A STARK MEMORY OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE

 

We said it  “could never happen in America." Our fathers and grandfathers fought and died in two world wars to make sure it never did.  Other tens of millions died in the name of peace, freedom and democracy.

But here we are, suffering from acute memory loss and a profound ignorance of history.

So it's a new day, my friends...but it’s the same old fascism.

And history repeats itself, because we stubbornly and obtusely refuse to learn from it.

MAGA IS NOT CONSERVATIVE, LIZ IS

 Staunchly democratic Republican Liz Cheney finally said it out loud. If Donald Trump is the 2024 GOP nominee for president, she will abandon the party.

This news has been a long time coming. Unlike some long-time iconic conservatives such as syndicated columnist George Will, who not only abandoned the party when Trump became the candidate in 2016, but also called on his conservative readers to vote for Hillary Clinton because Trump was a danger to democracy, Cheney stuck it out for Trump’s entire term. In fact, she voted for Trump’s policies more than ninety percent of the time. But when Trump began undermining constitutional order, Cheney, then the third highest-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives, who had already been finding Trump’s loose and reluctant adherence to the Constitution and to presidential traditions disturbing, voted, along with nine other House Republicans, to impeach the then-president for inciting a bloody insurrection against the United States Congress.

The tenacious Liz Cheney, authentic conservative

Since then, Cheney has become the leading conservative voice against Donald Trump’s authoritarian designs, pointing out, principally, that Trump’s refusal, for the first time in US history, to accept the will of the people and submit to the peaceful transfer of power after unquestionably losing an election is intolerable, illegal and unacceptable. She believes, with every conservative bone in her body, that her party must either ensure that Trump never again holds office, or it will become the vehicle for American democracy’s suicidal demise.

As such, Liz Cheney, more than any other personality in the conservative world, has become the poster-girl for democracy, and the clear voice of reason in an America gone insane. Her role as vice-chair of the January Sixth Investigative Committee, has graphically demonstrated her level of commitment to trying to save the United States from the now ever more obvious advance of authoritarianism, since the current GOP leadership, in a cold-sweat panic born of the virulence of Trump’s slavish MAGA entourage, has chosen to embrace the Trump cult of personality—akin only to the rise of far-right populist dictatorships witnessed historically in pre-1990s Latin America, or to today’s populist far-left authoritarian regimes in such places as Venezuela, Cuba or Nicaragua—rather than losing their seats in Congress.

Cheney, for her part, has risked everything, placing Nation before party, the common good before personal political ambition and democracy before obedience to the GOP hierarchy, of which she is no longer a part. This last is thanks to her demotion by top House Republican and Trump sycophant Kevin McCarthy, who has demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that he will forsake all that is sacred in American democracy and in the “Party of Lincoln” in pursuit of his all-consuming ambition to be the next Speaker of the House.

Of the ten Republicans who dared confront the autocratic nature of the former president and vote with Democrats for his impeachment, the Trump political machine has left only two standing: namely, Washington State’s Fourth District Representative Dan Newhouse, and California’s Twenty-Second District Representative David Valadao.

Valadao was unique in that he was the only one of the ten that Trump and his mob didn’t target. This, despite the fact that he stated his unequivocal view in voting for impeachment that Trump was “without question, a driving force in the catastrophic events” at the Capitol. Perhaps it was a California thing. Despite being The Land of Reagan, California is considered by Trumpster loyalists to be a place of evil bent on imposing its mighty will and sinful liberal ideals on God-fearin’ folk from coast to coast. So maybe they felt there was no point spending good campaign money to primary Valadao in a largely heathen Democrat land where one Republican was as likely (or unlikely) to carry through as another. Who knows?

Newhouse, for his part, managed to survive being primaried by Trump loyalists, largely due to the “top-two style” open primary system by which candidates are picked in Washington State. According to this system, all candidates are listed on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election. As a result, in that state the Trump camp’s practice of primarying an incumbent who doesn’t toe the boss’s line is way less effective than elsewhere, because by this method you could even conceivably have two candidates from the same party running against each other in a general election and no candidate at all from the other party. It’s all about who the two top vote-getters are in the primary process, regardless of party affiliation.

Ohio Representative Gonzalez

The first of the GOP’s anti-Trump ten to be undermined was Anthony Gonzalez, who represents my home state of Ohio and my home voting district in Cuyahoga County. Although a young man, Gonzalez is an old-style Republican who actually believes in serving the public, in the tradition of political compromise, and in the nation instead of himself and has proven to be well-viewed across party lines. He was the sort of candidate who appealed to independents and even to some conservative Democrats because of his commonsense, non-reactionary approach to issues. He has, for instance, been a staunch critic of the appointment of millionaire businessman Louis DeJoy to the job of Postmaster General as part of the Trump camp’s attempt to derail mail-in voting in the 2020 General Election. 

After voting for Trump’s impeachment following the January Sixth Capitol Insurrection, Gonzalez was censured by his party for having "betrayed his constituents (and having) relied on emotions rather than the will of his constituents and any credible facts." Trump supported his own former White House aide Max Miller to run in a primary against Gonzalez in 2022, but the Ohio congressman—and much admired former college and pro football player—preempted that decision by announcing that he would not run again. Gonzalez’s unfortunate decision wasn’t based, however, on the primary challenge, but on multiple credible threats against the physical safety of both himself and his family that he has been receiving from anonymous MAGA fanatics who, Gonzalez clearly believes, will stop at nothing to impose Trump on American society, whether he wins in fair elections or not.

