Category: Trumpism



  • After a protracted legal fight and relentless obstruction by the former president, the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday finally released six years of Donald Trump’s individual and business tax returns.

    “It is a bittersweet moment,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.), a member of the House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee, wrote on Twitter, lamenting how long it took for lawmakers to obtain the documents and make them public. “I will read through them today and you should too. Every American deserves this sunlight. This is what democracy is about.”

    A download link for the returns, which span 2015 to 2020 and are redacted to conceal sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, is here (warning: the file is very large—1.1 GB—and in ZIP format).

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also published the documents as more easily downloadable PDFs on its website.

    The long-awaited release of the documents came after the House Ways and Means Committee voted last week to make them public. The committee also published a summary confirming that Trump—who broke with longstanding tradition by refusing to release the documents voluntarily—paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017 and $0 in 2020.

    The summary made clear that Trump turned to avoidance tactics that the ultra-rich often use to slash their tax bills. In the years covered by the newly published documents, the former president reported massive net operating losses, allowing him to dramatically reduce or completely zero out his tax liabilities.

    The House committee, which Democrats control until next week, also revealed earlier this month that the IRS didn’t begin auditing Trump’s taxes until 2019, despite the agency’s mandatory presidential audit policy.

    “Trump acted as though he had something to hide, a pattern consistent with the recent conviction of his family business for criminal tax fraud,” Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the House tax panel, said in a statement Friday. “As the public will now be able to see, Trump used questionable or poorly substantiated deductions and a number of other tax avoidance schemes as justification to pay little or no federal income tax in several of the years examined.”

    “These findings underscore the fact that our tax laws are often inequitable, and that enforcement of them is often unjust,” Beyer continued. “Trump was able to bypass even the mandatory IRS presidential audit program for years, but many other wealthy and powerful people evade billions in tax dues every year through more quotidian tax avoidance. Congress has so much work to do to make tax enforcement in this country fairer.”

    In response to the release of his returns, Trump—a 2024 presidential candidate—proudly touted his expansive use of deductions to lower his tax bills.

    “The ‘Trump’ tax returns once again show how proudly successful I have been and how I have been able to use depreciation and various other tax deductions as an incentive for creating thousands of jobs and magnificent structures and enterprises,” the former president said.

    “The radical, left Democrats have weaponized everything,” he fumed, “but remember, that is a dangerous two-way street!”

    The former president’s returns show that he personally benefited from some of the provisions of the tax-cut measure he signed into law in 2017. As Bloomberg noted, Trump took advantage of the law’s “expanded write-offs for business expenses” and “the scaling back of the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, allowing him to claim more individual deductions.”

    “Trump acted as though he had something to hide, a pattern consistent with the recent conviction of his family business for criminal tax fraud.”

    Writing for The Atlantic on Friday, CREW president Noah Bookbinder urged the Senate Finance Committee to investigate the IRS’ failure to audit Trump in the early years of his presidency.

    “The public needs to know whether one more key government function was politicized, allowing a president to shield possible conflicts of interest and escape accountability,” Bookbinder wrote. “The American people need reassurances that transparency, oversight, and accountability will once again become matters of course rather than subjects of prolonged litigation.”

    “Donald Trump attempted to hijack the United States government to keep himself in power, and American democracy almost didn’t survive,” he added. “His tax returns may have been another part of that effort. That merits investigation—not over another six years, but now.”

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • The most surprising thing about the final report of the U.S. House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol isn’t the mountain of evidence of Donald Trump’s criminality that it contains nor the criminal referrals it makes to the Justice Department, but its readability. According to The New York Times, at least a half dozen publishing houses are releasing their own editions of the 845-page tome. On a December 22 broadcast, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell nailed it when he remarked, “This is the way a great novelist would lay out this story.”

    But it isn’t just any novel the report calls to mind. The closest approximation is Fyodor Dostoevsky’s classic psychological drama, Crime and Punishment.

    Both the great novel and the report are constructed around a tortured central character who thinks he is above the law. Dostoevsky’s dark protagonist Roidon Raskolnikov kills an elderly pawnbroker and her half-sister and then struggles to convince himself that murder can be justified if committed to demonstrate and secure the power of an extraordinary man. Similarly, the report’s protagonist is the forty-fifth President of the United States, who plots to overthrow his own government in a vain and desperate attempt to cling to power and glory.

    I’m not the first commentator to compare Trump to Raskolnikov. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd beat me to the punch in a 2017 op-ed penned during the Mueller investigation, where she wrote:

    “Both men [Trump and Raskolnikov] are naifs who arrive and think they have the right to transgress. Both are endlessly fascinating psychological studies: self-regarding, with Napoleon-style grandiosity, and self-incriminating. Both are consumed with chaotic, feverish thoughts as they are pursued by law enforcement.”

    This isn’t to say, of course, that the parallels are exact. Unlike Raskolnikov, for example, Trump will never acknowledge his culpability for the insurrection, which led to the deaths of seven people. The report, after all, isn’t a work of fiction, even if at times it might read like one with chapter headings including “The Big Lie,” “I Just Want to Find 11,780 Votes,” and “Just Call it Corrupt and Leave the Rest to Me.”

    And then there is the all-important question of punishment. Raskolnikov ultimately confesses his guilt and is sentenced to prison. Trump, by contrast, remains a free man, and continues to rage on his social media platform—the ludicrously named Truth Social—against his accusers, protesting his innocence and claiming, as always, that he’s the victim of a political witch hunt.

    Trump’s prosecution, at least at the federal level (he’s also under serious investigation in the states of Georgia and New York), now rests in the hands of the Justice Department and special counsel Jack Smith. The DOJ has received criminal referrals from the committee for four overlapping federal felonies committed by the former President:

    1. Obstruction of an official proceeding, referring to the joint session of Congress convened on January 6, 2021, to confirm the election of Joe Biden, and the effort to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden’s victory;
    2. Conspiracy to defraud the United States, referring to the former president’s multi-phase scheme to overturn the election;
    3. Conspiracy to make a false statement, referring to the plan to submit false slates of electors to Congress and the National Archives; and
    4. Inciting, assisting, or giving aid and comfort to an insurrection, referring to Trump’s incendiary speech immediately prior to the riot at the Capitol and his behavior during the riot.

    The committee has also referred five of Trump’s former aides and associates to the Justice Department: John Eastman, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, Kenneth Cheseboro, and Jeffrey Clark. Trump, however, is the only member of the crew who has been referred for insurrection. The report singles out the ex-commander-in-chief on the insurrection charge, stating “the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump.”

    Although the referrals are non-binding, Smith is already in the thick of investigating the insurrection and the plot to overturn the 2020 election, presenting evidence to at least two grand juries. The special counsel is also leading the investigation into Trump’s removal of top-secret government documents to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

    Convicting Trump will not be easy, especially on charges related to January 6. Each of the felonies referred to the Department of Justice requires proof of criminal intent. The government will have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump knew he had lost the election and was acting with a “corrupt purpose” to obstruct the work of the joint session of Congress or, on the conspiracy referral, that he had an intent to defraud the nation with the submission of fake slates of electors.

    It will be particularly challenging to prove that Trump incited or assisted the insurrection as Trump would likely mount a First Amendment defense. In its landmark 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court articulated a two-part test for punishing incendiary speech, holding that the First Amendment protects advocating the use of force or lawbreaking “except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis added).

    Still, it’s easy to understand why the committee chose to cite Trump for insurrection. Trump knew that members of the crowd who had gathered to hear him talk were armed when he urged them to march to the Capitol to “fight like hell.” And amid the ensuing melee, he accused Pence of cowardice for not using his authority as Vice President to change the outcome of the election, seething in a Tweet, “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution…USA demands the truth!” Almost immediately after the Tweet was posted, the report notes, “the crowd around the Capitol surged, and more individuals joined the effort to confront police and break further into the building.”

    Should Trump be tried and convicted of insurrection, he would face a prison sentence of up to ten years. He would also be barred from holding federal office for life.

    So, what are the odds that Trump is finally held to account? Will Jack Smith prove to be Trump’s Porfiry Petrovich, the police investigator who brought Raskolnikov to justice, or will he turn out to be another Robert Mueller? We may have the answer in a matter of months.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • The House select committee tasked with investigating the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol released its final report late Thursday, drawing from hundreds of witness interviews and a vast trove of documentary evidence to make the case that former President Donald Trump was the primary cause of the deadly insurrection and the failed attempt to overthrow the government.

    “In the committee’s hearings, we presented evidence of what ultimately became a multi-part plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” reads the panel’s report, which spans nearly 850 pages. “That evidence has led to an overriding and straightforward conclusion: the central cause of January 6th was one man, former President Donald Trump, whom many others followed. None of the events of January 6th would have happened without him.”

    As part of its recommendations for congressional action, the committee’s report echoes growing calls for lawmakers to consider barring Trump from ever holding public office again, noting that “those who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and then, on January 6th, engaged in insurrection can appropriately be disqualified” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

    The report caps off an 18-month investigation that Trump and his top associates—who spent months lying about the 2020 election and peddling false claims of fraud—attempted to impede at every step. The January 6 panel released documents Thursday detailing former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony that Trump’s allies pressured her not to cooperate with the committee.

    But despite the obstruction, the committee used its subpoena power to obtain copious witness interviews, statements, and documents—including a draft executive order that would have instructed the Pentagon to seize state voting machines—to build its argument that Trump was ultimately responsible for the events of January 6, a case it laid out in detail over the course of 10 public hearings.

    “Each of these actions by Donald Trump was taken in support of a multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election.”

    “Without any evidentiary basis and contrary to state and federal law, Donald Trump unlawfully pressured state officials and legislators to change the results of the election in their states,” the committee’s report states. “Donald Trump oversaw an effort to obtain and transmit false electoral certificates to Congress and the National Archives. Donald Trump pressured members of Congress to object to valid slates of electors from several states. Donald Trump purposely verified false information filed in federal court.”

    And “based on false allegations that the election was stolen, Donald Trump summoned tens of thousands of supporters to Washington for January 6th,” the report continues. “Although these supporters were angry and some were armed, Donald Trump instructed them to march to the Capitol on January 6th to ‘take back’ their country. Each of these actions by Donald Trump was taken in support of a multi-part conspiracy to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election.”

    The panel released its final report as well as supplementary witness interview transcripts days after it recommended that the U.S. Justice Department pursue criminal charges against Trump for inciting insurrection, obstructing Congress, and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United States. The DOJ is currently conducting a criminal investigation into the twice-impeached former president, who is running for the White House again in 2024.

    House Republicans, many of whom backed Trump’s coup attempt, are expected to shut down the January 6 committee once they take control of the chamber next month.

    “Every American should be alarmed by how close our nation came to a successful coup orchestrated from inside the Oval Office,” said Christina Harvey, executive director of Stand Up America. “Now that the committee has concluded its investigation, Donald Trump and his seditious co-conspirators must be held accountable. No one is above the law—not the president and not the members of Congress who betrayed their oath of office by aiding and defending him.”

    This story has been updated to include a statement from Stand Up America.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.



  • Congress’s January 6 select committee has referred former president Donald Trump to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution on the grounds that he incited an insurrection, conspired to defraud the United States, obstructed an act of Congress, and conspired to make a false statement.

    The big news is that the committee has compiled overwhelming evidence that the former president has committed serious crimes.

    What is the significance of this referral? Almost none, directly. It has no legal effect. The Justice Department’s own investigation will not be swayed by the fact that a committee of Congress believes Trump guilty. And unless you happen to be one of the few people in America who hasn’t already made up your mind about Trump’s guilt or innocence, the committee’s criminal referral will have no effect on you, or on public opinion in general, or on Trump’s political fortunes.

    But the specific evidence of Trump’s guilt that the committee will be turning over to the Justice Department will be hugely significant. They have built a powerful case.

    So I urge you not to be distracted by the coverage over the fact that the committee made a criminal referral to the Justice Department, and focus instead on the substance of what the committee has established through direct testimony, videos, memos, and other data.

    Among other things, the committee has established that:

    1. Before Election Day, Trump planned to give a false election victory speech. On Election Day, even though the networks were starting to call the race for Biden, Trump declared victory and demanded that voting counts stop. “This is a fraud on the American public, an embarrassment to our country. We were getting ready to win this election, we did win this election.”

    2. Trump knew he lost. He also knew that there was no evidence of fraud or irregularities sufficient to change the outcome. His Attorney General told him there had been no fraud. His advisors repeatedly told him there was no evidence of fraud sufficient to change the outcome. The Supreme Court rejected his case on December 11. Electors voted on December 14. His senior staff advised him to concede.

    3. Nonetheless, Trump’s intended to ignore the rule of law to stay in power. He conducted an Oval Office meeting on December 18, during which Trump lawyer Sidney Powell and former national security adviser Michael Flynn proposed that the U.S. military seize state election machines.

    4. On December 19, just hours after the meeting ended, Trump sent a tweet urging his followers to come to Washington on January 6, and it “will be wild.” The evidence presented made clear that the far-right militia and other figures understood that tweet as a call to violence.

    5. Michael Flynn and Roger Stone, both of whom Trump had pardoned during the time between the election and January 6, had direct relationships with violent right-wing groups.

    6. Trump knew he was lying when he told the public that Dominion Voting machines were rigged against him, when he told the public there were more votes than voters, and when he told the public about a “vote dump” in Detroit. He purposely and maliciously repeated these lies to the public over and over again.

    7. He knew his allegations of fraud in Georgia were false, but he nonetheless sought to pressure the Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensperger into giving him the votes he needed, saying “I want to find 11,780 votes.” When the secretary of state demurred, Trump threatened that he’d be prosecuted.

    8. He also tried to pressure election officials in Arizona and Michigan, knowing he lost those states.

    9. Knowing he lost the election, he also pressured the Justice Department to change the results of the election until Justice Department officials threatened mass resignation. He sought to name a Justice Department minion as the new Attorney General who then planned to send letters to Trump-friendly state legislatures alleging widespread fraud in their states. The proposed letters would urge these friendly state legislatures to exploit the “failed choice” loophole in antiquated 19th-century laws and substitute their own Trump presidential electors for the Biden electors that had been chosen by the voters on Election Day. Trump’s own top Justice Department officials killed this scheme.

    10. He sought to replace real Biden electors with fake Trump electors on January 6. He knew this was illegal.

    11. He tried to get Vice President Pence to unilaterally disregard the electoral count. Trump knew this was illegal.

    12. He intentionally summoned his supporters to the Capitol, and then, knowing they were armed, intended that they march to the Capitol.

    13. He knew there would be violence that day. He knew people coming to Washington planned to attack the Capitol and that multiple users online were targeting members of Congress. The Secret Service had this information at least 10 days before the attack. On January 6, during his speech on the Ellipse, Trump knew the crowd was armed and dangerous.

    14. He intentionally endangered the safety of Vice President Pence and his family, and members of Congress, on January 6 by tweeting criticism of Pence, which unleashed the mob to go after Pence, chanting “hang Mike Pence.”

    15. He watched the riots unfold on television for hours without lifting a finger to protect the Vice President, his family, or Members of Congress, despite pleas from Trump family members, White House advisors, and Republican congressional leaders. He spent hours in the dining room next to the Oval Office (from 1:25 pm until 4 pm) watching Fox News coverage of the attack. During this time he called senators to urge them to delay the electoral vote, and he phoned Rudy Giuliani.

    16. He refused to take action, although he could easily have done so. He was repeatedly implored–by his own White House counsel, other White House staff, and members of his family–to condemn the violence, ask rioters to stop and leave the Capitol, and go home. But for 187 minutes he did not. He was a sixty-second walk away from the White House press room.

    17. Instead, he chose to provoke the rioters. When the riot was underway, his first tweet was: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country.” In view of White House staffers, this “poured fuel on the fire.”

    18. Rather than call the rioters off, he indicated they were doing the right thing. When House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy urged Trump to take action, Trump responded: “Well, Kevin, I guess they’re just more upset about the election than you are.”

    19. He showed no remorse. At 6:01 pm he tweeted: “These are the things that happen when a victory is stripped away from great patriots. Remember the day forever. Go home with love.”

    20. Even after the 2020 election was certified, he refused to say the election was over. When he finally agreed to address the nation the next evening, he did not want to say words that had been drafted for him–“the election is over.” He was only willing to say “Congress has certified the results.” Trump has never accepted any responsibility for the attack and never acknowledged the deaths of law enforcement officers, because he did not want to be faulted or imply any criticism of the rioters.

    The big news is not that a committee of Congress has made a criminal referral to the Justice Department urging that the Department prosecute a former president. The big news is that the committee has compiled overwhelming evidence that the former president has committed serious crimes.

    This post was originally published on Common Dreams.

  • The result of Georgia’s senate runoff election this week, in which Sen. Raphael Warnock won reelection with a roughly 2 percent margin, has cast a glowing spotlight on the GOP’s Achilles’s heel. Put simply, in the two years since the January 6 mob attack on the Capitol, the party’s base has remained so in thrall to Donald Trump and Trumpism that its primary process now reliably puts forward…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Despite winning reelection by just 550 votes in a race that’s now undergoing a recount, Rep. Lauren Boebert this week won a vote of confidence from her fellow Republican members of the U.S. House as she was elected to join the party’s policy committee. The office of Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold on Thursday announced Boebert’s unexpectedly close race with her Democratic challenger…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • While it’s not yet clear which party will control Congress, the 2022 midterm elections yielded substantive losses for some of the more extreme candidates served up to voters by the MAGA movement. In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano was delivered a thumping defeat by voters angered at his presence in the January 6 mob and by his far right positions on everything from abortion to the role of religion in…

    Source

  • Millions of Americans are facing voter suppression during this election season, with consequences ranging from disenfranchisement to prison time. New and old tactics to make it harder to vote disproportionately target many groups, including people with felony convictions as well as Black, Latino, Native American and working-class communities.

    On top of the pre-existing barriers to voting, the 2022 election cycle has seen a number of new laws and tactics designed to make it more difficult to vote. According to The Guardian, “the proliferation of election crime legislation represents the most intense voter suppression threat in decades and comes in direct response to former president Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was fraudulent.”

    Forty-two state legislatures have considered at least 130 bills collectively that would make law enforcement more involved in the voting process, and 28 have passed. One law in Utah stipulates that election officials must check if voters vote twice and tell police or prosecutors about suspected voter fraud.

