of the democratic system that had ushered the nation through the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War and had promoted greater economic, racial, and gender equality than the country had ever known before.

That battle to divide the American people along cultural lines in order to dismantle the federal government has, after forty years, led to a Republican Party that has embraced Christian nationalism, abandoning not only the policies of democracy but also democracy itself.

The conclusion of that movement is playing out now over the defense of former president Trump from charges that he committed crimes that threaten our national security. He and some of his most fervent supporters have urged his base toward violence—in words not unlike the ones Trump used before the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, actually—and there is concern that there might be trouble tomorrow in Miami, Florida, where Trump is scheduled to be arraigned.

Miami mayor Francis Suarez, a Republican who reportedly is himself considering a run for the White House, spoke to the press today to make it clear law enforcement officers and emergency personnel are working closely with federal and state partners and are prepared for whatever might happen.

But the Trump base is not what it was in 2016, when Trump commanded the federal government. Right-wing personality Tucker Carlson is off the air and the Fox News Channel is apparently considering legal action against him to keep him from competing with his old employer. The leaders of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, who organized the Capitol attack, are scattered or in prison, and hundreds of those who were at the Capitol that day have discovered the weight of the law.

The number of candidates challenging him suggests Trump is no longer the undisputed leader of the Republican Party. Republican leaders are beholden to his base, though, and they either came out swinging over the weekend to defend Trump or kept silent.

But they, too, appear to have been thinking a bit about the weight of the law as information comes out that key evidence against Trump has come from his former lawyer M. Evan Corcoran, who apparently took notes of Trump’s requests that Corcoran break the law. While Republican presidential candidates former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley and South Carolina senator Tim Scott are still defending Trump, Haley today said that “Trump was incredibly reckless with our national security,” and Scott said the case is “serious.”

They, and politicians like them, are likely making a political calculation. Trump is the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination but is unlikely to win a general election—a network tied to billionaire Charles Koch has begun to target him as unelectable—and they need to appeal to those who dislike Trump as well as those who like him.

But there is something else going on, too. As Trump and his loyalists sound more and more unhinged, both in his defense and in their attacks on everyone who isn’t in their club, people seem to be sick of them. As Charles C. W. Cooke asked in the conservative National Review, “Aren’t you all tired of this crap?”

In contrast, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris have steadfastly refused to engage with the Trump drama and have quietly worked to rebuild the government that forty years of austerity and ideological attacks have undermined. Their determination to rebuild the middle class has led to strong economic growth, high employment, and now inflation at its lowest level since May 2021. Government investment in new technologies and in returning supply chains to the U.S. has led to private investment of more than $220 billion in the economy and the creation of more than 77,000 new jobs, largely in Republican-dominated states. Manufacturing construction has more than doubled in the past year.

As the architects of Reagan’s revolution exit stage right, Republican calls for more tax cuts are barely making the news, while the traditional idea of government investment in the American people appears to be showing its strength.

“The wind is shifting,” the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin tweeted today after listening to Haley and Scott backtrack. “Remember: change happens slowly and then all at once.”

Notes:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/01/debt-ceiling-bill-updates.html

https://www.crfb.org/blogs/wm-tax-bill-would-cost-over-1-trillion-if-made-permanent

https://apnews.com/article/gas-stoves-republican-revolt-freedom-caucus-1952006c4f6fa7a727cf635208d851d1

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/12/congress-debt-limit-spending-bills-00101038

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/03/23/Interior-Secretary-James-Watt-who-in-a-speech-once/8745385707600/

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/12/mccarthy-trump-indictment-00101571

https://www.mediamatters.org/charlie-kirk/career-women-right-wing-media-tell-young-girls-give-their-dreams-young-womens

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/liven-blog/maga-threats-mass-around-mar-a-lago-miami-hearing

https://www.jackconness.com/ira-chips-investments

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/11/trump-miami-courthouse-security-protests/

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/11/miami-mayor-suarez-presidential-field-00101429

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/25/politics/oath-keepers-sentencing-stewart-rhodes-kelly-meggs/index.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/12/koch-network-ads-target-trump-biden.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/06/12/trump-miami-documents-indictment-security/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/wh-sounds-alarm-after-mccarthy-tries-to-buy-off-far-right-with-soc-security-slashing-commission

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson-contract-breach


oip-paypal

Please Donate

Research and Subscriptions

$1.00


HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
DEC 8
 
 

In October, prosecutors told a court they did not believe Trump had turned over all the documents with classified markings in his possession, and they were particularly concerned that he carried documents with him on flights between Mar-a-Lago and his properties in New York and New Jersey. On the advice of his lawyers, Trump hired a team to search for more documents, and they have found at least two more items marked classified and have turned them over to the FBI. 

A spokesperson for Trump said in a statement that Trump and his lawyers “continue to be cooperative and transparent, despite the unprecedented, illegal and unwarranted attack against President Trump and his family by the weaponized Department of Justice.”

