Last weekend I had an entirely different topic planned for this week. Then, we had perhaps the weirdest week in American presidential history. Let’s start with a chronology.
Trump, through a series of bizarre actions, makes public that he is under investigation for violating the Espionage Act
August 8, Monday: The FBI, pursuant to a warrant, searched Mar-a-Lago. Trump cast the search as a “raid” and a “siege” in which a large number of FBI agents “occupied” his home.
According to reporting, Trump was shocked by the search, and believed that the raid would help him politically:
Consider the above attitude in conjunction with the fact that the search was carried out in part because the National Archives realized that among the items that Trump hadn’t returned in January 2021 were “sensitive signals intelligence — intercepted electronic communications such as emails and phone calls of foreign leaders.” (So he thought he could keep sensitive top secret material and if the DOJ acted, it would help him politically.)
August 10, Wednesday: The FBI issued subpoenas to Pennsylvania lawmakers.
Meanwhile, many of the prominent commentators who had been spending the past 10 months slamming Garland became Garland fans (including Laurence Tribe, who praised Garland as a person of integrity who is restoring rule of law. I wondered if my FAQs became obsolete overnight.)
August 10, Wednesday: From a leak, which could only have come from Team Trump, we learned that the FBI was searching for (among other things) documents related to nuclear weapons.
MAGA world rallied around Trump and demanded that Garland speak and release the search warrant and related documents. They attacked the DOJ as engaging in political intimidation and motivated by partisan animosity, unnecessarily “raiding” the home of a former president.
Example from Senator Ted Cruz:
And the House Judiciary GOP:
Some right-wing social media accounts riled right-wingers by telling them that the FBI would come for them (“If they can do this to a former president, think what they can do to you.”)
August 11, Thursday morning, a man riled up and angry at the FBI attacked an FBI building and was killed by police:
The shooter was at the Capitol on January 6 and was one of Truth Social’s most prolific users (Truth Social is Trump’s social media platform). He left behind a long trail of posts supporting Trump on the former president’s social media platform, Truth Social, including a “call to arms” issued shortly after Trump revealed the Mar-a-Lago raid.
“Be ready to kill the enemy,” he posted on Tuesday. “Kill [the FBI] on sight.”
August 11, early afternoon: Merrick Garland made a public announcement. You can watch it here. Excerpts with my commentary:
Since I became Attorney General, I have made clear that the Department of Justice will speak through its court filings and its work.
It seems to me in that first sentence, he was admonishing everyone who has been calling for him to reveal details about the investigation.
Just now, the Justice Department has filed a motion in the Southern District of Florida to unseal a search warrant and property receipt relating to a court-approved search that the FBI conducted earlier this week.
“Okay,” he said to Trumpworld. “You wanted me to explain. I will do so by following proper procedures.”
Then he emphasized that the leaks came from Team Trump, not the DOJ:
The Department did not make any public statements on the day of the search. The former President publicly confirmed the search that evening, as is his right.
Next, he debunked the Trump world lie that they had no idea what happened and were not properly informed:
Copies of both the warrant and the FBI property receipt were provided on the day of the search to the former President’s counsel, who was on site during the search.
The search warrant was authorized by a federal court upon the required finding of probable cause.
The “property receipt” is a document that federal law requires law enforcement agents to leave with the property owner.
He then repeated things he’d been saying for about a year:
Upholding the rule of law means applying the law evenly, without fear or favor. Under my watch, that is precisely what the Justice Department is doing.
All Americans are entitled to the evenhanded application of the law, to due process of the law, and to the presumption of innocence.
Much of our work is by necessity conducted out of the public eye. We do that to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans and to protect the integrity of our investigations.
Federal law, longstanding Department rules, and our ethical obligations prevent me from providing further details as to the basis of the search at this time. There are, however, certain points I want you to know.
He took full responsibility for the decision to search Mar-a-Lago, saying he personally approved the decision to seek a search warrant and added: “The Department does not take such a decision lightly. Where possible, it is standard practice to seek less intrusive means as an alternative to a search, and to narrowly scope any search that is undertaken.”