    Voting restrictions disproportionately affect Black and Latino communities. Strict voter ID laws, long wait times, difficulty voting by mail and polling place closures can make it difficult to vote. A study published in the academic journal Politics, Groups, and Identities found that between 2012 and 2016, “the gap in turnout between more racially diverse and less racially diverse counties grew more” in states that enacted photo ID laws.

    Historically, Black and Indigenous voters have faced many of the same obstacles. In Arizona, a proposition would eliminate the possibility of voting without a photo ID. Under current law, a person can provide two forms of identification that do not have photos. This disproportionately affects Indigenous voters, who often use tribal ID cards to vote, which sometimes do not have photos. The proposition would also add stricter requirements for mail-in voting, such as demands for date of birth and voter identification number.

    There are only four offices where a person can get an ID in Navajo Nation, which is over 27,000 square miles — greater than the size of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont combined. Many people living there do not have access to a vehicle. Older Indigenous voters may not even know their government birthday, or can have conflicting information from different government agencies, creating yet another barrier to receiving identification.

    Arizona Democratic Party Deputy Political Director Rachel Hood told The Arizona Republic that the proposition “places an undue burden on voters, especially those who already have a hard time voting. For Native voters, anything that requires address-displaying forms of ID are harder to access because they typically do not live in areas with traditional street addresses.”

    Last month in Montana, a state court overturned three laws that would have targeted the ability for Native Americans to vote. The laws would have prevented ballot collectors from being paid, prevented people from registering on the same day that they vote and challenged use of a student ID.

    In 1948, Native Americans in Arizona won the right to vote when the state Supreme Court overturned a case where Native Americans had sued for their rights but lost. Other states recognized Native Americans’ voting rights in the years after. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act guaranteed all Americans accessibility to vote and banned discrimination against people who did not speak English. In the 1970s, the U.S. outlawed literacy tests for Native Americans that discouraged non-English speakers.

    The working class faces obstacles to voting as well. Many states mandate paid time off to vote, but they may not allow enough time to wait in line. Twenty-one states do not mandate any time off from work to vote, making it difficult to reach the polls. In 2020, the Brennan Center for Justice found that voters of color self-reported longer wait times compared to white voters. Georgia even banned handing out food and water to voters waiting in line. Absentee voting is a possibility, but voters still face many challenges.

    People with felony convictions, who are disproportionately Black men, face significant obstacles to voting. According to the decarceration advocacy group the Sentencing Project, approximately 4.6 million people are barred from voting due to prior convictions; this translates to 1 out of every 50 American adults.

    In Washington, D.C., Maine, and Vermont, incarcerated people and those with a felony conviction are not stripped of the right to vote. In addition, people who have served their sentence do often regain the right to vote. However, many are not made aware of this change, and states frequently require people to pay all their court fees before they are eligible to vote.

    Crucially, an error can send someone back to prison. In August, 19 people were arrested in Florida for alleged voter fraud. At least 13 were Black, according to the Tampa Bay Times. Many of the people arrested had received confusing or bad information about their eligibility to vote.

    “They’re going to pay the price,” said Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis during a press conference. The individuals were identified by DeSantis’s new Office of Election Crimes and Security.

    Brad Ashwell, the Florida director for the nonprofit group All Voting is Local, told the Marshall Project: “These actions are really about striking fear in a voter’s minds and intimidating them.”

    In 2021, Oregon began counting incarcerated people where they are incarcerated instead of where they lived previously, even though people in prison cannot vote. This gave more power to many majority-white districts where prisons are located.

    Legislation to allow incarcerated people to vote will be reintroduced in Oregon, according to Zach Winston, director of policy and outreach at the Oregon Justice Resource Center. This would also make it easier for people who are incarcerated while awaiting trial to vote.

    “When you start picking and choosing who can and can’t vote, you create all sorts of problems,” Winston told the Center for Public Integrity. “If we can re-enfranchise those in prison, we can build out some structure for corrections as a whole.”

    In addition to dealing with law enforcement, voters may encounter illegal vigilante intimidation. On November 1, a federal judge issued a restraining order against Clean Elections USA, a right-wing voter-intimidation group, barring them from “visibly wear[ing] body armor,” carrying weapons openly or yelling at voters. The group had been stationed at ballot drop boxes in Arizona, taking photos of voters. Influenced by former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, the group has also been banned from making inaccurate claims about voting rules in the future.

    In some cases, vigilantism has been legalized and encouraged by state governments. In Georgia, conservatives have taken advantage of a 2021 law that allows voters to challenge other people’s voter registrations in the state. According to the voter rights group New Georgia Project, more than 64,000 registrations have been challenged and at least 1,800 people have had their registrations taken away since the law was passed.

    “The intensity around election administration has not subsided since 2020,” Jonathan Diaz, senior legal counsel for voting rights at the watchdog group Campaign Legal Center, told CNN. “It’s not just voters, but state and local election administrators are really feeling the pressure from these organized outside groups who have organized these challenges or … taken it on themselves to monitor drop boxes.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The midterm elections are still more than four months away, but for a year now the GOP’s front-runner candidate for the United States Senate race in Nevada has been telling radio show hosts that he’s ready to sue should the results not go his way.

    Adam Laxalt — an erstwhile naval officer who served as a one-term state attorney general, ran for and lost a race for the governorship in 2018 and then moved on to head Donald Trump’s reelection campaign in the state — is a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpite. In 2020, that meant that he went to bat for the embattled president in going to court to challenge votes cast for Joe Biden in Las Vegas, and to cast doubt on the accuracy of the signature-verification machines used for mail-in ballots in Clark County.

    Like other such lawsuits around the country, Laxalt’s went nowhere, and Nevada’s Electoral College votes were certified for Biden. Outside of the courts, however, he also mounted a full-court effort in conservative media to convince audiences that thousands of dead people and people who were alive but no longer in Nevada had illegally voted in the presidential election.

    These days, Laxalt’s fealty to Trumpism largely means that he continues to buy hook, line and sinker into the notion that the 2020 presidential election, certified by Congress after dozens of lawsuits failed and after the January 6 insurrection fizzled, was stolen and that, moving forward, his primary duty is to push to manipulate the franchise in ways likely to secure ongoing GOP electoral victories.

    His reward? A Trump endorsement in the primary, as well as a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser that helped him fend off a late-stage challenge from retired Army Capt. Sam Brown. Unlike in a number of other states — where the conservative, anti-tax, anti-regulatory Club for Growth broke with Trump and endorsed alternative candidates — in Nevada, Trump and the Club for Growth marched in lockstep, both supporting Laxalt.

    Laxalt emerged victorious in the Nevada primaries on June 14. In November, he will take on Democratic incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto, a vulnerable senator in a swing state won by Biden by only 2 percentage points in 2020.

    Pre-primary polling in the spring by Insight showed that Masto had an 8-point lead over Laxalt in a potential head-to-head. But since then, inflation has worsened (as epitomized by soaring gas prices), interest rates have headed north at a trot and President Biden’s poll numbers have further skidded into negative territory.

    In the months since, a range of polling — which, in the run-up to the primaries, and before voters have really dialed into the races, is notoriously fickle — has produced an all-over-the-map set of outcomes: Some polls show Cortez Masto with a double-digit lead; others have Laxalt up by as much as 7 percent. Overall, The New York Times’s FiveThirtyEight site estimates that the incumbent Democrat currently has a roughly 4-point lead over Laxalt.

    Cortez Masto is boosted by the fact that, even with the declining national climate for Democrats, she enjoys huge leads among Latino voters in the state and also stands to benefit from blowback against the raft of court rulings, and follow-on legislative restrictions undermining the right to an abortion nationally; in Nevada, polling shows overwhelming public support for the right to access abortion care.

    In a high-turnout election, it’s hard to see how Cortez Masto would lose to Laxalt. But 2022 could clearly shape up to be a low-turnout election, especially if inflation, high interest rates and a slowing economy combine to create a general sense of malaise — a gnawing feeling that no politician, whatever their party affiliation is capable of turning things around — and of anxiety about the direction the country is heading in. Turnout in the June primaries was a mere 25 percent; this compares with nearly 30 percent in the 2020 primaries (and fully 77 percent in the 2020 general election).

    Yet even these numbers aren’t entirely doom and gloom for Cortez Masto. In fact, despite the decline between 2020 and 2022, the percentage of the electorate participating in this year’s primaries is actually far higher than was the miserably low primary turnout in 2018 and in 2016; and that augurs well for Cortez Masto in her contest against Laxalt. If she can motivate enough of the Democratic base to turn out in November, she should eke out a win. But there are a lot of “ifs” in that scenario.

    Laxalt, by contrast, is hoping that his fealty to Trumpism will rally the faithful to his cause. Laxalt’s career trajectory, from his being a traditional conservative to becoming a conspiracy theorist willing to carry water for Trump at all times, is similar to much of what is going on at a state level in the GOP throughout the country. Look around the U.S., and you see one Republican Party organ after the next working to outdo their rivals in embracing evermore outlandish conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and the COVID-19 crisis. And Republican candidates and leaders are pursuing ever more conservative goals to restrict voting rights and promote a highly partisan vision of election oversight.

    Just this past week, the Texas GOP, for example, voted to include in its far right party platform a bizarre statement asserting that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, that Biden is only the “acting president,” and that the Voting Rights Act ought to be repealed in its entirety. In Pennsylvania, a “Stop the Steal” supporter is the GOP’s candidate for governor. In Arizona, the Trump-backed front-runner in the race to be GOP nominee for governor has called for the arrest of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci, and so on.

    Back in his home state, Laxalt’s GOP has an ominous warning on its website, announcing that the state is “Ground Zero” for “Democrat skullduggery.” The Clark County GOP site pushes a package of “election integrity reforms,” chief among which are voter ID requirements. Further, Jim Marchant, the winner of the primary contest to be the GOP candidate for secretary of state, says that his first priority, if elected, would be to “overhaul the fraudulent election system in Nevada.”

    The race between Laxalt and Cortez Masto may well determine which party controls the U.S. Senate come next year. Given the policy stances of the Nevada GOP and its leading candidates, as well as Laxalt’s history over the past few years, it’s a fair bet that if the GOP Senate candidate makes it to D.C., he will use his power to further erode voting rights and further damage the U.S.’s already fragile democratic infrastructure.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Tuesday’s primary elections in Ohio resulted in Trump-backed candidate J.D. Vance securing the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate seat left open by Sen. Rob Portman’s decision to retire.

    In a race with four candidates polling in double digits and several minor candidates between them splitting the remaining vote, Vance pulled ahead in the final days. At the end of the day, he ended up with slightly over 340,000 votes, representing 32.2 percent of the total number of GOP primary votes in the state.

    Vance’s emergence as a Trump-world star was a long time coming. In 2016, Vance — the author of Hillbilly Elegy, a best-selling memoir about growing up poor in Kentucky that, among other motifs, trafficked in right-wing themes about “welfare queens” — was widely quoted as lambasting Donald Trump. At that time Vance called Trump “noxious” and “reprehensible,” and cast himself firmly as a “Never Trumper.”

    Four years later, in 2020, Vance had undergone a metamorphosis. He now supported Trump’s reelection efforts, and in a series of groveling U-turns, averred that the MAGA leader was the best president in his lifetime.

    By the time Vance got to running in the Republican primary to become the party’s nominee for the open U.S. Senate seat in Ohio this year, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Trumpite — a believer in every wacky conspiracy theory that Trump pushed about stolen elections, “invasions” of the country by “illegal” immigrants, Chinese plots to take over the world, and so on.

    Trump took note, and in a crowded primary field, he went out on a limb and endorsed Vance, his one-time antagonist — though at a rally shortly before primary day, he mangled Vance’s name, conflating it with that of his protégé’s leading rival. In throwing his considerable political weight behind Vance, the former president, who has spent the past 16 months cultivating a shadow-GOP structure out of his Mar-a-Lago refuge, quite deliberately snubbed candidates like Josh Mandel, who were endorsed by eminently old-school Republican institutions such as the Club for Growth, and who, if their track record counted for anything, had at least as much right to expect Trump’s nod as did the political neophyte Vance.

    Mandel, who has run for the Senate three times now and lost each time, desperately sought to cast himself as more in line with Trumpite values than Vance is, and enlisted the uber-conservative Ted Cruz to campaign with him. Yet it was Vance who received a modest bump in the polls in the days leading up to the election, as a result of receiving Trump’s blessing. And, in a crowded field, that bump was enough to do the trick.

    Over the past week, much ink has been spilled parsing the differences between the many GOP candidates. Are they isolationist or do they believe in international engagement? Are they pro-big business, or are they at least rhetorically in a more populist camp? Are they entirely anti-Chinese, or are they willing to consider engagement and dialogue with Xi’s China?

    It’s true, there are some subtle differences. But the similarities of most of the primary candidates far outweigh these differences. In the Trump era, primary elections are basically now an homage to the personality cult of Trump. Mike Gibbons, who finished fourth in the Senate primary, spent $11 million of his own money trying to channel his inner Trump in a series of TV commercials. Mandel, who finished second, went from being a moderate Ohio state treasurer to being ferociously hard-right and pro-Trump as he wooed his party’s base.

    When candidates do distance themselves from Trump and his foul rhetoric, they tend to fare poorly. In Ohio, the candidate who came in a close third was State Sen. Matt Dolan; as the one high-profile anti-Trumper in the Republican field, who has critiqued Trump’s role in inciting the January 6 insurrection, he managed to consolidate the more moderate GOP vote — and even saw a bump in his support after Trump endorsed Vance. Yet, despite all of that, he came in with well under one quarter of the ballots cast.

    What is more interesting in Ohio is not the various shades of Trump that so many candidates now radiate, but the limits to Trump’s power as a maker-and-breaker of political fortunes. Trumpism as a creed may be dominant in the Republican party, but Trump the individual could well be past the peak of his powers to dictate who that party nominates to be its candidates in marquee political races.

    Yes, J.D. Vance won; but he did so in a field lacking heavyweight contenders, with his leading rival, Josh Mandel, a repeat loser in Senate races. And he did so with less than a third of the vote, meaning that most GOP primary voters weren’t swayed by Trump’s endorsement of Vance. At the end of the day, the number of Ohioans who voted for Vance was 340,000, barely one-eighth the 2.68 million who voted for Trump in 2020. And, while it’s true that far fewer people vote in primaries than in general elections, Vance’s modest numbers are hardly indicative of an unstoppable tidal wave of support.

    The more significant result, in the long run, from Tuesday’s Ohio primary may well be not the Senate race, but the primary for the Republican gubernatorial candidate. And in that race Trump fell flat. Sitting Gov. Mike DeWine, who has consistently refused to go along with Trump’s argument that the 2020 election was somehow stolen from him, and who has, as a result, roused the twice-impeached former president’s ire, ran away with his primary. DeWine won by a whopping 19 percent over a rival who, while not explicitly endorsed by Trump, made clear on the campaign trail that he marched in lockstep with the MAGA movement.

    Trump has demanded that candidates running in primary races throughout the country, in races from local to state to federal, kiss the ring. In J.D. Vance’s case, that humiliating ritual paid off. With DeWine, however, Trump couldn’t find a candidate strong enough to take down the incumbent, and he was forced to sit on the sidelines while a political figure he loathes coasted to an easy victory. Over the coming weeks, there are a number of other high-profile races — not least in Georgia — in which Trump is seeking to use his personal endorsements to hand-pick a slew of political figures, from Senate candidates to governors of swing states. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp, who has been a particular bogeyman for Trump since the November 2020 election, is far out ahead of the Trump-favored candidate David Perdue. Trumpism as an ideology seems, at least in the short term, to be secure as the lode-star of the modern GOP; it’s far less clear, however, that as the primary season unfolds, Trump-the-individual is as dominant.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • If someone doesn’t know what questions to ask, they’ll never get answer. If they don’t know whom to ask, the challenge is even greater. But an even worse error is to decide on an answer before even asking the question — and then refusing to hear any answers that don’t confirm what they’ve already decided.

    America’s political class, especially the pundits and commentators, are guilty of all of these errors (and many more) as they continue to willfully not understand the Age of Trump and how America arrived at this democracy crisis. The Republican-fascist movement is winning because so many people who are supposed to know better continue to view simple questions as puzzling and mysterious, and continue to ignore the obvious answers.

    Many such voices among the high priesthood of the church of the savvy and the other professional smart people have concluded that the Republican Party is in the midst of a “civil war” or is in “disarray” in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s presidency. That’s not true: The Republican Party is “evolving” just as other fascist and authoritarian movements have historically done, largely by purging those who disagree with the Great Leader and his vision.

    Many of the same voices also announce that Trump’s hold on the Republican-fascist Party and movement is weakening because of diminished attendance at his rallies, or because of rumors and “revelations” about internal resistance surrounding Trump’s coup plot of Jan. 6, 2021. Those are significant details and facts, but they do not override the basic reality that Trump continues to be the leader of the Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement. He received millions more votes in 2020 than he did in 2016, and until he decides otherwise he is the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee.

    Republican voters and right-leaning independents continue to view Trump and what he represents as the identity and brand name of today’s Republican Party and “conservative” movement. Moreover, the 2024 election is more than two years away and traditional barometers of Trump’s popularity cannot be seen as reliably predictive.

    But those questions pale compared to the grandest misreading of all: the claim that Trump and Trumpism led the Republican Party astray from its core values, and by doing so “sabotaged” it. Reality is quite different: Trump and his neofascist right-wing populist movement set modern-day Republican leaders and voters free to embrace their antisocial, anti-human, anti-democratic, reactionary, racist, sexist, plutocratic, theocratic, conspiracist, anti-intellectual and anti-rational values and beliefs. Trumpism was not suddenly born ex nihilo in 2015; it has been at least 30 years in the making.

    Ultimately, what America’s political class, the punditry and most of the mainstream news media refuse to understand is that Donald Trump is simultaneously a man, a symbol, and a cult-leader who embodies a form of freedom — specifically, the freedom to indulge in the worst aspects of human behavior and then to wallow in the chaos and pain and suffering that result. Like other forms of fascism, Trumpism is exhilarating for followers and believers; it gives their lives purpose, meaning and a sense of community, largely by inflicting pain for those designated as its enemies.