A month after Gonzalez announced that he wouldn’t run again, the much more high-profile Congressman Adam Kinzinger did the same, and for the same reasons. The Illinois Sixteenth District representative became the target of a deluge of death threats from MAGA activists and was subject to hostility from his GOP colleagues in Congress. But the former Iraq War Air Force combat pilot hasn’t allowed that decision—or the death threats—to sway him from his criticism of Trump as a would-be tyrant and a danger to democracy. Like Cheney, he has been active and front-and-center on the January Sixth Investigative Committee, as well as becoming a familiar face on television news shows whenever the subject of Trump’s un-democratic actions has been the subject.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger - not going quietly

One of Cheney’s veteran congressional colleagues who, like her, voted to impeach following January Sixth is Michigan Sixth District Representative Fred Upton. Faced with a Trump-backed primary challenge in the midst of constant death threats, Upton decided to end his thirty-year career in Congress and retire.

Fifty-nine-year-old New York Twenty-Fourth District Representative John Katko made a similar decision after the impeachment vote. He had served four terms in the House following a long career as an attorney.

The other four, including Cheney, who broke ranks and voted to impeach, deciding that Trump’s role in the January Sixth Insurrection was inexcusable and impossible to ignore for the sake of American democracy and constitutionality, were all primaried by the Trump camp and have since lost their seats in Congress as of next year. These include Washington State Third District Representative Jaime Lynn Herrera Beutler, Michigan Third District Representative Peter Meijer—who was only narrowly ousted by Trump-endorsed challenger John Gibbs—South Carolina Seventh District Representative Tim Rice, and, finally, Cheney herself who represented Wyoming At Large.

After a career as a State Department official and Republican presidential campaign strategist, Cheney won her congressional bid in 2016 and has been elected to three consecutive terms since. In her blood red state of Wyoming, her very conservative views and her father’s iconic Republican persona made her a veritable shoo-in for Far West voters. But her vote to impeach Trump and, worse still, her major role in the January Sixth investigation were viewed by the vast majority of far-right Wyoming voters as a betrayal of their trust in her conservatism and loyalty to “their president”.

Former VP Dick Cheney - Liz is fearless

In the lead-up to the Wyoming primary, former vice-president and conservative icon Dick Cheney filmed a TV spot in which, wearing his western Stetson, he looked directly into the camera and said, “In our nation’s two hundred-forty-six-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. Liz is fearless,” he went on. “She never backs down from the fight. There is nothing more important she will ever do than lead the effort to make sure Donald Trump is never again near the Oval Office, and she will succeed.”

Despite those moving words from her veteran Republican father, Cheney’s Trump-endorsed challenger, Harriet Hageman, trounced her, walking off with sixty-six percent of the votes. Wyoming was clearly the wrong place for Cheney’s democratic fervor, patriotism and loyalty to the Constitution. Her message, though absolutely right for America, was utterly wrong for winning an election in the most MAGA state in the Union.

All of this is particularly disturbing to me because of my background as an opposition newsman during dictatorial rule in Argentina. Listening to the statements of Republicans who have decided not to run following threats to them and their families strikes home in a very real way with me. As do stories from news professionals in the US who have also enumerated the vicious threats made against them for reporting honestly about the dangers facing US democracy.

These mob tactics being employed by the MAGA crowd particularly bring to mind a time shortly after my boss and mentor, Robert Cox, walked out on a twenty-year career at the Buenos Aires paper where we worked. Until then, 1979, he had stoically borne the heavy burden of his editorial decision to oppose dictatorial tyranny, but when death threats were directed at his wife and five children, the die was cast and he decided to submit to self-exile in the United States—that was decades before the Trump regime would seek to make dictatorships popular and to express actual admiration for them.

Cox, the editor who took on tyranny 

Very soon after his departure from the paper and the country, a colleague who was marrying into one of the wealthy families most connected to the crony system supported by the dictatorship was invited to a cocktail party as her fiancé’s date. While bumping shoulders with some of the strongest supporters of the authoritarian regime, she realized the woman talking to her mother-in-law to be was the wife of the top general in charge of Intelligence and, as such, the man directly responsible for the reign of terror that the dictatorship employed to maintain its power. Drawing near, she overheard the woman say, “See how we finally ran Cox out?” and watched her mother-in-law smile with genuine glee and congratulate the other woman.

You can be sure there is some version of this going on in the Trump-usurped GOP as well, as MAGA leaders gleefully watch the remaining true Republicans in the party give up and walk out on what they see as a lost cause, or at least as an environment too toxic for them to remain in. Indeed, in her comments this past week at The Texas Tribune Festival in Austin, Cheney not only said that she would abandon her party if Trump was the candidate, but also opined that the fact that Trump could incite an insurrection and refuse to permit a peaceful transfer of power after losing an election and still have the GOP leadership’s support for the possibility of his running again in 2024 indicated “just how sick” the party is.

Cheney said she would do “whatever it takes” to try and ensure that Trump is not the GOP nominee in the next presidential election. She repeated her pledge to do “everything in her power” to stop Trump’s presidential bid when festival moderator Evan Smith asked if she herself was considering running for president in 2024.

This, to my mind, brings up an interesting point. It is clear that the nefarious influence of MAGA Republicans in the GOP has made it next to impossible to survive politically in that party for true believers in and defenders of democracy like Cheney, Kinzinger, and the other eight in the House who voted to impeach Trump, as well as for people like Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) in the Senate, who are managing to hang on to their seats but amid Trump-camp primary challenges and attempts among their peers in Congress to ostracize them.

So how can these true conservatives buck the autocratic MAGA trend and return their party to the values of such icons as Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush, when the MAGA bandwagon is blaring the message that “this isn’t your grandpa’s GOP” and indicating by it that not supporting the authoritarian personality cult surrounding Donald Trump is tantamount to being a traitor to the party and to the country—a message that the new MAGA-Republicanism has in common with every dictatorship that has ever existed worldwide? As I see it, the answer is, they can’t. At least not in this lifetime. The GOP has been hijacked by a neo-fascist crowd that is bent on winning by hook or by crook, that has zero interest in democracy or a two-party system, and that is touting the notion that no idea that comes from anyplace but its own hierarchy is viable or acceptable.