He was clearly angry at the “recent unfounded attacks on the professionalism of the FBI and Justice Department agents and prosecutors.” He said he will not “stand by silently when their integrity is unfairly attacked.” He refused to answer questions on the grounds that that was all he could say.
The DOJ’s motion to release the warrant and property list is here. Both the DOJ and the court acknowledged that Trump would have a chance to object to the release of the documents. The court ordered the DOJ to confer with Trump’s legal team and, “On or before 3:00 p.m. Eastern time on August 12, 2022,” and “file a certificate of conferral advising whether former President Trump opposes the Government’s motion to unseal.”
Social media exploded with speculation: Would Trump object and make his GOP apologists who had been demanding them look stupid? Or would he release the documents?
That evening, Trump announced that he would “not oppose the release of the documents.”
Notice his appeal to tribalism. He basically says “it’s me against the radical Democrats, so if you’re not a radical Democrat, [the enemy] you will rally to my side.” In other words, he was counting on tribalism and his belief that the GOP will shield him, no matter what. After all, they always have.
In the second part, he talks about his poll numbers, which is a subtle threat to Republicans. They need Trump’s voters. It’s the “conservative dilemma” that Harvard professor Daniel ZIblatt talks about. Conservative economic policies are unpopular, so how do they win elections? The GOP hit on the formula: Weaponize white rage. Invent enemies and “protect” their voters from those “enemies” who are trying to take what belongs to them.
The question remained: Would the GOP rally to Trump’s side? I often said that the problem during Trump’s presidency wasn’t just that we had a lawbreaking president. The larger problem was that a lawbreaking president was being shielded by a major political party.
NYU professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen, doesn’t think so:
Releasing the documents would serve another purpose for Trump as well: It puts him center stage, at the middle of a culture war. It would be Trump against the “radical left Democrats!” Everyone would have to pick sides, and you have America at war and Trump leading the charge against the “radical left Democrats.”
On Friday, the GOP leadership began rallying around Trump, proving that indeed, there is no bridge too far.
From Senator Hawley:
(Note: see why I dislike ‘accountability’ as a weasel word?)
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) had a news conference at 930am. Here’s who showed up:
Rep Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said, “Fulsome investigation” is needed into Pres Biden “weaponizing” Justice Dept. against Trump.
Rep Michael Turner (R-OH): “We are very concerned about the method that was used to raid Mar-a-Lago.”
Then the bombshell: Just before 3:00, Trump leaked the search warrant to Breitbart and Fox (where, incidentally, Breitbart did not remove the name of the FBI agents, thus setting them up for harassment or worse). A copy of the warrant is here. We learned that the search warrant related to possible violations of:
- 18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation
- 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information (part of the Espionage Act)
- 18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
Obstruction and espionage.
I was gobsmacked by the idiocy of Trump releasing this information when he didn’t have to. To make it worse, he began floating contradictory “defenses” in the media. One reason defense lawyers advise clients to shut up is that, when making excuses for themselves, they may inadvertently admit that they committed the crime.
Ludicrous Defense #1
First, Trump claimed, in a written statement, that evidence was planted by the FBI:
Ludicrous Defense #2
Then, Trump tried the “Obama did it,” defense:
The NARA promptly debunked that one:
Ludicrous Defense #3
Then he tried this one:
First, it was essentially an admission that he took home classified material (but doesn’t explain why he refused to give them back) and it’s not possible to “automatically declassify” top secret material.
As law professor Steve Vladeck said: “I’m confused: How can Trump be so sure that he declassified the evidence that the FBI planted?”
There is a reason defense lawyers advise their clients to shut up and not talk to the media.
Ludicrous Defense #4
A few silly defenses were floated by Trump’s apologists, like this one:
Ludicrous Defense #5
Breitbart floated the idea that because federal agents waited 3 days from the time the warrant was approved by a judge (Friday) until the warrant was executed (Monday) there clearly hadn’t been much “risk to national security.”
Pro tip: If you have no good defenses, flowing ludicrous defenses in the media is a terrible idea.