    In a recent column at Salon, longtime White House reporter Brian Karem summarizes Trump’s hold over his followers and their devotion to him:

    Trump has played it close to the vest as he has traveled across the country to a variety of rallies, pitching baubles and trinkets to dazzle and amaze those of simple minds and limited funds. Buy a hat. Buy a shirt. Buy an ornament. Buy an autographed picture. Buy anything Trump is selling — probably up to and including autographed underwear.

    Millions continue to support him by buying his cheap and tawdry knickknacks. It makes me wonder what these homes look like. “Come in. clean your feet on the Trump doormat, hang up your coat on the Trump coat rack. Have a seat and a complimentary beverage out of our Trump lemonade pitcher, poured lovingly into a Trump autographed mug.”

    Meanwhile, you can take a look at a phone video shot by Donald Trump Jr. inviting you to visit a “top secret” rally with his father — and, gosh, even get a chance to meet Dad! What the hell is a top secret rally? Isn’t that what the KKK used to do?

    The following observation is no doubt a challenging concept for those still wedded to “normal politics” and other obsolescent ways of thinking: “Donald Trump” is of immense symbolic importance, but Donald Trump the human being barely even matters. As I detailed in an earlier essay for Salon, “Donald Trump is no longer a mere person. Indeed, to some extent the human being behind the Trump persona has become irrelevant.” In other words, Trump is integral to the American neofascist project — but he is also disposable and can be replaced as the situation demands.

    If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. For too many people in America’s political class and the news media, especially, the only lens available to interpret politics is through horserace-style coverage, centrism bias, outmoded notions of balance and fairness, questions about who has “coattails” and is piling up “endorsements,” and of course the results of public opinion polls and focus groups. To acknowledge that these habits and tools no longer have the explanatory power they once did (not very long ago) would be an enormous psychological leap, approaching epistemic collapse.

    Here are three examples of how strongly Donald Trump’s power endures, whatever the hope-peddlers, professional centrists and others among the commentariat would like us to believe:

    1. The Republican Party announced last week that it will no longer participate in the 2024 presidential debates hosted by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

    Debates serve an important function in a democracy and as such have played a key role in many elections. They are especially important for helping low information, independent and relatively apolitical voters decide whom to support. Beyond that, participation in a debate signals a commitment to democratic norms and institutions. Debates also reaffirm a shared belief in the principle that truth exists outside of partisanship and ideology.

    Fascists and other authoritarians reject such consensus values. By rejecting the presidential debates, and replacing them with some type of right-wing propaganda theater, the Republican Party is choosing to protect Donald Trump (or his successors) from public scrutiny. Paul Waldman of the Washington Post offered this context:

    The Republican Party has just offered us a glimpse of the hell they’re going to put us all through in 2024. What might appear to be a petty argument about the conditions under which general election debates will or won’t be held is actually much more…. But it’s also a sign that the Republican strategy will again feature chaotic, Trumpian whining that is meant to delegitimize the entire presidential campaign process from start to finish, culminating in an attempt to take back the White House by theft if the voters don’t vote the “right” way.

    Let’s remember that while Trump performed well in the 2016 primary debates when he was on stage with a collection of empty suits, he did poorly in every one of his debates with Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. By the fall of 2024, he’ll be 78 years old; the idea that he’ll be more disciplined and focused than he was in the past is far-fetched. Everything Americans dislike about him would be on vivid display in a debate, before the largest audience the candidates will have.

    If Republicans announce now, two-and-a-half years in advance, that they’re refusing to participate in the debates, it could save them a last-minute act of cowardice. But the more important reason they’re doing this is to reinforce the idea that every institution and practice associated with the presidential campaign must be considered corrupt and biased against Trump and therefore illegitimate, whether it’s the news media, the debates, maybe even the weather — and especially the vote counting.

    2. Republicans are enthusiastically doing the bidding of Donald Trump and his fascist project.

    We see this through growing support for the Jan. 6 coup attempt and the Capitol attack, the escalating assault on democracy and voting rights, the moral panic around “critical race theory”; anti-LGBTQ bigotry and related conspiracy theories, the campaign to roll back reproductive rights and freedoms, the assault on free speech and other fundamental civil and human rights, the war on reason and critical thinking, the Big Lie, and the support (covert or otherwise) for right-wing authoritarians such as Vladimir Putin and Viktor Orbán.

    This is not a story of “top-down” politics, or elites otherwise imposing their values on a public. Republican voters overwhelmingly support these policies and the values they embody. Donald Trump is a gifted political entrepreneur; he understood that many tens of millions of Americans yearn for fascism or some other form of authoritarian rule.

    3. To this point, Republican leaders and candidates are still in thrall to Trump. They must prostrate themselves before him and seek his blessing as a pathway to power.

    In a recent article for the New York Times, Shane Goldmacher details how Trump continues to rule the Republican Party and the larger neofascist movement from his Mar-a-Lago retreat:

    For 15 months, a parade of supplicants — senators, governors, congressional leaders and Republican strivers of all stripes — have made the trek to pledge their loyalty and pitch their candidacies. Some have hired Mr. Trump’s advisers, hoping to gain an edge in seeking his endorsement. Some have bought ads that ran only on Fox News in South Florida. Some bear gifts; others dish dirt. Almost everyone parrots his lie that the 2020 election was stolen.

    Working from a large wooden desk reminiscent of the one he used in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump has transformed Mar-a-Lago’s old bridal suite into a shadow G.O.P. headquarters, amassing more than $120 million — a war chest more than double that of the Republican National Committee itself. …

    And while other past presidents have ceded the political stage, Mr. Trump has done the opposite, aggressively pursuing an agenda of vengeance against Republicans who have wronged him, endorsing more than 140 candidates nationwide and turning the 2022 primaries into a stress test of his continued sway. …

    “Party leaders have never played the role that Trump is playing,” said Roger Stone, an on-and-off adviser to Mr. Trump since the 1980s who has been spotted at Mar-a-Lago of late. “Because he can — and he’s not bound by the conventional rules of politics.”

    Goldmacher raises the question of whether Trump’s “big public profile” will be “a potent turnoff for swing voters” in the fall election, which remains to be seen. But in Republican primaries, “few serious candidates are openly breaking” with him. Former Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn says Trump’s conquest of the party “has been so complete … that even the RINOs are attempting to talk MAGA.”

    “Few see an expiration date” on Trump’s dominance of the Republican Party, Goldmacher concludes, “until and unless he declines to run again in 2024 or is defeated.” GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has reportedly told Trump, “We need you.”

    Is that a portrait of a fascist leader whose power is in decline? With a war chest estimated at $120 million and a right-wing disinformation media machine largely at his command, at this moment Donald Trump is the Republican Party. The fact that some members of the political and media classes read Goldmacher’s story as announcing the end of the Trump era only reflects the biased and distorted view of reality that led America to this ugly situation in the first place.

    According to traditional Christian theology, the devil’s greatest trick was to convince the people of the world that he does not exist. Trump is perhaps only a lesser demon. But do not be fooled by the claim that he is no longer a threat. If America’s political elites fall for that trick, it will likely mean the end of the country’s democracy.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trump supporters roam under the U.S. Capitol rotunda after breaching the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    In the third and final presidential debate of 2016, Donald Trump had signaled that he might not concede the election should he lose to Hillary Clinton. However, he did say to his supporters a day later that he would definitely accept the results of the election if he won.

    Trump’s threat to reject democratically run election results should have disqualified him from running for the highest office in the land.

    But instead he went on to win the 2016 election and then divide the country like no other incoming president. And when he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, he not only refused to concede defeat, but he also sought to block the certification of the electoral vote by urging his fanatical supporters gathered at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, to “stop the steal” of the election. Months earlier, he had already put his base on high alert by saying, “The only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged.”

    Under a less incompetent wannabe strongman, the assault on the Capitol could have led to the actual overthrow of the U.S. system of representative democracy. But the January 6 attack instead featured Trump’s hallmark disorganization and lack of a coherent plan.

    A day after the attempted coup, Trump announced that there would be an “orderly transition” of power on January 20, but that did not mean that he had plans to “go gentle into that good night.” On the contrary, he continued to spread lies about the 2020 election, which he himself called the “Big Lie,” even after he had failed to convince officials in Georgia and Arizona to overturn those states’ results. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, also tried to convince a federal judge in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, to overturn hundreds of thousands of votes in the state.

    Trump’s position was quite simple: If democracy fails to give me the desired election results, damn democracy!

    Trump’s “Big Lie” continues to hold sway over the overwhelming majority of Republicans voters, and the Republican Party itself is increasingly unwilling to accept defeat. Subsequently, states with Republican legislatures have passed waves of new laws restricting voting and are taking over local and state election boards. These developments speak volumes of the anti-democratic mindset that has become the trademark of the GOP in the Trump era.

    In the interview that follows, Noam Chomsky reflects on the anniversary of the January 6 insurrection and offers us his own insights on what may lie ahead in a country where a very sizable segment of the population still believes in Trump’s lies.

    Noam Chomsky is internationally recognized as one of the most important intellectuals alive. His intellectual stature has been compared to that of Galileo, Newton and Descartes, and his work has had tremendous influence on a variety of areas of scholarly and scientific inquiry, including linguistics, logic and mathematics, computer science, psychology, media studies, philosophy, politics and international affairs. He is the author of some 150 books and recipient of scores of highly prestigious awards, including the Sydney Peace Prize and the Kyoto Prize (Japan’s equivalent of the Nobel Prize), and of dozens of honorary doctorate degrees from the world’s most renowned universities. Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus at MIT and currently Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona.

    C.J. Polychroniou: A year ago, on January 6, 2021, a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters broke into the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to block certification of the electoral votes — a routine procedure following a presidential election — that would have formalized Joe Biden’s victory. The Capitol building had been breached on a few occasions in the past, but this was the first time in the history of the country that an assault on democracy was actually incited by an outgoing president. In fact, months later, former President Trump would go so far as to condemn the criminal prosecution of those who took part in the Capitol attack that day even though he had denounced the insurrection after he had been impeached over it. From your perspective, Noam, how should we understand what happened on January 6, 2021?

    Noam Chomsky: Participants in the assault on the Capitol doubtless had varying perceptions and motives, but were united in the effort to overthrow an elected government; in short, an attempted coup, by definition. It was furthermore an attempt that could have succeeded if a few prominent Republican figures had changed their stance and gone along with the coup attempt, and if the military command had made different decisions. Trump was making every effort to facilitate the coup, which would surely have been applauded by a large majority of Republican voters and by the Republican political leadership, which, with a few exceptions, grovels at his feet in a shameful display of cowardice.

    Implications for the future are all too clear. The Republican organization — it’s hard to regard them any longer as an authentic political party — is now carefully laying the groundwork for success next time, whatever the electoral outcome may be. It’s all completely in the open, not only not concealed but in fact heralded with pride by its leaders. And regularly reported, so that no one who is interested enough to pay attention to the American political scene can miss it. To mention just the most recent discussion I’ve seen, the Associated Press describes how the GOP is carrying out a “slow-motion insurrection” and has become “an anti-democratic force,” something that has not happened before in American politics. A few weeks earlier, Barton Gellman outlined the plans in detail in The Atlantic.

    There is no need to review the many well-known flaws of the formal democratic system: the radically undemocratic Senate, the enormous role of concentrated wealth and private power in determining electoral outcomes and legislation, the structural advantages provided to a traditionalist rural minority, and much else. But there are also broader issues.

    What was progressive in the 18th century is by now so antiquated that if the U.S. were to apply for membership in the European Union, it would probably be rejected as not satisfying democratic norms. That raises questions that merit more attention than they receive.

    With all due respect for the Founders, one question — raised by Thomas Jefferson in his own terms — is why we should revere the sentiments of a group of wealthy white male 18th-century slaveowners, particularly now that the amendment system has succumbed to the deep flaws of the formal political system. No less curious are the legal doctrines of originalism/textualism that call on us to decipher their pronouncements with little regard to social and economic conditions as a decisive guide to judicial action. Looking at our political culture from a distance, there is a lot that would seem passing strange.

    But even the tattered system that still survives is intolerable to GOP wreckers. Nothing is overlooked in their systematic assault on the fragile structure. Methods extend from “taking hold of the once-overlooked machinery of elections” at the ground level, to passing laws to bar the “wrong people” from voting, to devising a legal framework to establish the principle that Republican legislatures can “legally” determine choice of electors, whatever the irrelevant public many choose.

    In the not-too-distant background are calls to “save our country” by force if necessary, where “our country” is a white supremacist Christian nationalist patriarchal society in which non-white folk can take part as long as they “know their place”; not at the table.

    [White people’s] fear of “losing our country” is [in part a response to] demographic tendencies that are eroding white majorities, resisting even the radical gerrymandering that is imposed to amplify the structural advantages of the scattered conservative rural vote. Another threat to “our country” is that white supremacy is increasingly rejected, particularly by younger people, as is devotion to religious authority, even church membership.

    So while the charges of right-wing propagandists are largely fantasy and delusion, they have enough of a basis in reality to enflame those who see their familiar world of dominance disappearing before their eyes. And with the social order crumbling under the neoliberal assault, these fears can easily be manipulated by demagogues and opportunists — while their masters in the executive suites and mansions relish the opportunity to carry forward the highway robbery that they have engaged in for 40 years if future challenges can be beaten down, by state and private violence if necessary.

    That’s a world that may not be remote, though it won’t last long with the supreme climate denialists in charge. When Hungary, the current darling of the right, descends towards fascism, it’s bad enough. If the U.S. does, long-term survival of human society is a dim prospect.

    What does the January 6 Capitol attack tell us about the state of U.S. democracy in the 21st century? And do you agree with the view that Trump was the product of bad political institutions?

    It tells us that the limited political democracy that still exists is hanging by a delicate thread.

    If political institutions — more generally, intertwined socioeconomic-political institutions — can yield a President Trump, they are infected with profound malignancies. A moment’s reflection shows that the malignancies are so profound that they are driving organized human society to suicide, and not in the distant future, with Trump and his acolytes and apologists enthusiastically in the lead. By now it takes real literary talent to exaggerate.

    What are these institutions? That’s much too far-reaching an inquiry to undertake here, but there are some instructive highlights.

    The so-called Founders outlined clearly enough the kind of society they envisioned: “those who own the country ought to govern it” and ensure that “the minority of the opulent are protected from the majority” (John Jay, James Madison, respectively). Their model was England, where the reigning institutions had been described accurately a few years earlier by Adam Smith in words that bear repetition: The “masters of mankind,” the merchants and manufacturers of England, are the “principal architects” of government policy and ensure that their own interests are “most peculiarly attended to” no matter how “grievous” the impact on others, including the people of England but also, much more severely, the victims of “the savage injustice of the Europeans,” notably the people of India, then the richest country in the world, which England was robbing and despoiling for the benefit of the masters. Under the protection of the state they control, the masters can pursue their “vile maxim”: “All for ourselves and nothing for other people,” the maxim of the feudal lords adopted by the masters of mankind who had been replacing them since the “glorious revolution” of the preceding century.

    The masters of mankind have always understood that free-market capitalism would destroy them and the societies they owned. Accordingly, they have always called for a powerful state to protect them from the ravages of the market, leaving the less fortunate exposed. That has been dramatically plain in the course of the “bailout economy” of the past 40 years of class war, masked under “free market” rhetoric.

    These core features of the reigning state capitalist institutions have been exacerbated by the rot spreading from interwar Vienna, adopting the term “neoliberalism” in the international Walter Lippmann symposium in Paris in 1938, then in the Mont Pelerin Society. The ideas were implemented under almost perfect experimental conditions during Augusto Pinochet’s murderous dictatorship in Chile, crashing the economy in half a dozen years, but no matter. By then, they had bigger game in sight: the global economy in the era of vigorous class war launched by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and carried forward by Bill Clinton and other successors, establishing more firmly the vile maxim and dismantling such troublesome impediments as a limited welfare system and labor unions.

    That’s the kind of terrain in which a Trump can appear, though there are of course multiple factors of varied nature that interact.

    It seems that political violence has become an accepted norm among many Americans today. Firstly, what do you think are Trump’s motives for continuing to spin the “Big Lie”? Secondly, do you share the view that neo-fascism is gaining ground and that election subversion remains a real threat?

    Trump’s motives are clear enough. We don’t need a degree in advanced psychiatry to know that a sociopathic megalomaniac must always win; nothing else can be contemplated. Furthermore, he’s a canny politician who understands that his worshippers will easily accept the “Big Lie.”

    Many have wondered at the willingness of two-thirds of Republicans to believe the ludicrous pretense that the election was stolen. Should we really be surprised? Have a look at the views of Republicans on other matters. For example, on whether humans were created as they are today: about half of Republicans. Or on whether Muslims are seeking to impose Sharia law on the U.S.: 60 percent of Republicans who trust Fox News. Or on a host of other pre-modern beliefs in which the U.S. (mostly Republicans) stands virtually alone among comparable societies.

    So why not a stolen election?

    Election subversion is not merely a threat. It’s happening in the “soft coup” that is underway right now. As is the drift toward a form of fascism. There is evidence that general attitudes of Trump voters on a range of issues are similar to those of European voters for far right parties with fascist origins. And these sectors are now a driving force in the GOP.

    There’s also substantial evidence that this drift to the far right may be driven in part by blind loyalty to Trump. That seems to be the case on the most critical issue that humans have ever faced: environmental destruction. During Trump’s years in office, Republican recognition of climate change as a “serious issue,” already shockingly low, declined by 20 percent, even as nature has been issuing dramatic warnings, loud and clear, that we are racing toward disaster.

    The phenomenon is deeply disturbing, and not without grim precedent. A century ago, Germany was at the peak of Western civilization, producing great contributions to the sciences and the arts. The Weimar Republic was regarded by political scientists as a model democracy. A few years later, Germans were worshipping Der Führer and accepting the vilest lies, and acting on them. That included some of the most respected figures, like Martin Heidegger; I recall very well my shock when I started to read his 1935 Introduction to Metaphysics when it appeared in English 60 years ago. And I’m old enough to remember hearing similar atrocious thoughts as a child in the ‘30s, close to home. Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 classic on how fascism might be implanted in America by Christian nationalists (It Can’t Happen Here) was not mere fantasy when it appeared, and it’s no surprise that it has been returning to the best-seller lists in the Trump era.