But there is clear evidence that the handful of true supporters of the tenets of American democracy, justice and political tradition that remain active in the party have a following. And Liz Cheney’s courage and true leadership have done much since 2020 to advance that support. I personally know Republicans who are never-Trumpers and were sorrowfully yet patriotically willing to forsake their life-long affiliations to vote against Trump, even if only for a tiny third party candidate with absolutely no chance of winning, while others held their noses and voted for the Democratic candidate simply to make sure that Trump wouldn’t occupy the White House for another four years. These are people who are now discouraged and confused since their conservative democratic ideals are served neither by the current MAGA-Republican leadership nor by the Democrats.

There is also evidence to suggest that Liz Cheney and never-Trump Republican politicians have further garnered potential support among conservative independents and even among some conservative Democrats, as well as among non-MAGA Libertarians. These are all people who are both fed up with the drama of MAGA-Republicanism, with the toxic autocratic image of Donald Trump, and with what they see as ever more liberal trends in the Democratic party.

These people are all hungry for change but see no vehicle for it, when potentially powerful leaders like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and Mitt Romney have been definitively sidelined in an off-the-rails GOP. And although they have been systematically whittled down to a handful by the Trump machine in Congress, the roster of valuable current, former and would-be conservative influencers who see Trump as an existential threat to democracy and, indeed, to the Republican Party as such, is actually impressively long and star-studded. You can get an idea of just how impressive from this list:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign

So, what’s missing here? A new vehicle. A new party. A democratic conservative party for true conservatives instead of a party dominated by MAGA autocrats and coup-mongers. Many people are afraid of any modification in America’s traditional—for all intents and purposes but not always in absolute fact—two-party system. But seeing what has happened in the past six years, I have to ask myself if, perhaps, the US two-party system hasn’t effectively run its course, coming dangerously close to a shooting war between two political organizations that are striving more for superiority over each other than for a working democracy, a constructive debate of ideas and policies, the final compromises and balance between which are actually beneficial to the citizens who vote for them.

A strong, authentic and democratic conservative party could go a long way toward bringing party politics back toward serving the people instead of continuing to be a destructively self-serving force by, for and of itself and in detriment to the nation it was meant to serve. Could a new conservative party win the 2024 election? Perhaps—Independent Bernie Sanders’ near-victory in the Democratic Primary in 2016 provides an encouraging example—but probably not. It could, however, make enormous inroads toward isolating and disempowering authoritarian influence in the American right wing. And it could hold out a promise of conservative authenticity that would only strengthen its influence in the future. If the purpose of Liz Cheney and her fellow small-d democratic Republican colleagues and constituents is really to do “everything in their power” to halt the advance of Trump and MAGA-Republicanism, a conservative third party could well head them off at the pass if Trump is a candidate in 2024. And it could continue to be a bright new democratic force to be reckoned with in the future.

The even bigger problem with cults of personality than their own undemocratic origins and selfish goals is that, like all of us, personalities die. They are not larger than life. They are mortal. And personality-isms, therefore, always devolve into some entirely other “ism” once their self-centered leaders succumb to mortality—usually something far worse, even, than their originally undemocratic selves.

The solution to Trump and MAGA’s takeover of the GOP must come from within democratic Republican ranks. A patriotically-founded conservative party could gain force on the strength of its incipient resistance to the advance of authoritarianism and on the strength of its power to split the Republican vote between true conservatives and the MAGA autocracy in the coming election cycles, thus also serving to purge and cleanse the right of its current authoritarian orientation. In short, it could properly and honorably represent genuine conservatism in the United States, while literally saving the life of American democracy.                  

WELCOME TO THE POT—PARTY OF TRUMP

 

Senator Chuck Grassley this past weekend became a sorry symbol of just how entrenched the idea of an authoritarian personality cult has become in the Trump-usurped Republican Party—which we might as well start calling the POT (Party of Trump). Leaving any sort of political authority or personal pride mothballed at home in his closet, Grassley sidled up onto the podium at a Trump rally in his home state of Iowa over the weekend to kiss the ring (or whatever) of the man whom the GOP hierarchy has obviously accepted as their king.

Grassley with Trump, backhanded acceptance

It was a pathetic display to see someone who has clearly lived long enough to become a Republican icon obviously feeling that he had to pay tribute to an authoritarian outlier who, in just the last six years, has managed to wrest power out of the hands of the party’s most senior officials and to convert the GOP into an unmitigated cult of personality that is willing to subvert its founding conservatism and to conjure up a narrative to justify the unjustifiable at the expense of constitutional democracy.

Perhaps Senator Grassley’s performance would have been somewhat less humiliating and obsequious if he could have at least sounded as if he were sincere—no matter how insane that might be—in his undying support of the man who tried to lead a coup against the United States of America last January 6^th. But he made it abundantly clear that he was there because he felt he had to be, not because of any great fondness that he might have for Donald Trump.

In one of the most backhanded responses imaginable to Trump’s endorsement of his umpteenth run for the Senate, Grassley shambled onto the stage next to the former president and said: “I was born at night, but not last night. So if I didn't accept the endorsement of a person who's got ninety-one percent of the Republican voters in Iowa, I wouldn't be too smart. I'm smart enough to accept that endorsement.”

The message was clear to anyone listening with an objective ear. Basically, Grassley was saying, like it or not, you’ve taken over my party and I have no choice but to accept that fact or be rendered irrelevant. But is that true?

Sadly, Senator Grassley is doubly emblematic of the Republican Party: First, because he is the longest serving Republican in the Senate (a body of which he is president pro tempore emeritus), but second, because he has joined the rest of the GOP “leadership” in shrugging their collective shoulders and embracing Trump’s far-right populism for the sole reason that he has a multitudinous base that neither understands nor cares about democracy and is only interested in following a patriarchal figure who has no problem filling their heads with hollow promises that he has no intention whatsoever of keeping.