Just when things can’t get much crazier . . .
We learned that Team Trump contacted Merrick Garland with a mafia-style threat:
This could explain some of Garland’s anger when he made his announcement. Then this:
The story keeps getting worse and worse.
Why the GOP Shields and Protects Trump (and why they want medicine to stay expensive)
Last weekend, after every Senator voted against the Inflation Reduction Act, Joyce White Vance asked this:
After the GOP leaders and right-wing media began defending Trump this week, someone asked this:
The answers to both questions have to do with the purpose of government.
For some people (like us) purpose of government is to help people. We think fairness is possible, and that the government’s job is to try to create fairness.
Others have a different worldview. Hierarchy people, in contrast, think there’s a natural order: They think some people belong on top. Others are at the bottom. They think that people with money and power have that money and power because they deserve it. An example is the white supremacy theories that informed the Confederacy.
Hierarchy people don’t believe equality is possible because they don’t think people are equal. They think the purpose of government is to allocate power and maintain the hierarchy. When a government helps people, they think the government is taking away from the “makers” and giving to the undeserving. This is the “makers v. takers” argument put forward by people like Paul Ryan. When people lower than them on the hierarchy demand equality, they think those people want to “replace” them. (This is the “Replacement theory” put forward by Tucker Carlson.)
Nineteenth-century America was a strict hierarchy (specifically, it was a patriarchy) with white men at the top and Black women at the bottom. White women were kept out of the professions which kept them dependent on men, which gave men control over them.
Nineteenth-century laws reinforced the hierarchy. For example, rape laws were designed to protect (white) men from false accusations. They weren’t designed to protect women from attack. Rapes were evaluated based on where the victim and attacker were on the hierarchy. For example, in the 19th century and earlier, the rape of a Black woman wasn’t recognized as a crime.
The New Deal was an attempt to create fairness by creating agencies and passing legislation designed to create fairness. As a result of the New Deal, we got worker protection laws, minimum wage, social security, laws against insider trading, etc. The right-wing hated these agencies and regulations because they helped eliminate the hierarchy by giving everyone equal opportunities (which they called “handouts” and unfair advantages). This is the “deep state” they hate. And by the way, the right-wing cries of “defund the FBI” are consistent with their hatred of the federal government and their desire for control, including policing, to be local. The libertarian platform has included calls to abolish agencies such as the FBI and IRS.
As a result of the New Deal, we got our first strong middle class in the 1950s. But Blacks were still left out. Then along came the Civil Rights and women’s rights movements and further progress in smashing the patriarchy.
The rapid changes have unsettled some people. They really think the liberals are destroying everything good about America. We are now riding the angry backlash brought about by the changes from the 1950s – 1970s.
If you take a long view of history and consider how long we lived in a patriarchy (from before the start of the nation until the past few decades and we’re still not out of it yet) you can see how rapid the changes have been.
The current GOP wants to go back to the good old days of the patriarchy. That’s why they want to outlaw abortion, make medicine expensive, and dismantle the regulatory agencies created by the New Deal.
Question: But a lot of people voting for the party of hierarchy are not at the top of the hierarchy and will never be.
True. Let’s consider one reason. To take one example, a lot of poor Whites supported the confederacy, which put power into the hands of a very few men (not them). But think of it: These poor white guys had no trouble getting a woman. Women literally couldn’t say no because they had no options. Women were financially dependent on men, and if a woman got raped, it was seen as her fault. Men could grab what they wanted and women had no choice but to get married.
All of this explains why the GOP will vote against caps on the price of insulin. They want the poor to remain poor and the rich to get richer in order to maintain the hierarchy (with themselves at the top)
It also explains why they’re rallying around a lawbreaker: They want to dismantle the New Deal agencies and regulations created since the Civil Rights movement. They liked rule of law when the laws maintained the patriarchy. Now that the laws are dismantling the patriarchy, they want to destroy the laws.
And that is why they embrace a lawbreaker. The only thing that will stop them is landslide losses in elections.