    State-level contests have moved to the very center of U.S. politics, but the Democrats are failing to catch up with this new reality. What’s going on? Why do state politics matter more these days, and why do the Democrats seem to have embarked on a suicide mission as far as political strategy is concerned?

    The neglect of state politics by Democrats seems to have taken off under Barack Obama. That critical area of American politics was handed over to Republicans who, by that time, were already moving toward their current stance of rejecting democratic politics as an impediment to their task of “saving the country” (the version for the voting base) and maintaining power so as to serve the rich and the corporate sector (the understanding of the leadership).

    So far, there have been, surprisingly enough, no breakthroughs in the House committee investigation of the January 6 attack. Do you think that the congressional select committee involved in this task will establish accountability for what happened on that infamous day? And if it does, what could be the political implications of such an outcome?

    The Republican leadership has already neutralized the select committee by refusal to participate on acceptable terms, then by rejecting subpoenas — a sensible strategy to delay the proceedings by court proceedings until they can simply disband the committee, or even better, reshape it to pursuing their political enemies. That’s the kind of tactic that Trump has used successfully throughout his career as a failed businessman, and it is second nature to corrupt politicians.

    That aside, the events of January 6 have been investigated so fully, and even visually presented so vividly, that nothing much of substance is likely to be revealed. Republican elites who want to portray the insurrection as an innocent picnic in the park, with some staged violence by antifa to make decent law-abiding citizens look bad, will persist no matter what is revealed. And though there is more to learn about the background, it is not likely to have much effect on what seems now a reasonably plausible picture.

    Suppose that the select committee were to come up with new and truly damning evidence about Trump’s role or other high-level connivance in the coup attempt. The Rupert Murdoch-controlled mainstream media would have little difficulty in reshaping that as further proof that the “Deep State,” along with the “Commie rats” and “sadistic pedophiles” who supposedly run the Democratic Party, have conspired to vilify the “Great Man.” His adoring worshippers would probably be emboldened by this additional proof of the iniquity of the evil forces conniving at the “Great Replacement.” Or whatever fabrication is contrived by those capable of converting critical race theory into an instrument for destroying the “embattled white race,” among other propaganda triumphs.

    My guess is that the committee’s work will end up being a gift to the proto-fascist forces that are chipping away at what remains of formal democracy, much as the impeachment proceedings turned out to be.

    It’s worth proceeding for the sake of history — assuming that there will be any history that will even care if the plan to establish lasting Republican rule succeeds.

    No exaggeration.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jelena McWilliams testifies during a hearing before Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee at Dirksen Senate Office Building on August 3, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    What has been described as both “open lawlessness” and a “partisan brawl” came to an end Friday when Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chair Jelena McWilliams — an appointee of former President Donald Trump — revealed she is resigning, which will give Democrats control of the agency.

    In a letter to President Joe Biden published on the FDIC’s website, McWilliams said she intends to step down effective February 4, 2022. Politico pointed out that her resignation “means that FDIC board member Martin Gruenberg will become acting chair, his third stint atop at the 88-year-old agency, which insures trillions of dollars in deposits at the nation’s banks.”

    Noting McWilliams’ recent conflict with the three Democrats on the five-member board — which already had one vacancy — the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy Research said that her departure is “good news for financial stability, and the rule of law,” as well as “a victory for democracy and a blow to Trumpism.”

    The Open Markets Institute also welcomed her resignation, highlighting that it comes after she tried and failed “to subvert a democratic vote of the FDIC board to review bank merger policy.”

    Although McWilliams’ letter did not mention the controversy, as Politico detailed:

    Earlier this month, the Democratic majority on the FDIC’s board voted to take public feedback on potential changes to the agency’s bank merger approval process. McWilliams did not participate in the vote, and the FDIC in an official statement said the action was not valid. A legal debate ensued over whether a majority of the board can put items up for a vote without the consent of the chair, with Democrats maintaining they had clear authority.

    At a board meeting that was livestreamed, McWilliams rejected a bid by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra—an FDIC board member and ally of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—to add a record of the vote to the FDIC’s official minutes.

    Later, in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, McWilliams referred to the episode as a “hostile takeover.”

    Todd Phillips, director of financial regulation and corporate governance at the leftist think tank the Center for American Progress and formerly an attorney for the FDIC, argued in November that McWilliams was failing on climate and “the other members of the FDIC’s board of directors have the inherent authority to take control of the agency; they need only to demonstrate the will to do so.”

    The New York Times reported earlier this month that while some progressives — such as Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) — emphasized that the Democratic FDIC members’ action “was not simply a power grab and that they really did care about bank mergers,” Phillips had framed it as a test for McWilliams.

    “This is the first shot across the bow, seeing what the chairman’s response might be,” he said. “If they do end up being victorious on this issue, I think we’ll see the progressive directors throwing their weight around to move the FDIC in a direction that it hasn’t been in the past few years.”

    Max Moran, research director at the Revolving Door Project, called out some media outlets — including by the Times and Politico — in an opinion piece for The Hill last week, accusing them of covering the “hugely consequential standoff” like “another partisan soap opera, with an aggrieved Republican on one side… and an ambitious interloper on the other.”

    “McWilliams and Chopra both make compelling characters, but only one is quite clearly violating the law, and attempting to seize absolute power over a crucial agency with no repercussions,” Moran wrote, outlining the recent events with alarm.

    Jeff Hauser, who leads the Revolving Door Project, tweeted Friday that McWilliams’ resignation “is basically a confession.”

    “Reminder: This had to happen eventually,” Hauser said. “The extent to which early coverage of McWilliams’ lawlessness was positive was INFURIATING — she had ZERO legal justification for her coup. Hope all Trumpist Big Lies are treated less credulously in 2022!”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Members of the Proud Boys march in Manhattan against vaccine mandates on November 20, 2021, in New York City.

    Although Donald Trump has been out of power for nearly a year, the far right in the United States is still going strong. The January 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol was easily the year’s most important event, and its fallout has, in many ways, defined 2021. Arrests, lawsuits and congressional hearings are still ongoing.

    Even without Trump’s tweets to guide them, the far right failed to collapse, as many had hoped. Excepting a gruesome mass murder in Denver, Colorado, at the year’s end, the bulk of right-wing violence has been committed by the politically moderate Trumpists, as opposed to open white supremacists — its traditional perpetrators. The Proud Boys have continued their campaign of violence. A split in the Republican Party between the moderates and the Trumpists has likewise failed to emerge. In fact, the latter have arguably only increased their grip on the party. Right-wing conspiracy theories also continue to mutate and gain popularity, especially those about COVID-19.

    January 6 Capitol Assault

    Republicans have been fired up by Trump’s incessant but completely fabricated claim that the election was stolen. On January 6, after Trump’s speech, his supporters marched to the Capitol building and broke in, hoping to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential victory. Congress was forced to flee, and five people died as a result of the melee. It later emerged that rally organizers were in direct contact with White House officials.

    Two-thousand people participated in the event, and more than 700 have been arrested. The crowd itself was a mixture of far right factions. Dozens of Proud Boys were among the most visible — and aggressive. While there were some open white supremacists involved, the most worrisome aspect was that such a violent action was undertaken by more ideologically moderate political elements. Some have claimed the crowd were disenfranchised whites. But in fact, those arrested included elected officials; police; members of the militia milieu, including Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and Sovereign Citizens; business owners and CEOs; the guitarist of a heavy metal band; a federal agent; and a Trump appointee. Ten percent were current or former military.

    The attack’s political fallout included social media platforms booting Trump — including Twitter, which had been his presidential bullhorn. Parler, a social media platform favored by Trumpists, was taken offline. Trump was impeached a second time, and Congress later established a commission to investigate the events.

    Trump and his cronies have done all they can to stymie the investigation. He has unsuccessfully attempted to withhold some presidential records and has continued to attempt to suppress others by asserting “executive privilege.” Those who have refused to testify include Steve Bannon, Trump’s one-time adviser. Pardoned by Trump in January, Bannon was arrested in November for criminal contempt.

    The right-wing media machine also jumped into high gear to defend January 6 arrestees. Some claimed those arrested were “patriots” protesting a “stolen election,” while others blamed the violence on “antifa” disguised as Trumpists. (Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz promoted this conspiracy theory on the night of the Capitol assault.) Fox’s Tucker Carlson even created a three-part series to argue the attack was a “false flag” which was a prelude to a new “war on terror” against Trump supporters.

    Trumpists Without Trump

    The Trumpist hold on the GOP is perhaps best illustrated by the expulsion of Rep. Liz Cheney, the de facto leader of the anti-Trumpists, from the Wyoming state party’s leadership. But their hold goes much deeper.
    Although he had been in office beforehand, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) came to prominence under Trump as the farthest right U.S. congressmember, openly using white supremacist rhetoric. While, like Trump, King lost reelection, a group of Republican representatives have since replaced him, including Florida’s Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Lauren Boebert of Colorado. In April, several of them were involved in a brief attempt to form the “America First Caucus,” which was to champion “Anglo-Saxon political traditions.”

    Greene became known for claiming that a Jewish space laser was responsible for California’s wild fires. Boebert made speeches implying that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), a Muslim, was a terrorist. Gosar’s social media featured an anime video of him killing Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), for which he was censured. Gohmert asked the Forest Service if it could change the orbit of the Earth or moon. Finally, Gaetz, who has been investigated for having sex with a 17-year-old, said that if Republicans swept the mid-terms, he wanted to install Trump as House speaker. (Technically one can hold the position without being a House member.)

    Far Right Conspiracies Spread

    Just as the Capitol attack was fueled by conspiracy theories, in particular QAnon, they continue to bubble up and occupy conservatives’ minds. While “Q” has been silent since December 2020 after his predictions failed, followers are still coming to events, and some QAnon promoters have moved on to boldly promote antisemitism.

    Others have moved to attack the movement for Black lives with a new conspiracy panic around critical race theory. Their racist narrative — which claims that teaching students about systemic racism and U.S. history is “anti-white” — has become a popular talking point for Republicans. It has led to the banning of books and anti-racist curriculum in schools.

    Anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories remain extremely popular. Some claim Bill Gates created the vaccines to implant microchips in people, while others say COVID is a plot by Big Pharma. Some continue to deny that COVID exists entirely. Others claim the disease is real but can be cured by drugs like Ivermectin. Meanwhile anti-maskers — which include both those who believe COVID is real and those who don’t — oppose mask mandates. For some, this is a slippery slope to a communist or Nazi dictatorship, while others object on grounds of personal freedom — other people be damned.

    Protests by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers have been violent at times. Local government meetings, especially school boards, have been disrupted, and there has been a concerted attempt to elect anti-maskers to the latter. (The harassment was so intense that in October, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the FBI would investigate threats against school officials.) Transit workers, flight attendants and restaurant servers have been attacked for enforcing mask requirements. After a librarian in Omak, Washington, was spit on, the library said it might close to protect its employees.

    Trials, Lawsuits and Sentences

    This year also saw a number of high-profile court trials. The most infamous was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, a right-wing teenager who took a rifle to a movement for Black lives protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, at which he murdered two people. Rittenhouse, who has become a poster boy for the far right, was acquitted in November during a trial which many regarded as overseen by an exceptionally biased judge.

    But other trials went differently. Derek Chauvin — whose 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis reignited the movement for Black lives — was convicted of murder in April. Further, three white vigilantes in Georgia who murdered Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery were convicted in November.

    Several civil lawsuits have also been successful against the far right. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who claimed that the Sandy Hook school shootings didn’t happen, lost a defamation suit by victims’ family members, who had been mercilessly harassed. But the most important case, Sines v. Kessler, was against the organizers of the fascist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, which ended with the murder of anti-fascist protester Heather Heyer. The suit, which had hampered various prominent fascists for years, will undoubtedly bankrupt those individuals and groups who were found liable for a total of $25 million.

    Sentences were also handed down against high-profile white nationalists. The death sentence was upheld for Dylann Roof, who murdered nine at a historically Black church in 2015. The perpetrator of the 2019 Poway, California, synagogue attack received a sentence of life in prison. Lastly, Proud Boy Allen Swinney, whose violent actions include pulling a gun at a demonstration, received a prison sentence of 10 years.

    Proud Boys Endure

    Of all the groups which originated in the far right ferment of 2015-2017, the Proud Boys have come out as the largest and most active. Neither arrests, scandals, leadership shakeups, nor lawsuits have deterred this violent street gang whose raison d’être is to brawl with their political enemies, especially antifa.

    Violent actions by the Proud Boys were an important run-up to the Capitol attack. In December 2020, they took part in invading the Oregon state capitol building in Salem during a legislative meeting. That month their violent demonstrations in D.C. included vandalizing Black churches, plus four stabbings and a shooting. Two days before the Capitol attack, Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio was arrested for vandalism and weapons offenses (he eventually received a five-month sentence). The group was the largest, most organized and most militant one during the Capitol assault. There are charges against dozens tied to the group, and three lawsuits have been also filed against them for their role. In February, Canada banned the group. Proud Boys have also joined the anti-vaxxer movement; made threats against school boards; appeared at rallies in Los Angeles and New York City; and took part in the largest violent rally of the year in August in Portland, Oregon.

    Good Night to (Most of) the “Alt-Right”

    While as a whole the alt-right is yesterday’s fad, there are other active remnants besides the Proud Boys. For example, the “incel” (“involuntary celibate”) movement is one of the movement’s living branches. For the first time in recent memory in the United States, an entire year had almost passed without a far right mass murder. But an alleged white supremacist who also espoused virulent misogynist views is the main suspect for the December 27 killing of five people in Denver. (In August, a man active in incel circles had also murdered five in Britain.)

    Most — but certainly not all — of those who attended the Charlottesville rally have taken major blows. Richard Spencer has been quiet since 2018 in no small part because he was awaiting the outcome of Sines v. Kessler. Found liable at the trial and heavily fined, his future now looks dim. Livestreamer “Baked Alaska” was arrested for his role in the Capitol attack, while in February, Christopher Cantwell (known more widely as the “Crying Nazi”), was sentenced to 41 months for harassment.

    But two other Charlottesville participants, Nick Fuentes and Thomas Rousseau, are going strong. Rousseau leads the Patriot Front, the most vibrant of the openly white supremacist groups which came out of the alt-right. Although mostly concentrating on propaganda and vandalism, they have held three marches in 2021, including one in December that drew more than 100 participants.

    While Rousseau’s Patriot Front turned their back on Trump as too moderate, Fuentes did the opposite. His “Groyper” movement has become part of the Trump movement in a bid to gain mainstream support. So far, they have not been unsuccessful, with Representative Gosar keynoting the group’s February conference. Unsurprisingly, Fuentes and his group also took part in the Capitol attack.

    But the alt-right had another wing that was so radical they passed going to Charlottesville because it was too mainstream, instead promoting neo-Nazi terrorism. This faction, the most prominent of which was the Atomwaffen Division, was decimated by legal action this year. Although in 2020 the Atomwaffen Division announced it was disbanding, numerous members were sentenced in 2021, including three years for former leader John Cameron Denton. Another important member was outed as an FBI informant. (However, Atomwaffen’s first leader, Brandon Russell, was released in August after completing his sentence.) Members of a similar group, The Base, were also sentenced to prison; two military veterans received nine years each. But despite these setbacks, these groups that promote terrorism keep their propaganda at a simmering boil on Telegram.

    Lastly, important information from a number of digital companies has been made public. Two of the biggest far right social media platforms, Parler and Gab, were both hacked. Epik, the main host for far right websites, was also compromised. Additionally, whistleblower Frances Haugen leaked internal Facebook documents showing how the company knowingly declined to take action against violent far right groups and lied about what they did do.

    Still, despite anti-fascists’ best hopes, far right street forces have remained active, and the Trumpists ensconced, if not more powerful, within the GOP. With President Biden’s ratings dipping and no end in sight for COVID, prospects look pretty good for Trump and Trumpism, but the coming midterms will be a major temperature check for 2024.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • President Donald Trump claps during a rally at Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky, on November 4, 2019.

    Two historians in Kentucky have vociferously expressed their concerns over the future of democracy in the United States and the possibility that Trumpism will make a return after either the 2022 midterms or the 2024 presidential election.

    “This is real, this is serious and it’s frightening,” Brian Clardy, professor of history at Murray State University, said regarding the potential for the nation to descend into a far right authoritarian state focused on white supremacy.

    The solution to countering that possibility, Clardy suggested, was for Democrats to point out how extreme the GOP has gone over the past decade or so — and what damage could result if Republicans are given the chance to run things again.

    “The Democrats have to remind people that next year and in 2024, democracy itself will be on trial,” Clardy wrote.

    John Hennen, professor emeritus at Morehead State University, agreed, adding that those who shared such concerns need to be part of a structure to “build a democratic resistance” to Trumpism. “In short, we must all become ‘antifa,’ or antifascists,” Hennen said.

    Commentaries from Clardy and Hennen were highlighted in an opinion piece written by a third historian, Berry Craig, a professor emeritus of history at West Kentucky Community College in Paducah, in the Louisville Courier-Journal on Wednesday.

    Many pundits and political analysts believe that being anti-Trump won’t be enough for Democrats to retain control of Congress past the 2022 midterms. Indeed, the passage of important legislation, including bills aimed at protecting voting rights and President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better economic package, are seen as necessary accomplishments for keeping voters happy and staving off electoral defeat next year.

    Keeping Congress out of the hands of Trumpists, as well as ensuring far right Republicans do not win the presidency three years from now, is paramount to keeping democracy intact, Craig wrote in his op-ed.

    Democrats are failing to call out Trump and his allies for what they are, Craig observed.

    “Trump and his sycophants ceaselessly demagogue against President Joe Biden and his party, falsely portraying them as ‘radical socialists’ and even ‘communists’ who conspired to ‘steal’ the 2020 election,” Craig wrote. However, too many “Democrats resist calling Trumpism what it is — a racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic and religiously bigoted movement that is anti-democratic and embraces violence and vigilantism.”

    The rise of authoritarian tendencies on the right is indeed worrisome — and it’s a bigger problem than some might believe, data seems to suggest. According to research from Morning Consult, 26 percent of the U.S. population qualifies as “highly right-wing authoritarian.” That rate is more than double what is seen in Canada and Australia, the organization noted.