The choice Grassley clearly has, but has eschewed, is that of embracing his country and the original tenets of his once democratic party and refusing to be an accomplice to a movement bent on undermining democracy and leading the country into a dark era of authoritarian designs. It is obvious that the senior senator is willing to trade party, country and democracy for access to the votes that his party’s usurper commands.

This is, to my mind, sad beyond all understanding. Chuck Grassley, who turned eighty-eight last month, has a political career that stretches back to before anyone under seventy can recall.  He was first elected to the Iowa legislature in 1959. He was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1975, and he was first elected US Senator for Iowa in 1981. In other words, Grassley has been serving in government as a GOP lawmaker for the past six decades. The question that springs to my mind is, how did he not die of shame climbing onto that stage last weekend and admitting that, at eighty-eight, he was still willing to make a pact with whatever devil might come along, simply to keep holding onto office by his fingernails?

Fiona Hill - "dress rehearsal"

The loyalty of the GOP “leadership” to Donald Trump would appear to be in direct proportion to their faulty memory of the January Sixth Insurrection. They are playing a dangerous political game in which what is being gambled away is the very core of American democratic traditions and institutions. 

Brookings Institution senior fellow Fiona Hill, who also formerly served as an expert on Russia with the National Security Council, has called the January Sixth Insurrection “a dress rehearsal for something that could be happening near term, in 2022, and 2024.” Her assessment jives with that of a growing number of political observers who see January 6^th as a symptom in sort of a so far cold civil war that is taking shape in the US. Speaking to CBS news last Sunday, Hill expressed her opinion that the United States finds itself in “a very dangerous place.”

Liz Cheney - a duty to truth

Another symptom of the depth of the democratic crisis in the GOP was the refusal of second-ranked House Republican Steve Scalise to answer repeated attempts by Fox News’s Chris Wallace to get him to admit that President Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election and his tangential suggestion that state legislatures, not voters, should determine the president—a view held by numerous dictators throughout history who have used rubber-stamp legislative branches to legitimize their designations.

In a tweet, Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney called Scalise out: “Millions of Americans have been sold a fraud that the election was stolen,” she wrote. “Republicans have a duty to tell the American people that this is not true. Perpetuating the Big Lie is an attack on the core of our constitutional republic.”

Cheney couldn’t be more right, but in the Trump-usurped GOP, she and only a handful of other traditional Republican conservatives form a very tiny choir of support for democracy in what has clearly become the Party of Trump.

 

TRUMP’S LEGACY...OR THE NEAR DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY

 

 In June of 2018, in an essay entitled The Family Separation Incident and What It Says about Trump https://yankeeatlarge.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-family-separation-incident-and-what.html, I wrote here: “Nazi Germany didn't see fascism coming either. They just saw a firebrand leader (also with a bad haircut) who attacked the status quo and talked down to traditional politicians whom he eventually banned, to cheers and raised fists of his racist, nativist base. And before they knew it, decent Germans who were tacitly against persecution of non-Aryans ended up no longer having a voice, because it became okay to jail or eliminate them if they spoke out. Eventually, it even became legal to jail or eliminate them. So when you hear those who, like Attorney General Sessions, quote “the law” in carrying out heinous, inhuman acts, warning, they are the voice of the “legal but illegitimate” and the harbingers of de facto rule.” 

I added that, “I feel sorry for Americans who laugh off these warnings and say ‘It could never happen in America.’ Democracy only survives if it is defended, if people stand up and demand it, if, like the teen survivors of the Parkland mass shooting, they ‘call bullshit’ when they see it. The truth is, that it is happening, right under our noses. The United States is courting the policies of authoritarianism and the personality cults of fascist designs.”

I am sad to say that my perception of what has taken place over the past four years has not changed, except to grow worse with each passing day of the Trump administration. And although I was labeled “an alarmist” back then (which seems like a hundred years ago), and even “anti-American”, and was accompanied by only a handful of observers in denouncing the Trump administration for what it was—a would-be authoritarian regime that had usurped one of the country’s two main parties and was willing to go to any lengths to perpetuate itself in power—today the majority of Americans are finally waking up to the fact that something really grave has happened here.

I’m not saying, ‘I told you so,” but...I told you so.

Optimists will say that, in the end, there is reason for celebration: Democracy willed out. And on a very limited basis, I agree. But there can be little doubt that it has done so by the skin of its teeth and despite scores of traitors in the midst of the very Congress that is charged with the protection and exercise of democracy, elected representatives, a minority to be sure, but a far too large one, who know the truth but are willing to perpetuate a criminal and treasonous lie for their own selfish political ends, because they are morally and democratically bankrupt.

Certainly not the least of these—in fact, a ringleader in the Trump conspiracy to remain in power—is a politician from my own state, Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who has been one of the most aggressive supporters of Trumpian authoritarianism. I can only hope that my fellow Ohioans will be wise enough to vote him out in the next possible by-election if he hasn’t been censured and expelled from Congress as a seditionist by then. There are already petitions being circulated to seek the removal of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri for their roles in perpetuating blatant lies about the 2020 election, which served as the main catalyst for this month’s insurrection at the Capitol Building in Washington DC. These petitions will include more than a dozen Trump-or-die members of the House as well. Hopefully, Jordan will be among them.  

I indeed have high hopes for the next four years, although I am sure they will be very difficult ones. How could they be otherwise, with Trump and his cronies having spent millions and millions of their supporters’ dollars on propaganda and apocryphal lawsuits in order to convince his followers that the election was stolen from them when everyone perpetrating and perpetuating that lie—except, perhaps, for Trump himself, who is, arguably, delusional—knew it to be untrue? The victims of that ruse weren’t Democrats, but Trump-Republicans, who fell for it hook, line and sinker, becoming the tool Trump sought to use to overthrow democracy and remain in power for another four years—at least.