Anyone following the news by the end of the week:
Hierarchy = Caste
Very interesting. I happen to be reading Jack London’s “The Valley of the Moon”. A story that includes aggrieved white men who claim their ancestors started this country for them (and angry that Dagos, Portuguese and Chinamen are doing better than them). Also, the women with no choice but to marry them. Some things haven’t changed much since 1907, and the changes that have occured have white men pissed off.
What would happen if the Right Wing was able to dismantle Social Security and Medicare? Would we see the reemergence of Poor Houses? Seems Dickensian.
There’s an interesting parallel in one common evolutionary theory about how species arise; promoted primarily in the US in the 1970s and 1980s then worldwide. Essentially the argument is that species arise because hybrids [read interracial marriage to understand contemporary connection] are “bad”. The technical term: “reproductive isolation” [between incipient species] became popular in the US during the period. The South African/Australian evolutionist Hugh Paterson, perhaps because he was confronted by apartheid, realised the shared philosophical underpinnings of both reproductive isolation evolutionary theory and deep seated aversion to hybridization and the “mingling” of races.
The dichotomy that you describe in your wonderful and insightful analyses [thank you so much for them… I’m a keen follower] always makes me reflect on this focus on “bad hybrids” or negative heterosis that is often encountered in evolutionary theorizing.
Hi Teri,
I kept refreshing my email to see if the newsletter had arrived. LOL
There had to be incredible coordination between agencies and law enforcement on this investigation. The timing of events in different venues this week was brilliant. It took surgical precision, and a lot of public servants keeping their mouths closed for this to happen. We owe them our gratitude.
Thanks,
Gail
It was hard for me to finish the chronology because whenever I thought I was done, something else crazy happened! But I thought laying out the chronology was illuminating.
This is the clearest synopsis of our political world that I’ve ever read. Thank you!
I’ll bet! I think the WaPo (could have been NYT) reporting Thursday night that DOJ was searching for documents pertaining to nuclear weapons pushed the needle a bit. When the inventory list mentioned TS/SCI, we were already primed.
Thank you for this! I appreciate your thoughtful analysis with historical references.
Very good simplistic way , of explaining , the mind set of radical republicans. As , a 73 year old woman , I agree , I’ve been thrilled by the progress of equality , for all . Now , what has been simmering, underneath, is coming , and the masks of civility are off . I, was truly blindsided , by the backward slide of progress. Thanks for keep us informed .
Agree – it’s a very cogent analysis.
Very minor correction: Monday, when the search was conducted, was August 8. The chronology currently uses a heading that says it was August 9.
Thanks, as always, for the great analysis.
Thanks. I thought I fixed that.
They seem desperate. If the GOP gains control in November, I do fear for Social Security and Medicare. They’ve never liked those programs. Their plan to privatize SS, is a ploy to phase it out. Hierarchy, as Teri describes is their world view. Health care, housing is a privilege to flaunt. Arrogant is the cult.
How do we reach the cult? Before November.
Every week I look forward to your blog. Especially this week I could barely wait. Since I’m not on social media period, I rely on trusted news sites and your ability to break through all the noise and make sense of it all, no embellishments, no guess work, just straight up facts.
I needed that!
I’m always amazed at how there is so much speculation going on (both sides) that gets people worked up about what might or might not happen and how so many base their ‘knowledge’ on assumptions.
I love the history lessons. I didn’t grow up in this country so it’s interesting to me and very revealing at times as well. Thank you!
I’m thankful you do what you do. Your blog (the product of your view, vision, and moral core) compares with the on-scene game announcer, sharing critical commentary play by play. I’m sitting by the RCA, leaning in. The “visitors” constantly subvert the event, and the outcome is unclear. The round isn’t over, the set isn’t completed, and we’re not even to halftime. Unfortunately, the competition is not a match between enthusiasts sharing a common interest. The winners on one side will not share the value of the spoils from their ‘war’ with their ‘team’. On the contrary, that team is wholly sacrificed. And the field of dreams reveals itself as nightmare. The latest inning has many of the star players attempting to steal bases, tossing distraction upon distraction onto the field. But, this isn’t a game. And we can’t allow ourselves to play by their rules. Hierarchical society never gains a seat in the Life Hall of Fame. And they are crying foul, with much enthusiasm.