    These tendencies result in an acceptance of violent behavior to achieve political ends. Morning Consult’s research also pointed out that more than one-in-three right-leaning adults in the country (34 percent) viewed the attack on the Capitol almost one year ago as happening to “protect the U.S. government,” not an attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election results.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Adam Laxalt

    Nevada Senate candidate Adam Laxalt, a Republican with a well-known name in the Silver State, is already stoking fears of voter fraud and vowing to file lawsuits to “try to tighten up the election” — 14 months before any actual votes are cast.

    Republican candidates around the country have ripped a page from Donald Trump’s playbook, launching spurious claims of fraud about elections that haven’t happened yet, in an apparent effort to blame potential defeats on unspecified and evidence-free claims of “irregularities.” California Republican Larry Elder, who hoped to be elected governor after the recent recall election targeting Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, launched a website claiming voter fraud days before votes were even counted. (In the event, the vote against the recall was so overwhelming Elder has stopped talking about it.) But Laxalt, who was endorsed by Trump after filing multiple lawsuits contesting Joe Biden’s narrow 2020 victory in Nevada, is breaking new ground by making such claims more than a year before a single vote is cast.

    “With me at the top of the ticket, we’re going to be able to get everybody at the table and come up with a full plan, do our best to try to secure this election, get as many observers as we can, and file lawsuits early, if there are lawsuits we can file to try to tighten up the election,” Laxalt told radio host Wayne Allyn Root in an interview last month after Root claimed that “Trump won Nevada” and said the election had been “stolen.” The comments were first flagged by Jon Ralston, editor of the Nevada Independent, and later reported by the Associated Press.

    The comments set off alarm among some Nevada Republicans, according to Ralston, who drew a comparison to failed 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle. Angle held an early polling lead over then-incumbent Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat, until she veered sharply to the right, alienating key conservatives in the state.

    “She went on with friendly interviewers, got comfy and said damaging things,” Ralston said on Twitter. “Laxalt will only do Newsmax, OAN, Joecks TV and will keep making mistakes. That’s why GOPers here are worried.”

    Laxalt is the grandson of Paul Laxalt, a Nevada Republican legend who served both as governor and in the U.S. Senate. His biological father, as he revealed less than 10 years ago, was former Sen. Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican and close ally of Ronald Reagan, who had an extramarital relationship with Laxalt’s mother when she worked on Capitol Hill. Laxalt served one term as Nevada attorney general and ran for governor in 2018, losing to Democrat Steve Sisolak despite Trump’s endorsement. He later served as co-chair of Trump’s 2020 campaign.

    “Adam Laxalt led Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and now he’s running the same Big Lie playbook for his 2022 Senate campaign,” said Andy Orellana, a spokesperson for Nevada Democratic Victory, which is working to re-elect Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, who would be Laxalt’s opponent in the 2022 general election. “He knows he can’t win on the issues, so Laxalt is pushing frivolous preemptive lawsuits in an effort to limit Nevadans’ voting rights and potentially overturn the election when he loses.”

    Laxalt led multiple lawsuits on behalf of Trump’s campaign, leading the Las Vegas Sun editorial board to dub him the “Nevada version of Rudy Giuliani.”

    Laxalt insisted in the interview with Root that the problem with those lawsuits was not that the campaign’s failed to produce any evidence of fraud but only that that the suits were not filed in time.

    “There’s no question that, unfortunately, a lot of the lawsuits and a lot of the attention spent on Election Day operations just came too late,” he said.

    In fact, Laxalt filed his first failed challenge of the 2020 vote before Election Day, seeking to stop the count of mail-in ballots in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and is home to three-quarters of Nevada’s population. After Trump’s defeat, Laxalt repeatedly pushed conspiracy theories about widespread voter fraud, without provide any actual evidence.

    “I’m telling you, there are improper votes,” he insisted at the time. “We don’t know if it’s 2,000, 10,000 or 40,000. I believe it is in the thousands.”

    Laxalt also pushed a claim that more than 3,000 non-residents had voted by mail in the 2020 Nevada election. Trump allies filed a lawsuit over the claim — but then dropped them after it became clear that many of the ballots Laxalt described were linked to military post office boxes overseas or locations around the country where military personnel are stationed, suggesting they were legally cast by troops and their family members.

    Laxalt filed a post-election lawsuit alleging widespread voting irregularities and asking a court to overturn Biden’s victory and declare Trump the winner. A judge in Carson City, the state capital, rejected the challenge, writing that the campaign’s evidence had “little to no value” and “did not prove under any standard of proof that any illegal votes were cast and counted, or legal votes were not counted at all, for any other improper or illegal reason.” Trump’s campaign appealed the decision, arguing that the court did not take into account “expert” testimony provided by the campaign. The Nevada Supreme Court rejected that challenge, writing that the campaign failed to identify any “unsupported factual findings” in the earlier ruling.

    “Last time Laxalt (and other anti-voter allies) pushed lies like this, they lost. Again and again,” the States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group that supports fair and secure elections, said on Twitter in response to Laxalt’s latest lawsuit threat. “The fight is so far from over. Lies about election integrity are spreading past the 2020 presidential election.”

    In fact, Biden won Nevada by more than 33,000 votes — making Laxalt’s unsupported claims about non-resident voting irrelevant — and the results were certified by the state Supreme Court. Republican Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske launched an investigation into voter fraud allegations that found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities.

    “While the NVGOP raises policy concerns about the integrity of mail-in voting, automatic voter registration, and same-day voter registration, these concerns do not amount to evidentiary support for the contention that the 2020 general election was plagued by widespread voter fraud,” she wrote in a letter to the state Republican Party in April — after the party censured her for refusing to support the false claims of election fraud that have seemingly become GOP doctrine.

    But the absence of evidence has apparently done little to assuage Laxalt as the state’s Republican Party continues to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from its baseless fraud claims. Laxalt’s campaign did not respond to questions from Salon.

    In a statement to the AP, Laxalt declined to specify what kind of lawsuits he believes woiuld “tighten up the election” or to say whether he would accept the election results if he loses. But criticized the Democratic-led state legislature for passing a bill to send mail-in ballots to every registered voter.

    “Without a single Republican vote, Democrats radically changed the election rules in the final stretch of last year’s campaign and many voters lost confidence in the system as a result,” he told the outlet. “Their partisan transformation of Nevada’s system handed election officials an untested process that generated over 750,000 mail-in votes, unclean voter rolls, loose ballots and virtually no signature verification. Nevadans have a right to more transparency and voters deserve confidence in the accuracy of election results, and I will proudly fight for them.”

    Asked about the former attorney general’s argument, a spokesperson for Cegavske told Salon that the secretary of state is “not commenting on Mr. Laxalt’s concerns beyond what she has been saying all along – that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.”

    Laxalt later bragged on Twitter that his promise to attack the 2022 election in advance “seems to be triggering the media” after it was reported by Nevada outlets. “I stand by what I said on Wayne Allen Root’s [sic] show,” he said, insisting that he simply wants “free” and “secure” elections.

    “In fact, Laxalt is the one threatening to undermine secure and fair elections,” argued Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent. “Indeed, as this demonstrates, for Trumpist politicians, the refusal to commit to respecting legitimate election losses is now a badge of honor.”

    Laxalt expects to face off against Cortez Masto next November, though he still has to get past a Republican primary that is nine months away. Democrats have accused him of preemptively trying to undermine democracy.

    “Laxalt knows he can’t defend his record of pushing Trump’s interests and those of his special interest donors over hardworking Nevadans, so 14 months before the election he’s already plotting to revive the Trump playbook — threatening self-serving lawsuits in an effort to make it harder for Nevadans to vote,” Jazmin Vargas, a spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “Nevadans see right through Laxalt’s corrupt and dishonest tactics and will reject him again in 2022.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Bennie Thompson speaks during a hearing

    The start of the January 6 commission is a good time to pause and ask ourselves: What would a reasonable process look like after the attempted coup?

    Those of us who are horrified by Donald Trump’s experiment with making himself a dictator should acknowledge that these processes are political trials — we need to be honest. Had the crowd sacked Congress, and held it, what would Trump have done to the Democrats? As a president, he threatened repeatedly to put Nancy Pelosi on trial, and to lock up Hillary Clinton. Had he been kept in power by an insurrection against an election result, he would have a debt to his supporters, and it would be Democrats who would now be on trial.

    The difference between democratic leaders and dictators is not whether they put their opponents on trial (it is legitimate to do so in some cases when those opponents have attempted a coup) but how the trials are held — above all, whether they are fair.

    The most celebrated example of a political trial in history is the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II. In his compendious study of political justice over the last 2,000 years, the distinguished jurist Otto Kirchheimer acknowledged that the tribunal was, in a sense, victor’s justice. The defendants accused of war crimes included high-profile members of Hitler’s regime: Rudolf von Hess, his deputy leader; Julius Streicher, Hitler’s chief antisemitic journalist. No Allied generals or politicians were on trial.

    The difference between a political trial and a mere propaganda exercise, as Kirchheimer explained it, was this: In a fair political trial, the judge is prepared to accept the defendant’s story. The judge does not “mortgage” his or her “freedom in advance.” They are calm, they are objective, they listen to the defendant’s case.

    In the main Nuremberg trial, three of the 24 accused (Hjalmar Schacht, Franz von Papen and Hans Fritzsche) were acquitted. It was a political trial, but not the quick judicial lynching which would have followed if Hitler had won. The justice shown to the accused was slow and careful. It showed the different standards between democracy and fascism.

    In an ordinary political trial, part of the way you establish fairness is by giving the decision-making power to people who are theoretically independent of politics — judges. But of course, in a process such as this, the commission has to be undertaken by political representatives. That significantly limits the ability of Democrats to make this process look fair.

    For the far right outlet Breitbart, the fact that people were arrested shows that for the first time in U.S. history, the country has “political prisoners.” (This is, of course, fundamentally inaccurate: Political imprisonment, overwhelmingly targeting leftist organizers, has long been a standard feature of U.S. incarceration.) Taking his cue from the far right, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy proposed a slate of Republican members who had voted to overturn the presidential election results. He wanted his candidates to frustrate the commission at every turn. House Speaker Pelosi vetoed that maneuver, but has been left dependent on a narrow band of anti-insurrection Republicans. The pro-Trump Republicans are trying to say that these won’t be fair hearings; the Democrats are trying as hard as they can to prove the opposite.

    A fair hearing is not just about the decision reached by judges, it is also about the approach of those people prosecuting the charge. The best-known single piece of reporting on a political trial is Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem, written after Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi who managed the logistics involved in the mass deportations of Jews to extermination camps, was captured by Israeli agents in 1960 and charged with war crimes.

    Arendt treated this as the last of the Nuremberg trials and insisted on the righteousness of Eichmann’s prosecution. She argued that the judge had been scrupulously fair. But her account is critical of the prosecutor who, she insisted, neglected to prove Eichmann’s guilt in his emphasis on defending the politics of Eichmann’s captors. The prosecutor’s opening speech listed for several days the crimes suffered by the Jews over 3,000 years, starting with the Bible and the Egyptian pharaohs. “It is not an individual that is in this book,” he said, “but antisemitism throughout history.”

    In other words, the prosecutor neglected his responsibility to use the trial as a way of educating the audience watching in their homes on the injustices that had been committed. This is the approach that should be taken, when it comes to dealing with the events of January 6 in legal terms. The commission is a chance to educate the public about what truly happened and why — a process which is useful for illuminating both the larger forces and specific circumstances that prompted the mob violence at the Capitol.

    The likes of the American Conservative insist that there is simply no need either for the commission or for trials: the worst crime committed when the crowd sacked the Capitol was simply “trespass.” The first days of the January 6 commission show how hard Democrats have been working to prove the case that this was something much more sinister.

    We can see, in the moves that preceded the launch of the January 6 commission, and in the selection of evidence so far (including the choice of opening with the testimony of police officers — usually subjects of endless Republican goodwill), that both left and right understood how difficult it will be to for Democrats to break through the partisanship that accompanied Trump’s two impeachments. Both of those cases saw majority support among blue voters and the rejection of them by most Republicans.

    The fact that even after January 6 — after the killings, after all the nooses and zip ties — 55 percent of Trump voters still describe what happened at the Capitol as “defending freedom,” shows how hard the challenge is going to be to break through the partisan cynicism that still protects Trump and his movement. It also shows the grip that an authoritarian leader can maintain over much of the populace, even after exiting the halls of power.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Donald Trump is surrounded by U.S. flags

    Even though the number of dying Trump followers increases daily, his coup rolls on.

    Now, in the Trump shadow-universe he’s created a shadow-government for his shadow-fans. It’s not as wacky an idea as it seems and suggests Trump’s solidifying his control over the GOP going toward 2022 and 2024.

    Last November, on election day, I suggested on my radio program that if the Biden ticket were to lose (something we did not expect, but after 2016 who knows what can happen) they should set up a “shadow government” to be a visible and ongoing opposition and alternative to Trump’s second term.

    Apparently, somebody on Team Trump was listening. Or they copped the idea from the same place I did — the UK, Canada and Australia, all countries where the party out of power assembles a “shadow government” with a “shadow cabinet” that regularly informs voters of how and why they’d run the government differently were they in power.

    Friday, Trump’s last Chief of Staff, former Tea Party Congressman Mark Meadows, appeared on a fringe rightwing TV internet show and repeatedly referred to Trump’s “Cabinet.”

    “We met with several of our Cabinet members tonight,” Meadows said. “We actually had a follow-up … meeting with some of our Cabinet members.”

    Referring to Trump as “the president,” just as Trump does himself in the daily fundraising emails I receive from him, Meadows added, Trump is “a president who is fully engaged, highly focused and remaining on task.”

    In other words, the coup rolls on.

    Voltaire’s old quote, that “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,” is playing out right in front of our eyes.

    People are dying for Trump, getting into fights with hospital staff as they’re about to be intubated, insisting that Trump was right when he said that Democrats’ reaction to the growing pandemic was just their latest “hoax.”

    Jim Jones, as I noted in an earlier op-ed, was a piker by today’s standards: he only convinced 913 people to commit suicide. Trump has convinced millions to expose themselves to a deadly virus, and at least 400,000 who didn’t need to die are now no longer with us.

    Across America mini-Jim Jones’ like Pastor Greg Locke are rising up to preach the gospel that vaccines and masks are the work of the devil and getting sick or dying for Trump is a sure path to heaven.

    Meanwhile, the coup rolls on.

    Florida, although not alone among Red states and counties in encouraging death and disease, is apparently leading the nation both in megalomaniac preachers and Covid deaths.

    Ron DeSantis, who won his election by only 32,463 votes (after his party purged more than 7 percent — over one million — of Florida’s voters from the rolls in the preceding 2 years) has now overseen the death of over 39,000 people in his state alone.

    And now DeSantis, apparently trying to live up to his moniker of “DeathSantis,” has issued an executive order forbidding Florida public schools from requiring schoolchildren to wear masks. Voltaire had nothing on this guy, and he’s #2 behind Trump in the race for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.

    But no matter how many they kill, the coup rolls on.

    It also turns out sedition and treason are pretty profitable. Bizarre scam notwithstanding, Trump, DeSantis and the entire Trump contingent in Congress are making big bucks off saying that avoiding Covid is for pansies and that Trump actually won an election he lost by 7 million votes in 2020.

    Trump is sitting on over $100 million from his grift just in the 6 months since he lost the election, and DeSantis has raised over $44 million. Marjorie Traitor Greene raked in over $3 million in the first three months of this year while she did virtually nothing in Congress (having lost all her committee assignments for lying to voters) while other “Trumpy” Republicans are rolling in the dough as well.

    As they drain their followers of cash, the coup rolls on.

    But no part of the Trump scam is as troubling as is its potential to ultimately end democracy in this country (and, eventually, around the world).

    A recent CBS News poll found that about half of all registered Republican voters thought rigging elections for their own party was a better idea than promoting ideas that would win elections.

    “Almost half of Republicans admit they’re ready to ditch democracy” read the ominous headline in The Washington Post.

    The rightwing billionaire oligarchs’ best bet for eliminating democracy and keeping their regulations and taxes low is to make sure Trump’s coup rolls on.

    While “shadow” governments in the other three big English-speaking countries are all designed to simply inform voters about the differences between the parties and how the out-of-power party would govern given current circumstances, Trump’s shadow Cabinet is part of his ongoing coup attempt.

    He began his coup attempt the day after he lost the election, when he publicly repudiated the election results and began harassing the Department of Justice and multiple Secretaries of State and election officials to declare that Biden only won because of “fraud.”

    All he needed, he told them, was for the DOJ to declare official doubts about the outcome and he and his “R congressmen” would take care of the rest.

    “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen,” Trump told then-Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen.

    Rosen and the DOJ didn’t go along, so Trump simply switched strategy from coercion to an outright murder attempt on Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi as his coup rolled on.

    The high point of his coup was on January 6th when he encouraged his followers to attack the Capitol to “stop the steal,” and refused to mobilize the DC National Guard until long after his terrorists had left the building. (Unlike every other state, the DC National Guard can only be activated by the President because DC has no governor.)

    Making sure the coup never ends but keeps rolling on is probably Trump’s best chance to avoid going to jail for crimes ranging from rape to bank fraud, sedition and treason. Running for office gives him both some political and legal immunities and access to more cash, so he’s going to persist and amp up the volume of his efforts.

    But Trump’s neofascist coup is no longer limited to himself and his fellow DC insiders.

    State after state is being taken over from the ground up by Trump supporters who want to end multiracial democracy in America and turns us back into a white-supremacist ethnostate.

    From Oregon to Florida and all across states in between, local school boards are being seized by anti-American supporters of the former reality TV star.

    The world watches with horror and our actual president, Joe Biden, finds himself, along with Democrats in Congress, frustrated at every turn by Trump’s loyalists and a few Democratic senators who are taking money from the same billionaires who fund the GOP and empower Trump.

    Meanwhile, the coup rolls on.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protestors in support of former President Donald Trump gather outside Veterans Memorial Coliseum where Ballots from the 2020 general election wait to be counted on May 1, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.

    In state after Republican state around the country, a push is underway to create legal pathways to subvert election results. This effort is buoyed by the fact that well over half of Republican voters believe that Donald Trump is the “true president.” And it will be further bolstered by Trump’s summer-of-hate tour, during which he plans to traverse the country to give stump speeches aimed at keeping himself in the political spotlight, putting pressure on any and all GOP officials and political leaders to continue to hew to his lies. Trump appears ready to actively campaign against any GOP political figure who supported his impeachment and opposes his ongoing claims to having won the election.