Trump’s lawyers are doubling down on the idea that presidential immunity protects the former president from virtually anything he might have done in office, even “seeking to destroy our constitutional system.” Today, Trump lawyer Jesse Binnall argued before the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that the former president cannot be sued by police officers and members of Congress for inciting the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol, that he is immune from lawsuits even if he had urged his followers to “burn Congress down.” 

Such an argument is fingernails down a chalkboard to anyone who knows anything at all about how the Framers of our Constitution thought about unchecked power. 

There is, though, ongoing congressional review of the Trump administration. Last night the chair of the Senate Committee on Finance, Ron Wyden (D-OR), and the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), wrote to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin III, asking for information in their “ongoing investigations into whether former Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner’s financial conflicts of interest may have led him to improperly influence U.S. tax, trade, and national security policies for his own financial gain.” 

The letter outlines the timing of the 2018 financial bailout of the badly leveraged Kushner property at 666 Fifth Avenue (now known as 660 Fifth Avenue) with more than $1 billion paid in advance from Qatar. Qatar had repeatedly refused to invest in the property, but after Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates imposed a blockade on Qatar—after Kushner discussed isolating Qatar with them without informing Secretary of State Rex Tillerson—Qatar suddenly threw in the necessary cash. Shortly after that, the Saudi and UAE governments lifted the blockade, with Kushner taking credit for brokering the agreement. 

Because of this case, and a number of others covered in the letter, the committees have asked the Defense Department to provide any correspondence it had with the Kushners during the Trump administration, or about the various dealings in which business and government appeared to overlap. They have asked for the information by January 13, 2023.

The ideas of the Framers on the nature of government was also in the news today thanks to arguments before the Supreme Court in the case of Moore v. Harper, a crucially important case about whether state legislatures have exclusive control of federal elections in their states, or if state courts can override voting laws they believe violate state laws or the state constitution. Conservative judge J. Michael Luttig, who sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in October called Moore v. Harper “the most important case for American democracy in the almost two and a half centuries since America’s founding.” 

The case comes from North Carolina, where the state supreme court in February declared that new congressional and state legislature maps so heavily favored Republicans as to be “unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Republican-dominated legislature says that it alone has the power to determine state districts and cannot be checked by state courts or the state constitution.

The legislature claims this power thanks to the “independent state legislature” doctrine, a new legal theory based on the election clause of the U.S. Constitution, which reads that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Lawyers for the legislatures today claimed this clause means that the legislature alone can determine election laws in a state.

In October, Luttig published an article in The Atlantic with the unambiguous title: “There Is Absolutely Nothing to Support the ‘Independent State Legislature’ Theory.” The subtitle explained: “Such a doctrine would be antithetical to the Framers’ intent, and to the text, fundamental design, and architecture of the Constitution.”

Politicians, voting rights advocates, state attorneys general, senators, former governors, military officers, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the American Bar Association, and so on, all offered their own briefs to the court sharing Luttig’s position, with historians of the Founding Era agreeing that “[n]othing in the records of the deliberations at Philadelphia or the public debates surrounding ratification” supports the idea that state legislatures have exclusive power to regulate congressional elections. “There is no evidence that anyone at the time expressed [this] view…. [T]he interpretation is also historically implausible in view of the framers’ general fear of unchecked power and their specific distrust of state legislatures. There is no plausible eighteenth-century argument” for the independent state legislature theory, they say. 

The historians also observed that those embracing the theory ignore the ample documentary evidence and instead rely extensively on a document that scholars proved long ago was written ten years after the actual Constitutional Convention. 

Ouch.

The independent state legislature theory would also permit legislators to choose their presidential electors however they wish. Had such a theory been in place in 2020, Trump’s scheme for throwing out Biden’s electors in favor of his own would have worked, and he would now be in the White House. 

The potential for this case to upend our right to have a say in our government has had democratic advocates deeply concerned, but observers watching the court today seemed to think the right-wing justices would not embrace the theory fully. Perhaps this is in part because they know well that their legitimacy is fraying as they are increasingly perceived as partisan politicians, or perhaps the Supreme Court is wary of undermining the idea of judicial review. In any case, both Marc Elias of Democracy Docket and Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog analyzed the justices’ questions today and guessed they would find a middle ground that preserves some measure of state courts’ oversight of legislatures’ election shenanigans. 

Their analysis is only a guess, of course. Elias suggested the court would likely hand down a decision in the case in June. 

Notes:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-hosts-event-featuring-qanon-pizzagate-conspiracy-theorist/story?id=94701765

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-lawyers-attend-court-hearing-as-doj-presses-aides-in-mar-a-lago-probe-11666902371

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-legal-team-finds-two-more-documents-marked-classified-11670447615

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/oral-arguments-colorado-wedding-alito-incomprehensible.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-07/trump-claims-immunity-over-burn-congress-down-hypothetical

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/10/moore-v-harper-independent-legislature-theory-supreme-court/671625/?fbclid=IwAR2ya630ZkNTy9FjtDWn8EWFMn3zhvgGgN8xR_30PuuQaAxjhl2u2tyeVB8

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/07/kushner-democrats-congressional-probe-bailout/

Please Donate

Research and Subscriptions

$1.00