So loyal is this core base to the Trump brand and to the Trump personality cult, that despite over sixty lawsuits thrown out of court for lack of merit or evidence and two Supreme Court presentations flatly rejected (by a High Court on which Trump himself had named three of the justices), and despite certification of the vote even—especially—by Republican state officials, the Electoral College and the United States Congress, they continue to take their authoritarian leader’s word above all. Perpetuation of that Big Lie (as the Nazis called lies told to the people in order to ensure their loyalty) is what earlier this month triggered an attempted coup in Congress and is still wreaking havoc across the fifty states.

This among all of the wrongs that Donald Trump has done to his nation, is the greatest wrong of all—having abused the loyalty of his base and imbued them with falsehoods that have prompted them to betray their country while feeling sure that they are doing just the opposite. They have been grifted, and they have been, and continue to be used.

Over the last several years, I have more than once written my observation that, under the Trump administration, the United States has been at its most divided since the Civil War. That too was seen by many, rather than as an honest warning from someone familiar with authoritarianism and how it works, as hyperbole and as intentionally incendiary. But since the tragic events of January 6^th, many people, sadly enough, have been forced to come to the same conclusion. As I write this essay, Washington DC is on lockdown. Nearly twenty-five thousand troops have been deployed in the nation’s capital to prevent further attempts at insurrection.

That’s about ten times the number of US troops currently stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan and five times as many as are deployed in those two war zones combined. It is a staggeringly bigger military operation than the one mounted in Washington following the Nine-Eleven foreign terrorist attack in 2001 that targeted the former Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in the capital that left over three thousand Americans dead. Back then it was only deemed necessary to activate six hundred troops to secure the city.

But this time the National Guard is not there to protect the country from foreign invaders. Its troops are there now, as Massachusetts Democrat Seth Moulten told an interviewer, to protect the country “from the president and his mob.” Moulten was one of the people hunkered down in the Capitol on January 6^th, waiting hours for police and security agents to drive back the Trumpian invasion and make it safe for Congress to continue with the business of certifying the results of the November 3^rd election. From the office where he was barricaded in for the duration, Representative Moulten told a telephone interviewer, “We’re going to be okay. We’re going to pull through this. But I’m not sure that our country, at least since the Civil War, has ever been in a more precarious position. And never has it been under more assault from within.”

Moulten is a member of the House Armed Services Committee who served as a Marine Corps Infantry Officer from 2001 to 2008, after graduating from Harvard and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Asked to assess the current risk to democracy, he says that it is “a dangerous position for the country to be in” when members of Congress have been involved in a seditious plot to overturn an election by violent means. And it also worries him that, according to reports, about a dozen members of the Armed Forces appear to be involved in the anti-democratic movement backing Donald Trump’s authoritarian aspirations. While that may be few, he says, “the number should be zero.” Moulten described the scene this weekend in DC, ahead of the Inauguration next Wednesday, as looking “like the Green Zone in Baghdad”. He had expected it there in a war zone, but to see it in Washington was frightening and surreal.

This week images from Washington looked to me much like Buenos Aires did in March of 1976, when I was covering the military takeover there—a usually bustling downtown area locked down and deserted, with military trucks, armored personnel carriers and troops in fatigues on every corner, bridges into the city road-blocked, and with anyone going into or out of the area being subject to strict security measures. Seeing the same sort of military lockdown in the capital of my own country, once known as the seat of the greatest democracy on earth, is heart-wrenching, but a dose of reality about the age we are living in. At a time when much of the developing world has turned toward ever greater and more inclusive democracy, traditional Western democracies, and particularly the US, are struggling with the rise of a new strain of populist fascism.  

Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde, whose studies for the past three decades have focused on extremism and populism in the US and Europe, recently wrote in The Guardian, that he had never seen such movements more emboldened than they are today. “To be clear,” he writes, “this is not just about Donald Trump or the US.” He explains that just last year anti-vaccine protesters tried to storm the Reichstag in Germany and also faced weak police resistance. And he goes on to say that, since 2019, the Dutch Farmers Defense Force has been destroying government offices and threatening politicians in The Netherlands.

But he adds that, while Trump may not be the initiator of neo-fascist populist movements like these, “(he) has been a major catalyst of this process.”

“Obviously,” Mudde adds, “racism and racist dog-whistling have been key to the party since they launched their infamous ‘southern strategy’ in the 1970s, which brought white southerners to the Republican Party, but this goes far beyond that. The radicalization is not just ideological, it is anti-systemic.”

As for how we have arrived at this point, Mudde’s conclusion is the same as my own: “First and foremost, through a long process of cowardice, failures, and shortsighted opportunism of the mainstream right. Already in 2012, in the wake of the deadly terrorist attack on a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, by a longtime prominent neo-Nazi, I wrote, ‘The extremist rhetoric that comes from so-called law-abiding patriots should be taken more seriously.’”

Mudde says that back then he had advised Republican leaders to “be more careful in choosing their company and insinuations”. What happened, however, was, he says, just the opposite: far-right ideas and people were mainstreamed rather than ostracized.

Experts like Mudde clearly see the phenomenon I mentioned earlier, and that I have been trying to hammer home since the 2016 election that brought Trump to power. Namely, the far right’s grifting of a disenfranchised segment of the white population by speaking to their worst fears—immigrants, greater empowerment of minorities, the disappearance of their traditional jobs as technology replaces people, the advancement of science over “beliefs” and ever greater adherence to freedom of conscience that has removed Christianity (and particularly evangelism) from its former pedestal—and telling them that right-wing populists “have their back”, that they are “the real people”, the formerly silent majority that have now been given a voice. The traveling partners for this neo-fascist movement to replace representative democracy with single-party authoritarianism have been the far-right “conservative” media, from right-wing talk radio to Fox News and from Breitbart to One America News and Newsmax, and a still highly influential religious right.     