    From the beginning of his presidency, Trump and Trumpism both appeared to be a cult and a deeply authoritarian political movement, one that tapped into some of the most violent impulses in U.S. political history. It was a combination of the demagoguery of McCarthyism and the conspiracism of the John Birch Society. It valued absolute loyalty tests — not to country or to the Constitution, but to the person of Donald J. Trump. And in demanding loyalty, it brooked no dissent, insisting that individuals and institutions bend repeatedly to its will.

    In the weeks after the November election, when it was clear that Trump had massively lost the popular vote and had also lost the Electoral College vote, it was increasingly clear that Trump would attempt to hold onto power by any means necessary. Sure enough, there he was on January 6, goading on an enraged mob of Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, neo-Nazis, and other violent extremists whom he had invited to D.C. with the express purpose of making it impossible for Congress to certify the election result. The resulting bloodshed, as horrific as it was, ought to have surprised no one. Trump had, after all, been encouraging armed assaults against institutions of power for the better part of a year, calling on militias to “liberate” Michigan and other states from COVID-related public health restrictions and for his supporters to monitor the November 2020 polls. And GOP leaders, instead of distancing themselves from him, had essentially given him a free pass.

    That the January 6 insurrection did not lead to greater bloodshed than it did was due more to luck than to lack of will. In the months since then, it’s become clear that the Capitol Police and National Guard were essentially, for many hours, ordered to stand down in the face of the far right attack. It has also become clear just how far Trump’s team was willing to go to basically order Department of Justice personnel into the fray to further their election fraud claims and attempt to overturn a democratic election result. And, in the ongoing seditionist language of Michael Flynn and other acolytes, it’s become clear just how comfortable these right-wing extremists were in utilizing military force to cling to power, and how, nearly half a year into the Biden presidency, they cling to the hope that an armed uprising, involving elements of the military and others, will somehow return their Great Leader to the White House.

    The failed mob attack of January 6 ought to have been the event that lanced this toxic, poison-filled boil. In its wake, the GOP leadership, at a congressional and a state level, has had ample opportunity to cauterize the wound and sever their never-particularly-stable alliance with Trump.

    At the federal level, had a handful more GOP senators found the courage to vote to convict the disgraced ex-president following his second impeachment, he would have been destroyed as a viable political figure and possible future candidate. More recently, had Sen. Mitch McConnell not rallied his senators to vote against the creation of a bipartisan commission to investigate January 6, Congress could have thrown its full investigative muscle into unraveling the extent of Trump’s anti-democratic plans.

    At the state level, state GOPs could have supported the congressmembers, including Liz Cheney, who had the moral courage to vote to impeach Trump for his actions (though not the courage to oppose his agenda while in office). Instead, those state parties have taken vote after vote to censor the pro-impeachment figures; activists have heckled and booed senators who voted to convict; and state lawmakers in one state after the next have moved to embrace Trump’s fantasies about rigged elections and massive fraudulent voting.

    In Arizona, they have set in motion an utterly disreputable “audit” of election results that is being carried out with no transparency by a cohort of avowedly pro-Trump, and conspiracist individuals and organizations.

    In Georgia, they have voted to constrict the franchise and to undermine the role of elections officials, from the Secretary of State on down, by allowing GOP elected officials to replace officials they deem a threat to the electoral process. Recall that, in 2020, the secretary of state stood firm in the face of extraordinary intimidation tactics from Trump, from his lawyers, and from his trolls who unleashed volleys of death threats and other threatening behavior against him. Come 2022 or 2024, that official, and county-level officials, might not have the ability to both withstand such pressure and to continue to hold their jobs.

    In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott, who is running for reelection and needs to keep Trump on board, has called a special legislative session this summer that most commentators assume comes with the specific intent of dramatically tightening voting requirements, and constricting both absentee voting and early voting.

    Around the country, state officials are buying into Trump’s rhetoric about a stolen election, and are putting in place rules designed to make it easier for the governing party and election officials to reject votes that don’t go their way. And around the country, too, as the media continues to give Trump a vast amount of free publicity by covering his each and every utterance, it is fast becoming a litmus test for GOP primary voters as to whether or not candidates support the most outlandish and far right of conspiracy claims and worldviews. As a result, the last vestiges of moderation and of rationalist politics are now being driven from the GOP. The GOP is now, the better part of a year after Trump’s thumping election defeat, on the verge of becoming more like a full-fledged far right party as seen in Europe than a mainstream conservative party.

    Addressing a QAnon event, Trump’s disgraced national security advisor Michael Flynn argued that the U.S. military should intervene in domestic politics in much the same way as did the Myanmar military earlier this year. The most shocking thing about Flynn’s speech wasn’t his words — after all, Flynn by now has a long history of saying entirely despicable, fascistic things in public settings; it all was in the crowd’s reaction: he was wildly cheered rather than booed off the stage.

    Trump was an entirely malignant, destructive president. Now, from his post-presidential gilded exile in Mar-a-Lago he is setting the stage for future waves of extremism and violence, and his henchmen are, increasingly, flirting with the language of paramilitarism and coups. Trump is demanding that state parties and federal political figures toe his line, and he is using his popularity among the GOP base to take down establishment Republican figures and to replace them with unbending loyalists and sycophants. His reactionary followers, led by the likes of Steve Bannon, are pushing a “domino theory,” arguing that a series of state audits of elections results will ultimately lead to Biden’s demise and to Trump rising, phoenix-like from the political ashes.

    Goaded on by this tsunami of disinformation, 30 percent of Republicans now believe that Trump will magically be “reinstated” as president by August, or shortly thereafter — a stunning number and one that should cause grave concern. Never before in U.S. history has a defeated president spent the year after he left office trying to undermine the election result, attempting to seize control over all the state levers of power within his party so as to further his personal political ambitions, and using his proxies to gin up the notion of violence against his successor.

    Trump was in the gutter as a president, and there he remains. As Trumpists take over political apparatuses around the country, he is becoming even more of a threat and a havoc-maker. I do not doubt that Trump would, if he ran for president again, be thoroughly defeated in any even remotely free-and-fair election. But, as Trump loyalists seize control in more GOP-led states, and as election law changes are implemented that make it easier for governing Republicans to undermine unfavorable election results in their states, I have every doubt that upcoming elections and the vote counts that follow can be guaranteed as free-and-fair in the first place.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Capitol rioters riot at the capitol

    On Sunday night, CNN aired a two-hour documentary called “Assault on Democracy” chronicling the evolution of the American right’s most recent embrace of conspiracy theories and authoritarianism which led to the insurrection of January 6th. Unlike most of the recent TV examinations of this phenomenon, CNN didn’t simply go back to the day Donald Trump descended the golden escalator in Trump Tower but traced the beginning of this latest lurch into right-wing extremism to the election of Barack Obama and the furious backlash that ensued. (The seeds obviously go back much further, but this is a logical place to begin with the Tea Party’s seamless transformation into MAGA.)

    The program rightly attributes the massive growth in conspiracy theories to the rise in social media during that period and especially takes on Facebook for its algorithms that lead people deeper and deeper into insular rabbit holes. Crude profiteers such as Alex Jones and Breitbart are exposed as well as good old-fashioned talk radio and Fox News. There can be no denying the massive influence of those cynical propaganda outfits on the events that transpired over the past few years.

    Perhaps the most disturbing moments in the special were the interviews with some of the MAGA faithful who were at the Capitol on January 6th, which was a trip to Bizarro World in itself. They still don’t see anything wrong with what happened and most of them, whether they are QAnon, Proud Boys, religious leaders or local politicians, are obviously 100% sincere in their belief in Donald Trump. If you didn’t think he was a cult leader before, you certainly will after hearing them talk about him. It’s downright eerie.

    Recounting the events of that awful day with all the dramatic footage, some of it new, in chronological order is still as dreadful to watch as ever. And we still are missing huge pieces of what happened that day.

    We know that Trump snapped at Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., when the House minority leader asked him to call off his followers as they stormed the Capitol: “Maybe you just don’t care as much about this election as they do!” It took much cajoling to get Trump to release the tepid statements he eventually made calling for peace and telling the insurrectionist that they are very special and he loves them. But for all the detailed leaking from the Trump White House over the course of four years, this is one afternoon they’ve kept a pretty tight lid on. (It’s also clear that’s one of the main reasons the Republicans have nixed the bipartisan commission, as some people would have to go under oath and testify about all that.)

    Perhaps all of this seems tedious by now. After all, we all know the story. Most of us watched it play out in real-time. But as CNN’s Brian Stelter pointed out, it’s important to keep telling it because the purveyors of lies and conspiracies keep trying to whitewash it into something completely different. He quoted this tweet:

    And as I noted last week, conceding to them also means letting down our guard and failing to be prepared for Insurrection Redux. Listening to those MAGA fans in the CNN documentary was very clarifying on that point. Those who took part in the insurrection and have been charged continue to believe they did nothing wrong and are no doubt prepared to do it again. Those who helped incite the mob from their pulpits and various rally stages have absolutely no regrets. There’s no doubt that there could easily be more violence.

    But just as important in continuing to tell the truth about January 6th is to continue to combat the Big Lie about the election.

    The MAGA faithful have been completely brainwashed and I don’t think they’ll ever change their minds. But devious, partisan players are hard at work in the states subverting the electoral system in ways that are truly insidious. It’s so bad that I think everyone is simply obligated to continue to focus very diligently on this issue. To that end, the New York Times reported some very disturbing new details out of Georgia, where Governor Brian Kemp signed a new law that allows Republicans to remove Democrats from local election boards:

    Across Georgia, members of at least 10 county election boards have been removed, had their position eliminated or are likely to be kicked off through local ordinances or new laws passed by the state legislature. At least five are people of color and most are Democrats — though some are Republicans — and they will most likely all be replaced by Republicans.

    Democrats in the state rightly point out that had these laws been in effect last fall, there’s every chance that MAGA-friendly officials would have been put in charge of the election and Trump’s requests to “find” votes might very well have been successful.

    It isn’t just local officials. Some states are going after statewide offices as well.

    One of the more unbelievably transparent acts took place in Arizona, the epicenter of Big Lie activism, in which the Republican legislature introduced a bill that would strip the Democratic secretary of state of authority over election lawsuits. But in an act of epic chutzpah, they plan to have the law expire once she is out of office. (I assume they will reinstate it if another Democrat wins, but perhaps they feel they’ve put up enough roadblocks to ensure that never happens again). In Georgia, they’ve similarly turned the secretary of state’s office into little more than a ceremonial position with little authority.

    And this one is especially concerning because it tracks with the growing belief in a false legal theory that state legislatures are the one and only legitimate arbiters of elections, superseding all other elected officials and the courts:

    Kansas Republicans in May overrode a veto from Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, to enact laws stripping the governor of the power to modify election laws and prohibiting the secretary of state, a Republican who repeatedly vouched for the security of voting by mail, from settling election-related lawsuits without the Legislature’s consent.

    It is only a matter of time before one of these states passes a law that openly allows the legislature to overturn an election — and then does it.

    If you read the inane rationalizations by these Republican officials, some of whom are quoted saying they believe the Big Lie, it’s clear that the assault on democracy is actually just beginning. And it isn’t just about Donald Trump. The Republican Party realized that just a few tweaks to the election laws means they can call into question any election result they don’t like and take steps to overturn it. They are also very well aware that the specter of January 6th violence hovers still hovers over the country and they have millions of agitated Americans who are willing to believe anything. They have power and they are using it.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

    “This is history! We took the Capitol,” yelled Greg Rubenacker, a 25-year-old from New York who Snapchatted photos of smoking weed in the rotunda. On January 6, he joined hundreds of mostly white men, who ransacked the Capitol, defecated on floors, and searched for politicians to try to kidnap or even kill. After the melee, he returned to Long Island and a month later, in February, was arrested by the FBI.

    Many of the Trump loyalists who attacked the Capitol came from Democratic strongholds, where the number of white people had declined as diversity increased. Political scientist Robert A. Pape said, “More than half came from counties that Biden won.” For example, Trump backers who were later arrested for their role in the January 6 attack came from these New York ZIP codes: Farmingdale, 04344, Huntington, 11743, Bellmore, 11710, Glen Falls, 12803, Pawling, 12564, and Manhattan, 21120.

    This revelation shattered the myth that the coup was incubated largely in Republican ZIP codes, and crystallized the danger of the right-wing paranoia over “replacement.”

    If you live in a Democratic city, it is still possible that one of your neighbors is planning for civil war. They may own many guns. They may stay up late, scrolling far-right websites to read about the “Great Replacement theory,” which fears whites are being overtaken by people of color. The paranoid fantasy has led to violence and will cause more. The further conservatives fall into racial fearmongering, the less they can see how white supremacy fuels the systems of class exploitation that spread suffering and insecurity through white communities too.

    Invasion of the Status Snatchers

    When black cars pulled up to Rubenacker’s house in Long Island, it was part of an FBI sweep to capture those involved in the Capitol breach. Arrest after arrest took place not in cliché “red states,” but in deep “blue” or Democratic states and cities.

    Conservatives who live in the multicultural U.S. are sometimes triggered by anxiety and transformed by ideology to become extremists. They seethe at a culture that no longer uniformly reflects them. (In reality, of course, it never did.)

    They are often middle class, older and new to the extreme right. Political scientist Robert A. Pape wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post and another in The Atlantic that mapped the background of the January 6 participants. He said in The Atlantic, “the demographic profile of the suspected Capitol rioters is different from that of past right-wing extremists. The average age is 40 … and 40 percent are business owners or hold white-collar jobs.” The middle-class entitlement of many of the rioters is combined with having a front-row seat to diversity. Pape explains in the Post, “Counties with the most significant declines in the non-Hispanic White population are the most likely to produce insurrectionists who now face charges.” The 27 people arrested in New York for breaching the Capitol came out of Democratic counties, three of them from a county that saw the white population drop.

    These white racist conservatives look at change in their neighborhoods and their fear spikes. In 2017, Jennifer Richeson, Maureen Craig and Julian Rucker published an academic article titled, “The Pitfalls and Promise of Increasing Racial Diversity.” They write, “Because the increasing racial diversity in White neighborhoods, states and nations implies a smaller White population share, Whites may perceive these demographic changes as threatening to their status.” The shock comes from more than the physical presence of different people. It comes from the unnamed privileges that buttressed white status being picked apart.

    The multicultural U.S. these white people fear is already here. In 2019, people of color were the majority for the cohort 16 and younger. In 2050, whites are projected to be a minority at 47 percent of the population. The friction is not caused by sheer numbers but in the challenge to the country’s white supremacy. Statues of slave owners are pulled down. Police brutality is protested. The idea of the U.S. as the “City on a Hill” has been repeatedly dismantled by historians from Howard Zinn to The New York Times “1619 Project.” As the nation abandons these harmful myths, white racist conservatives cling to nostalgia — and increasingly turn to violence.

    Happiness Is a Warm Gun

    “We may see an act of mass casualty terrorism sometime in the near future,” said reporter A.C. Thompson on Democracy Now! last week. “We have a massive pool of radicalized individuals who have been fed an abundance of lies by the former president, by this entire conspiratorial right-wing media and social media ecosystem.”

    In Democratic cities and suburbs, white supremacists will likely continue to try to plan another civil war — or in their terms, a “boogaloo.” In Oakland, California, a Boogaloo Boi named Steven Carrillo recently killed a federal agent and a sheriff’s deputy. It is one act of violence in a swelling tide of blood. In March, the Biden administration released a report that highlighted the increasing danger of “domestic violent extremists.” Kristian Williams analyzed the report for Truthout and found it wrongly grouped people on the left and right in the same categories, papering over the fact that the right uses violence far more. The Biden administration’s report names as driving forces President Trump’s lies about election fraud, conspiracy theories and COVID-19 lockdowns, and mentions ethnic hatred but overlooks the increasing white racial anxiety over diversity. Without acknowledging that element, any response to extremism will fall short.

    We saw this rage leave pain its wake. It was Dylann Roof shooting 12 people, killing nine Black parishioners at the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, South Carolina. It was Robert Bowers killing 11 Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was Kyle Rittenhouse — a supporter of “Blue Lives Matter” and Donald Trump — murdering two men and injuring a third in the Black Lives Matters protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It is the beating of Asian Americans in the street, in broad daylight.

    Racist violence is surging and the conditions are in place for ongoing — and even escalating — violence to resist the “Great Replacement.”

    The Poverty of Hatred

    I have witnessed white rage my whole life. In the 1980s, it was my friend’s uncle claiming he couldn’t get a job because he was a white man. In the ‘90s, it was being in class with white college students angry that they were being “blamed” for everything. In the 2000s, it’s been the election of Trump and the harmful myths that “cancel culture” is destroying white jobs and that Black Lives Matter protests are coming to burn down white homes.

    What I never understood was how they never saw the cost of white supremacy. I saw them vote for Republicans who broke their unions, fought hiking the minimum wage, fought universal health care, fought free college, and fought increasing social services in any way, shape or form. The reality is that white supremacy comes at the cost of a broad-based, interracial working-class radicalism that could have saved the lives of many white people too. Cornel West made this truth plain in a 2018 speech when he said, “White working class brotha, we know you have pain, we know it’s difficult to get access to a job with a living wage … what we’re asking you to confront the most powerful, not scapegoat the most vulnerable.”

    I remember hearing my friend’s grandfather, dying in the bedroom, breathing through a ventilator because they could not afford treatment. I get calls from a former partner, who lives out of a van in abandoned fields with her child because they can’t afford rent. The whiteness that the Proud Boys or Ku Klux Klan or Oath Keepers or Nazis fight so hard to protect comes with a price. Jonathan Metzl’s book Dying of Whiteness and Heather McGhee’s The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone detail how racism justifies policies that are deadly for people of every race. Metzl points out how the Republican fetish for guns as a sign of white freedom results in heart-breaking levels of gun suicides. McGhee shows how the racial and class stigma attached to Medicaid leaves poor whites to die.

    We’re approaching a turning point where the reality of diversity crashes against the crumbling edifice of white supremacy. If the Great Replacement fantasy continues, we’ll continue to lurch from mass shootings to violent coup attempts to racist and antisemitic tiki torch parades.

    It’s time for us all to confront the future of violent racist backlash that is already looming. Living in a Democratic ZIP code or a multicultural city doesn’t protect you from the hatred that is brewing. This is not a problem located far away or in another state. It’s all around us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • British Prime Minister Boris Johnson

    When Donald Trump was driven out of office, many of us hoped that would be the end not just of the man himself, but of the politics he represented. In the U.K., however, Trumpism has continued to gain momentum. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party, the U.K. government has taken a distinct authoritarian turn, using the pandemic as a cover for introducing laws and regulations to criminalize protest and facilitating police repression against communities of color.

    At the center of the left’s complaints about growing state power is the new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. It is intended to map out the relationship between police and protesters in our new post-COVID world. The bill would extend police powers to ban protests. If it is passed, a protest could be banned if a senior police officer believes that the event would have “a serious disruption to the activities of an organisation.” Any effective protest would be, potentially, unlawful.

    In a little over a year, since the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the U.K. government has issued 70 coronavirus regulations, with little if any oversight by Parliament. The state has introduced new laws that are far more draconian than anything required by our health emergency. The laws have, for example, made all protests during the COVID surge unlawful, even where protesters have been socially distanced and those participating have worn masks.

    The laws also have been unevenly applied: In the first nine months of the lockdown, police in England and Wales have issued 32,000 Fixed Penalty Notices for breach of the COVID lockdown rules. Young Black and Asian men have been twice as likely to be fined as their white counterparts.

    The moment at which most people became conscious of all these laws occurred last month, after 33-year-old Sarah Everard disappeared from her South London home. A serving police officer was arrested and charged with her kidnapping and murder. A crowd of several hundred people gathered for a vigil to express solidarity with Everard. They were attacked by police officers, who stormed the park’s bandstand, trampled on the flowers left by well-wishers, and made numerous arrests. Conservative Home Secretary Priti Patel first authorized the police attack and then sought to distance herself from it.

    This is not the only instance of the COVID rules being used to punish social justice causes and to forgive those close to the governing regime. When Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to our government (the Steve Bannon to our Boris Johnson), was caught driving around the U.K. 200 miles from his home, in open breach of the COVID rules, Johnson insisted that his adviser had “acted responsibly, legally and with integrity.” When the prime minister himself was caught outside his permitted local travel area, ministers defended him, saying that the word “local” in the rules didn’t mean local after all.

    After a year in which the left has been largely absent from the public eye, protests have begun again, warning not merely against the bill but the authoritarianism which underpins it.

    The U.K.’s authoritarian turn was strongly fuelled and shaped by the rise of Trumpism in the U.S.

    Trump always recognised an affinity between his project and his imitators in the U.K. After the British voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, Trump claimed that the result proved his own politics could win. Trump said that he stood for “Brexit plus, plus, plus.” Trump told a rally of his supporters, “They voted to reclaim control over immigration, over their economy, over their government,” and predicted that U.S. voters would do the same. After the rally, Trump tweeted, “They will soon be calling me Mr. Brexit.”

    It took another three years for the U.K.’s Conservative Party to choose a leader capable of ruling along Trumpian lines. However, since Boris Johnson became prime minister in summer 2019, U.K. politics has lurched to the right.

    Just as Trump governed not through Congress but through executive orders in the U.S., we have also seen an unprecedented expansion of secondary legislation in the U.K.: laws made by the executive rather than the legislature. Their expansion reaches towards the limits of what ministers are allowed to do under Britain’s unwritten constitution. The justification for this shift to executive government has been the same in the U.K. as it was in the U.S. Recall Executive Order 13769, under which President Trump banned immigration to the U.S. from seven predominantly-Muslim countries back in January 2017. One justification given for that change was that, under the U.S. Constitution, the president has absolute power over foreign affairs and national security: He could do whatever he liked.

    In Britain, the equivalent measure was an attempt, in summer 2019, to “prorogue” Parliament (in other words, to prevent our legislature from sitting) for fear that it would pass laws preventing Johnson from crashing out of the European Union without an exit treaty. Just as in the U.S., those defending this move argued that the government was free to do what it liked; that Johnson (and not Parliament) was sovereign when it came to foreign affairs.

    The U.K.’s Supreme Court found that the attempt to prorogue Parliament had been unlawful. That move was, however, the first step in an ongoing battle.

    In the U.K., as in the U.S., the government is trying to rewrite history. The U.S. saw Trump’s 1776 Commission, which tried to sanitize the role of the so-called founding fathers in upholding slavery. In Britain, we have had a Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which argued that, “the slave period [was] not only about profit and suffering but how culturally African people transformed themselves into a re-modelled African/Britain.”

    The formative experience which holds the government together is the involvement of its best-known figures in the Brexit referendum. The politics of Brexit share with the rise of Trump the idea that international institutions are an enemy to the nation state, and that economic success in the U.K.’s case requires breaking from the European Union, just as Trump constantly fought the World Health Organization, the UN and a series of other international bodies.

    There are admittedly certain differences between Johnson and Trump. One is that our government has no major movement supporting the QAnon conspiracy, no Breitbart, no army of supporters willing to stage a coup on its behalf. Another is that in spring 2020, after responding to the COVID outbreak with an initial burst of denial, Johnson changed tack: He has held power by accepting the reality of COVID and belatedly funding a vaccine program. While Trump lost the support of some older voters, fracturing his coalition, Johnson has not made the same mistake.

    The left remains weak, following Labour’s heavy defeat in the 2019 general election. The opposition Labour Party has drifted not just to the right but also into incoherence, with its new leader Keir Starmer seemingly incapable of formulating any clear understanding of Boris Johnson, or of the defeat of Starmer’s predecessor Jeremy Corbyn, or indeed of Corbyn’s previous strong performance. After a long period in which both main parties were stagnating in the polls, the Conservatives have begun to draw ahead again. In that context, the growing number of people taking to the streets against can be seen as a rebuke not merely to Johnson but to parliamentary politics as well — as if hundreds of thousands of young people were determined to prove the unpopularity of the government, and to force Labour to do its job of opposition.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sydney Powell stands next to Rudolph Giuliani

    After almost six years of diving, we may have finally found the bottom of the barrel.

    The latest news on the Trump team is the whole shabby satchel of “Trumpism” itself, tied up in a bow. It’s the burning bag of dog poop left by Trump’s own team on the front porch of all those who decided Trump Twitter was the new gospel. The rot at the core of Trumpism does not get any more stark than this.

    “Legal representatives for Sidney Powell, a lawyer aligned with former President Donald Trump who filed numerous lawsuits promoting his quest to overturn the 2020 presidential election on the false basis of election fraud, responded to a lawsuit against her this week by suggesting her allegedly defamatory words shouldn’t be taken as serious by ‘reasonable people,’” reports Chris Walker for Truthout.

    In the immortal words of Chuck Palahniuk, we’ve just lost cabin pressure.

    The suit in question was filed by Dominion Voting Systems, which has asked for more than $1.3 billion in damages from Powell for her various public anti-Dominion tirades during her efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election on behalf of then-President Trump. Powell, along with co-counsel (and now defense attorney) Lin Wood and a dim constellation of bottom-shelf legal minds, threw ten thousand pounds of bullshit at the courts trying to toss the people’s vote, and failed all the way down the line.

    The core of Powell’s argument asserts that the “highly charged and political context of her statements” essentially means those statements are prima facie not to be believed. Her own motion describes her theories as “wild accusations” and “outlandish claims.” Who, therefore, would lend credence to such brazen poppycock? According to Law & Crime, Powell’s arguments against her own legal arguments continue in this vein:

    They are repeatedly labelled “inherently improbable” and even “impossible” the motion to dismiss continues, referring to the conspiracy theories peddled by Powell, her law firm and her non-profit group Defending the Republic. “Such characterizations of the allegedly defamatory statements further support defendants’ position that reasonable people would not accept such statements as fact but view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.”

    Here is the distilled essence of Trumpism, bleeding on the platter for all to see: Lie with impunity, then deny your lies, and in extremis claim it doesn’t matter if you lied because you were right to do it anyway… and in the end, those who go along are on their own. Powell and Wood ran their barrage of election lies day after day in courtroom after courtroom after the race was called for Joe Biden. They followed that up with serial right-wing network television appearances, where their lies and fabrications were transmogrified into holy writ within the ossified logic circuits of Trump’s fervent base.

    To this day — hell, to this hour — Donald Trump is still fountaining the lies that were peddled by Powell and her team, despite having booted her after she gave one of the most ludicrous pressers in history. You will recall this one from late last November, when Rudy Giuliani appeared to be melting. Powell let fly with false campaign allegations of “massive influence of communist money through Venezuela, Cuba, and likely China and the interference with our elections here in the United States.” According to false claims that Powell made at that press conference, Dominion voting systems “were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez.”

    There is an adage of internet culture called Poe’s Law, which roughly dictates that it is no longer possible to distinguish between actual right-wing farce and parody of right-wing farce. Powell and Giuliani made this rule axiomatic that day, and still, Trump let Powell back into the White House in mid-December to continue helping him plot the overthrow of the election. This time, she counseled Trump to take a “scorched-earth” approach to obtaining victory. Three weeks later, the Capitol Building was stormed by pro-Trump rioters who believed every word Powell and Trump said.

    Now, with that profound stain and a potential $1.3 billion ruling hovering over her, Powell has asked the court to believe that no rational person would believe her. “Chutzpah” does not begin to cover it. I have written often about the power of shamelessness as deployed by the Republican right. This level of shamelessness, however, is straight through the Oort Cloud and out into interstellar space. I have never seen the like.

    Meanwhile, numerous Trump loyalists such as Graydon Young, a member of the “Oath Keepers” militia who was amid the mob that sacked the Capitol on January 6, continue to be incarcerated while awaiting trial. “The psychological burdens of being detained pending trial are very real for Mr. Young. Since he has no previous experience with the criminal justice system, being detained is taking an extremely high toll on his mental well-being,” Young’s lawyers filed in a recent motion.

    Few outside the circles of those who swaddle themselves in Trumpean faux-heroism will weep many tears for an Oath Keeper who cannot abide the fact that violent actions have immediate consequences. Still, what do you suppose will happen when people like Young hear the argument being put forth by Powell, one of the clarion voices they listened to and believed in the run-up to January’s lethal mayhem? “No reasonable person? But we believed you!

    Even now, months after the deal went down, more than two-thirds of Republicans believe in the core arguments that were coughed up by Powell and her crew. Now, according to Powell, two-thirds of the Republican Party are not reasonable people. I’ve made that argument, but you have to wonder how it’s going to taste when they eat it from one of their own.

    Finally, there is the Big Man himself to consider.

    “Powell’s defense is to throw Trump under the bus,” argues Noah Feldman for Bloomberg News. “The basic idea: He is such a known liar that any assertion made on his behalf in an election can’t be taken as remotely plausible.”

    Trump has continued to give wind to Powell’s lies in order to maintain his hold over the party and rake in fundraising cash. Now he is suddenly confronted with one of his own lawyers arguing in court documents that the whole thing was a grift no sensible person would fall for. There is simply no way to square that circle, and though Trump’s people live within a comfortable information bubble, this astonishing argument from Powell is certain to ring more than a few bells way down deep in the cathedral of pride. No reasonable person…

    The sagging carcass of Trumpism will surely drag itself on for a while longer, because large things in motion still have inertia even as they crumble and collapse. This is the juncture history will remember, however, the biggest Quiet Part Said Loud moment in modern political history.

    This article has been updated.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Illustration of cross burning inside church with silhouettes looking on

    Two months have now passed since mobs of mostly white people descended on the Capitol in an attempt to overthrow the results of November’s election, but I am still haunted by images of the mob’s racist violence such as the noose that they put on display and the shirt of a white man in the crowd that read, “Camp Auschwitz.”

    These details were more than symbolic — they point to historically materialized forms of horrific anti-Black and antisemitic racism that continue to be stoked by white supremacist strains of Christianity.

    As we struggle against this violence, we can draw from the deep wellsprings of African American and Jewish prophetic traditions that speak truth to power and counter oppression.

    In moments like these I often turn to the work of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who was one of the leading Jewish theologians and prophetic figures of the 20th century. He was also a close friend of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and joined King to march from Selma to Montgomery in March 1965.

    Rabbi Heschel’s writings produce a profound love for those who suffer and a profound sense of outrage against those who perpetuate that suffering. At this moment in U.S. history, as we witness the rise of unabashed white supremacy and the proliferation of lies and mistrust, we desperately need to channel the prophetic urgency and clarity of voices like his.

    Where are the courageous voices who will call out all forms of religious idolatry that are entwined with profane understandings of Christianity? Is racism anti-theological? In what ways might we continue to hope while in the claws of despair? And where are we headed — into chaos or into community, given such pervasive violence and indifference in the world?

    In this engaging interview, Rabbi Heschel’s daughter, Susannah Heschel, speaks in her own powerful voice, and weaves her father’s prophetic courage and wisdom into our conversation. Susannah Heschel is the Eli M. Black Distinguished Professor and chair of the Jewish Studies Program at Dartmouth College. She is the author of Abraham Geiger and the Jewish Jesus, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, and Jüdischer Islam: Islam und jüdisch-deutsche Selbstbestimmung. A Guggenheim Fellow, she is currently writing a book with Sarah Imhoff, entitled, Jewish Studies and the Woman Question.

    George Yancy: One of my favorite quotes from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel is “The prophet’s word is a scream in the night.” For me, it points to his own deep sense of pain felt when others suffer, and the sense of outrage that he felt when it came to our inhumanity toward each other. I wanted to scream as I watched with sorrow and outrage the events unfold at the Capitol. How would you characterize the meaning and importance of your father’s use of “scream” within the context of what we witnessed collectively at the Capitol? There is something sonically visceral expressed in his use of that term.

    Susannah Heschel: What does it mean to be a prophet? We conventionally think of prophets as people who foretell the future, but my father’s understanding of the Hebrew prophets of the Bible is entirely different. “What manner of man is the prophet?” he asks. A person of agony, whose “life and soul are at stake in what he says.” Who hears our despair? As you note, my father writes that the prophet’s word is “a scream in the night,” a scream to shatter our indifference. The prophet screams out the horror of human suffering, giving voice to the “silent sigh of human anguish.”

    When we watched the horrific video of police murdering George Floyd, we saw his desperation and agony, and we watched a murderer kill him. We saw police bystanders who stood there, utterly indifferent, doing nothing to save this man’s life. We wanted to scream.

    White Americans shoulder grave responsibility for that moment. My father writes, “Some are guilty, but all are responsible.” We are not guilty of murder, but we have to assess our responsibility: Are we not bystanders, responsible for the racism that led to the murder of so many Black men, women and children? George Floyd was murdered by the racism that has gone unchecked for centuries, the systemic racism that organizes this country according to principles of white supremacy.

    The soil of this country is soaked with the blood of Native Americans we slaughtered and Black Africans we brought to this country to enslave. Slavery left us with a heritage of its sadism in our culture and with the screams of slaves still ringing in our ears. Remember, my father said that, “the blood of the innocent cries forever. Should that blood stop to cry, humanity will cease to exist.” Have we all become indifferent bystanders, unable to hear the scream in the night? Do we not hear the cries of the tortured and murdered? If we are to preserve our own humanity, we must become prophetic witnesses.

    As you have shared when you were at Dartmouth College as our Montgomery Fellow, some white Christians in this country left Sunday church services to hunt a Black man, woman or child to torture and then hang in full view of a throng of white onlookers, taking photographs before going home for their Sunday dinner. During World War II, Nazi death camp guards tortured and murdered Jews and then went to church services. How is that even possible? What should we do once we conclude our prayers? Do we leave our houses of worship only to engage in brutality? What kind of worship is it, then?

    Our worship services require revision to make clear to congregants why they gather to pray, and that God demands, first and foremost, justice before we even gain the right to stand before God and pray. A life of cruelty cannot be combined with a life of pretended piety: “I hate, I despise your feasts,” God tells us through the prophet Amos, “let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”

    Dr. King and my father used similar language and spoke of God not as the “unmoved mover” of Aristotle, but as the “most moved mover” of the Bible, a God of pathos who responds to us. Central to my father’s theology is his assertion that God has passion and is involved in human history, affected by human deeds. This means that God suffers when human beings are hurt, so that when I hurt another person, I injure God. How can a self-proclaimed “religious” person pray on Sunday morning and then torture and murder on Sunday afternoon? This is not prayer; this is not living as a witness to God.

    What does it mean to be a witness? My father writes that while the Ten Commandments prohibit images of God, God created human beings in the divine image. We are the only permitted images of God, but what does it mean to be an image of God? To be an image, my father writes, is to be a witness: “God is raging in the prophet’s words.” The prophets are witnesses to God’s passion for justice. Indeed, citing an old Jewish tradition, my father writes, “I am God and you are my witnesses; if you are not my witnesses, then I am not God.”

    Your father also wrote that, “The history of interracial relations is a nightmare.” He understood how racism defiles the human soul and disgraces our common humanity. The ugly, dreadful and deadly reality of racism in this country haunts U.S. history and lurks within the fragile struts that maintain our democratic experiment. At the Capitol, I recall seeing a sign or flag that read, “JESUS SAVES.” Deploying that message within the context of the racist and violent attack at the Capitol recalls other moments of vile contradiction within white Christianity, such as times when many white Christians gathered to watch Black bodies being castrated, brutalized and burned. And while this form of racism is not intrinsic to Christianity, many white Europeans committed gruesome crimes in the name of Christianity. Your father’s words characterize racial and religious bigotry in terms of evil, the sheer absence of reverence. How would your father characterize our contemporary nightmare, and what advice would he have for religious leaders as we live through this 21st-century nightmare?

    Those self-proclaimed religious leaders who grant sanction to racists, spread lies and intolerance, claim they speak in the name of God, faith and morals; I say my Bible has been taken captive by a fascistic movement masquerading as apocalyptic Christianity. All around this country, we see truth and justice covered with chains, enslaved by selfishness and the lust for power and empire. These are indeed a people who hear and do not understand, see and do not perceive.

    To these people, I quote Jeremiah:

    They know no bounds in deeds of wickedness; they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, the rights of the needy. Shall I not punish them for these things, says the Lord, and shall I not avenge myself on a nation such as this? An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes? (Jeremiah 5:28-31)

    How do we find hope in a time of despair? How do we keep the optimism of Isaiah at a time when the words of Jeremiah express our mood of desolation? But we must also ask: How can we abandon poor God to those who reject truth and trample on justice?