Six months ago, I’m fairly sure that if, in the manner of Rod Serling introducing a new episode of The Twilight Zone, I would have written, “Imagine if you will,” that Donald Trump loses the election and, instead of leaving office quietly, decides to lead an insurrection as a means of remaining the president despite the will of the majority of the people of the United States, even many of my readers would have said that I was being argumentative and unrealistic, and that Trump might grumble and moan but that a smooth transition of power had always been guaranteed, throughout the history of the United States. Again, I apologize for being right and couldn’t be more saddened by the truth.

The original sin, however, is not just Donald Trump’s. It is the failure of politicians in general to create a democratic society that is ever more inclusive, that provides equal possibilities for an excellent education to everyone, that ensures that people don’t die because they can’t afford proper health care, that no one goes hungry or sleeps on the street in America, that the electoral system isn’t gerrymandered to repress the segments who most require representation in a patently unfair society, that Americans are safe to walk their streets and expect to be protected by law enforcement rather than victimized by it. 

A people that is proud of the democratic system that governs it and feels that it is a part of an all-inclusive project designed to improve its members’ standard of living to an ever-increasing degree isn’t a people that votes for a Donald Trump. If his shameful and undemocratic legacy is to be definitively buried as of next Wednesday, the rebuilding of democracy must start on Day One with reconstruction of a compassionate and socially all-inclusive democratic society.

 

GO SELL CRAZY SOMEPLACE ELSE, THIS IS A DEMOCRACY

None but a handful of congressional Republicans has had the guts to speak up and tell the would-be emperor he’s through. And the ones who have timidly, almost apologetically, faced the fact publicly that Joe Biden will be president in less than a month from now have had to confront a maelstrom of Trumpian and Trump-surrogate attacks. It is a shocking affront to democracy that called for someone at the top of the GOP food-chain to speak out unequivocally.

And someone did: GOP propagandist and media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who enthusiastically endorsed the forty-fifth president with every major medium in his holdings, including Fox News, has called out would-be autocrat Trump in no uncertain terms through one of his most high-profile tabloids, the New York Post.  From then to now, 2016-2020, Murdoch's almost obscenely Trumpian GOP-partisan paper is telling the president, enough with the bat-shit crazy antics.  

Quoth the NY Post:

Mr. President, it’s time to end this dark charade.

We’re one week away from an enormously important moment for the next four years of our country.

On Jan. 5, two runoff races in Georgia will determine which party will control the Senate — whether Joe Biden will have a rubber stamp or a much-needed check on his agenda.

Unfortunately, you’re obsessed with the next day, Jan. 6, when Congress will, in a pro forma action, certify the Electoral College vote. You have tweeted that, as long as Republicans have “courage”, they can overturn the results and give you four more years in office.

In other words, you’re cheering for an undemocratic coup.

You had every right to investigate the election. But let’s be clear: Those efforts have found nothing. To take just two examples: Your campaign paid $3 million for a recount in two Wisconsin counties, and you lost by 87 more votes. Georgia did two recounts of the state, each time affirming Biden’s win. These ballots were counted by hand, which alone debunks the claims of a Venezuelan vote-manipulating Kraken conspiracy.

Sidney Powell is a crazy person. Michael Flynn suggesting martial law is tantamount to treason. It is shameful...

Isn't it about time Trump and his foaming-at-the-mouth followers listened? And isn’t it about time the GOP grew a backbone and took back the party from Trumper conspiracy theorists and far-right mad dogs?

Time to choose: Embrace democracy or share Trump’s shameful “legacy” of attempting to deny the will of the people and instate an authoritarian regime. You are either with him in this final display of sociopathic narcissism and megalomania, or you are against him and support democracy and the Constitution of the United States.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

AN ABSENCE OF DEMOCRATIC RIGOR

 

Earlier this month, on Veterans Day, while speaking at the opening of the new military museum at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Mark Milley, affirmed the following: "We are unique among armies, we are unique among militaries. We do not take an oath to a king or queen, or tyrant or dictator, we do not take an oath to an individual. No, we do not take an oath to a country, a tribe or a religion. We take an oath to the Constitution, and every soldier that is represented in this museum—every sailor, airman, marine, coastguard—each of us protects and defends that document, regardless of personal price."

General Mark Milley

General Milley, the country’s top general officer, was referring to the same oath that I and many other veterans of my era—and those before and since—have sworn to. It begins like this: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same...”

I still stand by that oath, and so too, apparently, do the Armed Forces...at least for now. But a lot of surprising things have been happening over the course of the past four years, and those who have chosen to understate or ignore them could be in for some very unpleasant surprises in the future, as might we all.

The fact that General Milley felt called upon to reaffirm this oath —especially on Veterans Day, a sacred day for military personnel and veterans alike—is telling within the current unprecedented context. Especially after Milley’s commander in chief saw fit a few days before to carry out a shake-up at the top of the chain of command, starting with the firing of the defense secretary and continuing with the sacking of some high-ranking Pentagon officials. The president made little secret of why he was doing this. He was seeking to entrench “Trump loyalists” in the military two months out from what, considering the November 3 election results, should be his final day in office. He also made it clear that he was rejecting those results and planned to stay put, which rendered the Pentagon shake-up pointed and ominous.

It’s not hard to surmise, then, that General Milley knew precisely whom he was referring to when he said that soldiers “do not take an oath to an individual.” Because ever since Donald Trump took office in January of 2017, he has been demanding loyalty, not to the Constitution or even to the United States, but to him personally, from everyone on the roster of State, and he has deemed anyone who refused to comply a “member of the deep state”—yet another fantasy of his own fevered imagination.