    Let us remember that in the Bible, the words of God come to us from the prophets, not the priests, and not the kings. We are desperate for prophets in our time, those who will speak clearly to remind us, as my father did, that racism is “unmitigated evil.” My father stated clearly and sharply that we “forfeit the right to worship God” if we continue to uphold a racist society. He called upon all houses of worship to repent and recognize their sins, including their sins of perverting the fundamental teaching of all religious traditions: that God is either the creator of all life or of no life.

    Prayer is the home for the soul, my father wrote, but worship must not be reassuring. My father’s friend, Rev. William Sloane Coffin, used to say that prayer must comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. My father wrote that prayer must be subversive, disturb our self-righteousness and complacency. The experience of prayer should be like the experience of hearing the prophets: a rousing call to conscience. The prophets have been mocked for their passionate outrage about injustice, and my father asks, if we mock the prophets as “hysterics,” then “what name should be given to the abysmal indifference to evil which the prophet bewails?” Who are we, the complacent, the bystanders?

    I am also deeply intrigued by your father’s integration of God-talk vis-à-vis the ways in which we mistreat, oppress and marginalize others. Your father’s eyes were always focused on human beings, on our past and present mistreatment of other human beings. I see this as his horizontal vision, one that is unafraid to name and call out the social evils that we as human beings create and perpetuate. Yet, what I would call his vertical vision is always operative as well. God is always there, especially manifested in our fellow human beings. Your father writes, “To act in the spirit of religion is to unite what lies apart, to remember that humanity as a whole is God’s beloved child.” What is important to note here is that the term “religion” comes from the Latin religare, which suggests a community bond between human beings and God. Speak to the need for a form of God-talk in our moment, especially given so much religious hypocrisy, where religiosity appears to be tethered to forms of political idolization, where Donald Trump, apparently, can commit no wrong, no harm, no acts of injustice, where he has, for some, become “infallible.”

    Perhaps what we need is not talk about God, but greater awareness of the presence of God. The problem my father poses in his books is how we can cultivate in ourselves the ability to sense God’s presence, whether in nature, Torah, other people — and in justice itself. First, we have to realize what we are capable of — a sense of awe and amazement, heightened sensitivity to others, awareness of our own vulnerability.

    A Hasidic thinker of the 19th century made a distinction between having a sense of the absence of God’s presence — moments when we lose our ability to recognize that the whole earth is filled with God’s glory — and a sense of the presence of God’s absence, meaning moments when we fall into a pit of despair and sense that there is, perhaps, a place in our world that is vacant, without God.

    In these days, some of us feel we are in an abyss of despair, terribly worried about the overwhelming problems we face as a society and a country, unsure of how we can emerge.

    We also see people who were driven by a lying president, inciting them to riot, to rage against all norms of proper behavior and thereby fall into an abyss as well, though not of despair but of rebellion, the vacant abyss in which God is absent.

    Together we need to raise ourselves from despair and rebellion. In Hasidic tradition, we need help to lift ourselves out of the abyss, to leave behind fear and resentment, and accompany our return to conscience and commandments.

    What we must remember, my father always emphasized, is that evil is never the climax of history. Justice will rise up and prevail. Out of despair, let us find hope and inspiration in Dr. King and my father, in their teachings and in their relationship.

    For my father, the prophets always held out a vision and a hope: “There is bound to come a renewal of our sense of wonder and radical amazement, a revival of reverence, an emergence of a sense of ultimate embarrassment, and ultimate indebtedness.”

    Your father and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were friends, but also close in terms of theological vision and sociopolitical praxis. Both rejected the evils of racism and economic injustice. Both were concerned about the poor, the orphaned, the despised, the “disposable.” Many want to know where we go from here. So, will it be chaos or community? And how might the voices of these two figures, who stand within the tradition of a theology of social justice, help us in this moment of deep divisiveness, help us to find a way out of so many anti-democratic forces?

    Yes, will it be chaos or community? Apocalypse or prophecy?

    The political religion of the Nazis was not about religion but fascism masquerading as Christianity. My great concern is that fascistic movements have until now never been halted by political arguments — not by Democrats, Communists, Socialists or Christians. The challenge before us is great, and the temptation to despair is enormous.

    Throughout the course of history, political movements have used religion to gain power and have sought to undermine the prophetic tradition. They are movements characterized by terror and a desire for social control and constriction, warning of death and destruction rather than offering hope and redemption. Today we have a Christian Right that swaggers with a promise of salvation for the elect and ignores the here and now of our lives, our desperate need for justice and a beloved community. Rather than care for the Earth and its bounty, they care for money even at the price of utter destruction of the land, poison of our bodies, contempt for our fellow animal creatures.

    Such movements are bolstered by a death-glorifying theology. What we see is a white supremacist movement reviving an insidious politics of race. In the Nazi period, some Germans used Christianity to promote racism and antisemitism. When I wrote a book about them, The Aryan Jesus, I learned how frighteningly easy it can be to pervert religion and destroy its moral credibility. Some German bishops and pastors were so enthusiastic about Hitler they called him a “savior.” Shockingly, I have heard American Christians say the same about Trump. In Germany, Hitler’s Christian supporters threw the Old Testament out of the Bible and proclaimed Jesus an Aryan, not a Jew.

    Trump has had a similar effect in this country, with rallies that arouse emotional excitement. Some religious leaders — Catholic, Protestant and Jewish — have viewed him as a “savior” figure. In both contexts, Germany and America, the desecration of basic moral decency did not dissuade religious leaders, but brought a thrill of naughty violation of the fundamental propriety and doctrinal discipline of religion and society.

    Why are some Jews in America and in Israel Christianizing Zionism and their own moral values with white supremacy? Is Trump more appealing than Judaism? Let me warn them: Smearing themselves with white supremacy will result in the suicidal destruction of Judaism.

    Have my fellow Jews forgotten that the central teaching of Judaism is compassion and justice? The ultimate expression of God for the prophets is not wisdom, magnificence, land, glory, nor even love, but rather justice. Zion, Isaiah declares, shall be redeemed by justice, and those who repent, by righteousness. Justice is the tool of God, the manifestation of God, the means of our redemption and the redemption of God from human mendacity.

    What has happened to our conscience, to our judgment, to our duty as citizens to say “no” to the subversiveness of our government, which is ruining the values we cherish by carrying out deadly policies? Is America, is democracy, the great rock of ages, to become a temporary moment in history?

    How do we emerge from the abyss of despair and lift fellow human beings out of their abyss of rage? How do we become God’s beloved disciple when we feel like God’s suffering servant?

    I wish to share a few poignant verses from the Bible:

    Who will speak for me, asks God, who will remember the covenant of peace and compassion? Can we abandon despair and find the inner resources to respond like Isaiah, who said, Here I am, send me. (Isaiah 6:8)

    And yet in anger, Habakkuk reminds us, we must remember mercy. (3:2)

    To live a life of moral grandeur and spiritual audacity is a profound challenge; we must all begin by practicing small acts of courage and truth. David, on his deathbed, tells Solomon: Be strong and of good courage; Fear not, be not dismayed; for the Lord God is with you. God will not fail you nor forsake you until all the work for the service of the Lord is finished. (1 Chronicles 28:20)

    This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham conducts a news conference as the Senate debates the coronavirus relief package on March 5, 2021.

    In a Sunday interview with Axios, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described former President Trump’s hold over the Republican Party as something of a hostage situation.

    The former President, Graham said, “could make the Republican Party something that nobody else I know could make it. He could make it bigger. He could make it stronger. He could make it more diverse. And he also could destroy it.”

    The senator continued to describe the former President along the lines of the duality of man. Trump, he said, has both a “dark side” and some “magic” in him. “What I’m trying to do is just harness the magic.”

    Prior to Trump’s nomination in 2016, Sen. Graham had been a staunch critic of the former President, arguing that he was not mentally fit for the role. After Trump was nominated, however, Graham quickly fell into Trump’s good graces, becoming one of his most ardent allies.

    Although Graham did not support Trump’s impeachment, the senator admitted that Trump “needs to understand that his actions were the problem” leading up the Capitol insurrection.

    “Donald Trump was my friend before the riot,” Graham said. “And I’m trying to keep a relationship with him after the riot. I still consider him a friend. What happened was a dark day in American history, and we’re going to move forward.”

    He continued, “So here’s what you need to know about me: I’m going to continue — I want us to continue the policies that I think will make America strong. I believe that the best way for the Republican Party to do that is with Trump, not without Trump.”

    The senator’s comments come amid a great reckoning among conservatives about Trump’s influence in the future of the Republican Party.

    Several Republicans, such as Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., and Sen. Mitt Romney. R-Utah, have expressed an interest in charting a new course without Trump. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has criticized Trump in the past several weeks, but said that he would ultimately support the former President’s potential bid in 2024.

    Trump has been selective about his endorsements in the upcoming Senate elections. Weeks ago, Trump backed the primary opponent of Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, R-Ohio, who was one of the ten senators who voted to impeach him. The former president also endorsed Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C. the only black Republican in the Senate.

    Trump has also shown signs of breaking with certain Republican organizations cashing in on his political capital. On Saturday, NBC News reported that the former president’s lawyers sent cease-and-desist letters to three Republican organizations — the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Senate Committee — demanding that they discontinue the usage of Trump’s name and likeness.

    During Trump’s CPAC speech two weeks ago, the former president listed off the names of Congressional Republicans who voted to impeach him, urging his followers to “get rid of them all.” He said that the only way to support “our efforts” is to elect Trump-supporting Republicans.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former President Donald Trump speaks during the final day of the Conservative Political Action Conference held at the Hyatt Regency Orlando on February 28, 2021, in Orlando, Florida.

    In the classic 1950 movie Sunset Boulevard, Gloria Swanson plays the has-been Hollywood diva, Norma Desmond, desperate for adoration, utterly infatuated with the spotlight. One of its most famous lines — “Alright, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close up” — captures the unseemly spectacle of someone far past their sell-by date who refuses to accept their fall from stardom.

    “You see,” the has-been actress utters with undistilled terror, “This is my life. It always will be. There’s nothing else. Just us and the camera — and those wonderful people out there in the dark.”

    When Donald Trump stepped up to the podium at the CPAC event in Orlando, Florida, this weekend, it was, unsurprisingly, both a ghastly and incredibly tired remake of Sunset Boulevard, a reprise of yesterday’s news, of the former president’s greatest hits, from a man who cannot imagine a world without himself at the center.

    During a bizarre CPAC presentation, Trump named all the Republicans who had crossed him and threatened to destroy their careers. He asked his audience — plaintively — whether they missed him yet. He claimed he had won the last election and would, if he so chose, win again in 2024. To this last point, his cult-like audience — which had already paraded through the conference center, in imitation of strong-men idolatrous cults in locales such as North Korea, a golden bust of the disgraced ex-president — responded, on cue, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, “You won! You won! You won!”

    Trump, in gilded retirement at Mar-a-Lago not only refuses to accept that Joe Biden won last year’s election, but he also hasn’t even remotely begun to consider the possibility that the GOP might ever be anything other than a vehicle for the enrichment of the Trump family. He has, these past months, teased the possibility of starting a third party; at the CPAC event, however, he scotched those rumors, instead urging GOP members to donate to political action committees controlled by Trump himself, along with members of his inner circle.

    That decision wasn’t exactly a surprise; after all, most of the GOP is still in lockstep with Trumpism, convinced the election was stolen, and, as January 6th fades into the past, more than willing to forgive and forget the ex-president’s incitement to deadly violence. In the past couple weeks, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy traveled to Mar-a-Lago to pay an obsequious homage to the man whom, back in January, he had screamed at during a profanity-laden phone call at the height of the Capitol siege. So, too, did GOP whip Steve Scalise, make a kiss-the-ring visit to the exiled president.

    Mitch McConnell, who bared just a touch of courage after the Senate impeachment vote by saying on the Senate floor that there was no doubt that Trump was responsible for the events of January 6th, followed up with an astounding public display of gorging himself on humble pie. What would he do if the inciter-to-insurrection ran again in 2024? He would, he promptly answered, “absolutely” support Trump in 2024 if the party nominated him again as its presidential candidate.

    Even Mike Pence — yes, the same Mike Pence who ran for his life as a Trump-inspired mob, responding in real time to Trump tweets, hunted him down to hang him for treason — has been sweet-talking the Don in recent weeks. At least Pence had the good sense to skip CPAC this year. Other Trump cabinet members, including Mike Pompeo, took the event as an opportunity to climb ever further up Trump’s private orifices, banking on a display of unflinching loyalty to Number 45 as their best chance to become Number 47 should the Don suffer an unfortunate mishap — say a short spell in prison for tax evasion, or for threatening elections officials.

    Meanwhile, state GOP chapters around the country are busily censuring GOP congressmembers and senators who voted to impeach or convict Trump. And GOP-controlled legislatures are pushing through legislation aimed to prevent the sort of non-existent “fraud” that Trump still claims cost him the last election. Of course, since the fraud wasn’t real, what this means in practice is a vast effort to contract the electorate and to make it harder for people of color, the poor and students to cast ballots in coming elections.

    The ungodly CPAC display this past four days made two things absolutely clear. The first is that CPAC, and by extension most of the GOP, is nothing more or less than a personality cult; the values that have traditionally animated conservative movements in the U.S. have, now, been entirely subjugated to the allure of Trumpism. The second is that Trump’s financial interests — which are all he really cares about at this point — clearly lie not in putting his own dollars on the line by building up a third party, but in milking the GOP faithful for all he can, as quickly as he can, before his myriad legal woes catch up to him.

    Toward the end of Sunset Boulevard, Desmond shoots an ex-lover as he attempts to walk out on her. In a bizarre twist, the dead man then narrates his posthumous understanding of how this will all end. He imagines the headlines that will accompany the announcement of his murder. “Forgotten star, a slayer, aging actress, yesterday’s glamor queen.” Instead, as Desmond is perp-walked down her palace steps, the cameras keep clicking, and the diva remains, even in delusional disgrace, the star of her own show.

    Having failed to deal Trump a political death-blow in the Senate during the impeachment trial, the GOP is now stuck with its very own Norma Desmond. Trump is always ready for his close-up, because without the sound of the adoring claque, he is nothing.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The dividing line in the party now is not between moderates and extremists; they are all extremists. It is whether a lawmaker supports the former president and his false accusation that the Democrats “stole” the 2020 election from him. Continue reading

    The post Invitations to the Party appeared first on BillMoyers.com.

    This post was originally published on BillMoyers.com.

  • The US political/media class have been pushing hard for more authoritarian policies to stave off the threat of “domestic terrorism” in the wake of the Capitol riot. President Biden, who was already working on rolling out new domestic terror policies well before January sixth, confirmed after the riot that he is making these new measures a priority. Political internet censorship is becoming increasingly normalized, anti-protest bills are being passed, and now we’re seeing liberals encouraged to form “digital armies” to spy on Trump supporters to report them to the authorities.

    And an amazingly large percentage of the US population seems to have no problem with any of this, even in sectors of the political spectrum that should really know better by now.

    “What else can we do?” they reason. “What other solution could there possibly be to the threat of dangerous fascists and conspiracy theorists continuing to gain power and influence?”

    Well there’s a whole lot that can be done, and none of it includes consenting to sweeping new Patriot Act-like authoritarian measures or encouraging monopolistic Silicon Valley plutocrats to censor worldwide political speech. There’s just a whole lot of mass-scale narrative manipulation going on to keep it from being obvious to everyone.

    The way to stem the tide of Trumpism (or fascism, or white supremacism, or Trump cultism, or whatever term you use for what you’re worried about here) is to eliminate the conditions which created it.

    Trump was only able to launch his successful faux-populist campaign in the first place by exploiting the widespread pre-existing opinion that there was a swamp that needed draining, a corrupt political system whose leadership does not promote the interests of the people.

    Conspiracy theories only exist because the government often does evil things and lies about them with the help of the mass media, forcing people to just guess what’s happening behind the opaque wall of government secrecy.

    People only get it in their heads that they need a trustworthy strongman to overhaul the system if the system has failed them.

    People who are actually interested in ending Trumpism would be promoting an end to the corruption in the political system, an end to the opacity of their government, an end to their uniquely awful electoral system, and an end to the neoliberal policies which have been making Americans poorer and poorer with less and less support from the government which purports to protect them.

    But these changes are not being promoted by the US political/media class, because the US political/media class speaks for an empire that depends on these things.

    Without corruption, the plutocratic class couldn’t use campaign donations and corporate lobbying to install and maintain politicians who will advance their interests.

    Without government secrecy, the oligarchic empire could not conspire in secret to advance the military and economic agendas which form the glue that holds the empire together.

    Without a lying mass media, people’s consent could not be manufactured for wars and a system which does not serve their interests.

    Without widespread poverty and domestic austerity, people could not be kept too busy and politically impotent to challenge the massive political influence of the plutocrats.

    So the option of stopping the rise of Trumpism by changing the system is taken off the table, which is why you never hear it discussed as a possibility in mainstream circles. The only option people are being offered to debate the pros and cons of is giving more powers to that same corrupt system which created Trump, powers which will be under the control of the next Trumpian figure who is elevated by that very system.

    You’re not going to prevent fascism by creating a big authoritarian monster to stomp it into silence, and even if you could you would only be stopping the fascism by becoming the fascism. To stop the rise of fascism you need to actually change. Drastically. Believing you can just make it go away without changing your situation is like believing you can avert an oncoming train by putting your hands over your eyes.

    There is no valid argument against what I am saying here. Saying the powerful won’t allow any positive change is just confirming everything I’m saying and confirming the need to remove the powerful from power. Saying that ending corruption, government secrecy and injustice would just be giving the terrorists what they want would be turning yourself into a bootlicker of such cartoonish obsequiousness there aren’t words in the English language adequate to mock you.

    Yes, change is desperately needed. Yes, the powerful will resist that change with everything they have. But the alternative is letting them plunge the world into darkness and destruction. We’re going to have to find a way to win this thing.

    _________________________

    Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on , following my antics on throwing some money into my tip jar on  or , purchasing some of my , buying my new book Poems For Rebels (you can also download a PDF for five bucks) or my old book . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • A string of pseudo-populist conservative movements have reverted to the same agenda of tax cuts and deregulation. Why should we expect anything different?

    This post was originally published on Dissent MagazineDissent Magazine.