The concern is, however, that such is the power of the image of the presidency—a personal power comparable only to that of the Pope within the Roman Catholic Church in terms of mass belief in the superiority of the personage holding the office—that these paranoid fantasies that flourish in Donald Trump’s mind have a contagious effect on his following. Indeed, nearly every time Trump supporters chide Trump critics for pointing to this particular White House resident’s severely flawed personality, they do so by harping on “lack of respect for the institution of the presidency”, rather than acknowledging that this president’s estranged relationship with truth and reality is like none other in the history of the office he holds.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party leadership’s prioritizing of winning over American democratic ideals is such that the majority-Trumpian GOP is perfectly willing to not only indulge but also to fan the flames of this fever in hopes of being able to cling to power at the expense of the people’s faith in the most noteworthy experiment in democracy in the history of the world. And this is only serving to institutionalize the climate of distrust that Trump and Company are seeking to breed, thus pitting the somewhat less than half of the population that is convinced Trumpian propaganda is true against the more than half the population that realizes that it is a pernicious lie.

Over the course of the past couple of weeks, I have engaged repeatedly with Trump-supporters on the social media. Some are too dismissive to develop any rapport with whatsoever. Suffice it to say that on presenting my views on democratic ideals I have no few times been referred to in these post-election days as “a communist”, “an activist”, “an ass”, “a simpleton”, and “an imbecile”—more specifically, “a full-of-shit imbecile”. But those who have maintained sufficient logic and manners to present salient arguments have, to a man and woman, clung to the sole and valid idea of what the president and his campaign apparatus can legally do to challenge the election results.

None of these people, unfortunately, seems to be listening when I repeatedly agree that any candidate has certain legal recourse available when he or she has reason to suspect fraud. They have again and again accused me of wanting to forego certification of the vote and the legal rights of the president and the GOP and simply allow the media to call the election. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth or more ludicrous to anyone at all familiar with my ardently democratic principles for which I have, in another time and place, literally put my life on the line. I fully agree that no vote is final until certified and that, if there is a shadow of a doubt about corruption, it should be investigated. As in any other lawsuit, however, not on the basis of party passion, disappointment over outcome, political ambitions, candidate preference or unmitigated hearsay, but only on the basis of hard evidence and indisputable facts.

The other argument of mine that Trump supporters consistently ignore—because, I suspect, they have absolutely no valid stance with which to rebut it—is that while any and all proper legal recourse in the courts is valid, intervention by the Department of Justice, and more specifically, by the attorney general is not. Period. The only time that the attorney general can legitimately intervene in an election process is when all other legal recourse has been exhausted and election results certified, despite there still existing apparent and compelling evidence of irregularities. Otherwise, there is a hard and fast rule that the attorney general—who represents every citizen of the United States, not the president or a party—cannot intervene to cast doubt on, or to seek to overturn election results, especially when this key public official is doing so in the name of the ruling party and administration to which he or she is beholden. Attorney General William Barr has very apparently run afoul of this rule by announcing that the DOJ would be opening a pre-certification investigation into claims of voter fraud to the detriment of the incumbent.

This is a clear violation of democratic principles. The aim of the rule against the DOJ’s getting involved prior to finalization and certification of the election is self-apparent: It is to ensure that no president can become a dictator by using the machinery of government to neutralize the chances of an opponent’s winning the race. Barr, and by association, Donald Trump, have violated that trust.

The thread-bareness of Trump followers’ affirmation of the legality of the incumbent’s attempts to stall the inevitable and to refuse to concede the other candidate’s election victory lies in a question of legitimacy. The fact is that, to date, after dozens of filings, none of the suits brought by the Trump campaign has managed to make one iota of difference in the overall election results. And the court decisions handed down have mostly been rebuffs so severe that if Trump or his campaign were capable of anything even approaching shame or honor these findings would be a source of profound embarrassment.

For instance:

In a suit in Michigan in which Republican poll-watchers tried to block certification in Detroit alleging fraud and misconduct, Circuit Court Judge Timothy Kenny ruled that, “it would be an unprecedented exercise of judicial activism for this court to stop the certification process of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers,” adding that “Plaintiffs’ interpretation of events is incorrect and not credible.” The same suit was taken to a federal court under a new title where Trump’s team ended up dropping legal action after a lawyer for the city of Detroit suggested that the president’s campaign was seeking “to try the same case in multiple courtrooms hoping that somebody will provide an endorsement of their baseless conspiracy theories.”

Also in Michigan, four voters sought exclusion of all votes cast in three counties on allegations of fraud and irregularities. They did this with no corroboration, claiming officials had counted the ballots of ineligible voters and citing unverified reports of software glitches and dead people voting that had appeared on Fox News. The suit was later dropped.

A suit regarding the Detroit vote that was only cosmetically different from the one thrown out of court by Judge Kenny and later dropped by a federal court was filed again in yet another court, but was dropped by the plaintiffs themselves only a few days after filing.

When Michigan swung hard toward Biden, a desperate Trump campaign team again tried to halt the count, this time presenting an affidavit from one poll-watcher who said that another poll-watcher (whom she refused to name) told her that she had been told by unnamed poll workers to change the date received on a ballot.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani

Michigan Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens interpreted the so-called affidavit as “I heard someone else say something.” Addressing the plaintiff, she said, “Tell me how that is not hearsay. Come on now!”

In Pennsylvania, the Trump campaign sought to block certification of voting due to minor errors in otherwise properly signed and cast absentee, mail-in and other ballots. Common Pleas Court Judge James Crumlish denied the viability of any of the claims.

Four Pennsylvania voters later sought to block all votes from four counties alleging violation of the right to equal protection due to different absentee balloting practices from one county to the next. Shortly afterward, seeing the hopelessness of the claim, the Trump team decided to request withdrawal of the suit. The court dropped it and three more similar cases from the docket.

In Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, the Trump team sought to block the counting of six hundred mail-in votes because the Election Board had notified the voters that they had forgotten to fill in missing information on their ballot envelopes. When the attorney for the plaintiff was asked by the judge if any of the errors involved fraud, he admitted that they didn’t. Judge Richard Haaz disallowed the petition to annul the ballots saying, “Voters should not be disenfranchised by reasonably relying upon voting instructions provided by election officials which are consistent with the Election Code.”

These are just a few examples of the similar fates of all of some thirty court filings on behalf of Trump since Election Day. Perhaps the most humiliating was when Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, a supposed legal eagle who hasn’t actually practiced law in decades but is reported to be pulling down twenty thousand dollars a day in Trump-campaign-paid legal fees was chided by a federal judge for the suit he filed last week in Pennsylvania.

District Court Judge Matthew W. Brann, who heard Giuliani’s argument, said that what Trump’s lawyer had presented to the court was “strained legal arguments without merit and (with) speculative accusations.” The judge indicated that what Giuliani filed wasn’t tied to the actual complaint or supported by any evidence.

“In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth-most-populated state. Our people, laws and institutions demand more,” the judge concluded.

Suffice this sampling of the Trump campaign’s exercising of its legal right to date to conclude that while legal, what the president is doing is less than legitimate. The pathetic nature of the filings up to now appears to be nothing more than a smokescreen for the election loss and, worse still, a ruse to create “dozens of court cases” questioning the results, even if those cases are quickly and unceremoniously dropped by the Trump team, in order to create a superficial climate of doubt regarding the election results and the clear legitimacy of President-elect Biden’s win. At last count, although many results still require final certification, Biden had a 5.98 million popular vote lead over Trump and is expected to command a more than seventy-vote lead over Trump in the Electoral College. Given the anemic performance of the Trump campaign’s legal team to date—it’s hard to see how they might have some ace up their sleeve when they’ve failed so miserably to produce any compelling evidence in court up to the present—those results are unlikely to change significantly, if at all, in favor of the incumbent.

The only conclusion, then, is that Trump’s entire strategy—such as it is—in refusing to do what every other president in living memory has done for the good of the Union and concede, is to sow discord, to undermine faith in the system, to basically slash and burn democracy so that if it doesn’t conform to his ambitions it will no longer be viable for his successors and will leave them with an ungovernable population.

These are the tenets of fascism. To scratch, claw and bite one’s way like a rat to the top of a personality cult that rewards dictatorial charisma over democratic vigor and that prefers blind loyalty to individuality and the dictates of a populist mob to respect for civil rights.

Already in Georgia this week—where the Republican governor and secretary of state have done the right thing by placing party beneath country and by not only ensuring an absolutely transparent election but also by certifying the results after a machine count and a hand count—pro-Trump protesters took to the streets to object to the clearly fair outcome. They declared themselves “the new Republicans” and dubbed “traitors” the governor, the secretary of state and a handful of other Republicans who have suggested it’s time for the president to concede and open the way to transition.

As the final results are confirmed and certified, it is likely that this kind of unrest could become much wider spread and perhaps more violent, since Trump’s disregard for democracy and his efforts to cast doubt on what one of his own appointed—and subsequently fired—Homeland Security officials called “the most secure election in history”, have “succeeded” in creating the perception among an estimated seventy percent of Republicans that they have been cheated and that the election has been stolen from them. It seems, from my experience, to be futile to ask any of these election deniers why on earth, if the Democrats really did “throw” the election, they would have permitted the GOP to do so incredibly well in the House, where the party gained numerous seats, or in the Senate, where control has come down to the fate of two run-off elections in a single state. They simply glaze over and repeat the litany that Trump was cheated, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Having resisted and survived dictatorial rule elsewhere in the world, I am disheartened and gravely concerned about the trend that Donald Trump’s four years in office have wrought in my native US. Polarization of rival parties, the prioritizing of dogma over truth, the successful impact of institutionalized lies and propaganda on the thinking of an enormous proportion of the population and the elevation of a sociopathic and narcissistic personality to Pope-like levels of popularity based on such critically destructive ideologies as racism, xenophobia, ultra-nationalism and hatred of “the other”.

I return often to the question that I have heard Americans ask time and again: How could a country like Germany ever have fallen under the spell of a dictator like Hitler? All I can do is point to what is happening right now and say that history repeats itself.

The conservatives who helped bring Hitler to power by largely “democratic” means, never believed that he would be able to use the clout that they had bestowed on him as chancellor to later create a single-party dictatorship. But the echoes of the past are there when, going into this election, we heard Trump repeatedly say that the only way he could lose was if there was fraud. Just as German conservatives fancied that they could “control” Hitler and “tame” his Nazi followers, so too the GOP thought that they could control Trump and his followers. Instead, their party has been usurped and is now the party of Trump and they are being held hostage by Trump’s base, which they so fear losing that they are willing to try and help them subvert democracy by continuing to deny the indisputable facts of this month’s election.

German journalist Theodor Wolff wrote in the Frankfurter Zeitung shortly after the Nazis won power in the country’s parliament that there was nothing to fear from Hitler. Although Hitler would surely fight the left tooth and nail and although it was true that he was backed by a virulent and violent base, there was "a barrier, over which violence cannot proceed" in Germany. Germany, he claimed, was a nation that was too “proud of its freedom of speech and thought” to allow itself to live under tyranny.

The right was sure it could control Hitler

In January of 1933, Wolff wrote: “It is a hopeless misjudgment to think that one could force a dictatorial regime upon the German nation. [...] The diversity of the German people calls for democracy.”

It is truly hard to watch what is happening in the US right now and not be reminded of this. Although democracy has apparently willed out, make no mistake that if Trump and many of his followers could overturn this free and fair election by whatever means necessary and with total disregard for democracy, they almost undoubtedly would.

What happens over the next four years after the worrying events of the last four will be of capital importance in determining the survival of American democracy. To paraphrase Theodor Wolff, will “the diversity of the American people (continue to) call for democracy?”

We shall see.