Thank you for this brilliant summation. You’ve covered it all.
I never knew it was so clear until I read you.
I graduated from a feminist graduate school of social work in the 90’s.
I wondered when the patriarchy was all going to explode.
I grew up in the 60’s when there was so much hope for change.
To experience the 80’s and 90’s and of course the 2000’s was so depressing.
At least now we are seeing the dark side clearly exposed for what it is.
I always had a quiet faith in the “Quiet Guy”.
I had a cat named the Quiet Guy. Funny how life is.
The Quiet Guy with integrity will show us the way, along with the fighting black women who amaze me with their fire power.
Thank you again Teri for your great writing and sharing it, for free.
Pets to your pup.
government of the status quo, by the status quo, and for the status quo.
I had a couple of obvious thoughts that don’t seem to get any coverage in the media. First, these documents weren’t just laying around the office and stuffed into boxes as he got ready to leave. I believe he selected them because they had value. We know he is a transactional person. There should be records of who did the actual retrieval of these things. So what did he want these things for? Either to sell or to use as bargains chips for something would be my guess. Here’s a question: does the DOJ have to list all the crimes they are investigating on the warrant or just enough to get the thing approved by a judge? I know I am biased, but I can’t imagine that the former guy has not been selling secrets. If I understood the sections of the law listed, it didn’t include the portion covering that crime (is it section 794 of the Espionage Act?). Sorry for being so long winded.
I enjoyed this, as always. And I mean that in the best possible way because I appreciate your unique combination of experience- and fact-based analysis of the most complex issues along w/a restrained yet delightfully barbed commentary! If you can’t have a little fun with all this dangerous absurdity reeling around us (I’m thinking the movie, “Speed”), what’s the point in bothering? So, thank you; and, yes, your adorable dog — as do most members of the best species on the planet [DOGS] — has the response to all of this: down.
I came of age in the 70’s. I have recently caught a few episodes of 70’s tv shows, “Quincy” and “Emergency”. A common theme in the plots was the need to improve equity of health care and civil rights. But there was an optimism associated with this sense of urgency to improve society. It makes me sad to see how those causes are still controversial, arguably now more than then.
I too find it hard to believe that poor white people remain totally loyal to a man like that. I guess they need something to make them believe that white people are being forced out of the American Dream. Where that will never happen if you go about your life and work hard. To see 71 million people vote for this man is insane. Some people say,. They were worried that work would stop or defense spending would be drastically cut. They totally forget how Obama and Biden got the economy back and prosperity was back again. The republicans have messed up our economy for years as there agenda was to make the rich richer and tax cuts for them and high earning Americans and all this caused was lack of tax funds to do what was needed to fix this country. Now if we have a leveling of all people and corporations paying there fair share. You see what happens Infrastructure is finally back in the picture because of Democrats. I could go on and on but you get the picture
Teri, as always, your posts are illuminating. Your explanation about what drives and motivates the GOP is brilliant. For those of us who believe the government exists for all of us, the attitudes and actions of the GOP make no sense. But this explains everything. I can’t help but think then, that this attitude is precisely why so many GOP hate POTUS, who obviously is focused on helping those who need help.
I love your writing!
Teri, this analysis is incredible and so very enlightening. This is the first newsletter of yours that I have received (SO glad I subscribed!) although I have been reading your excellent comments on Twitter for quite a while now. As a 72-year-old retired elementary school teacher (implying my lack of amassed wealth – ha!), I am terrified that Social Security and Medicare may be dismantled in the near future. Then, for me and for millions of other Americans, all hope is lost. All I can do is hope that these insane, cruel, sadistic and backwards leanings of the GOP will catalyze all of us who care for equality for ALL and for DEMOCRACY to the polls in massive numbers in 2022, 2024 and forever after. My fiends and I are sending out voter postcards to swing states by the boat load. What else can we do? Watch EVERY election, no matter how small, and keep the faith!
Thank you for this one. It pulls so much together in a very cogent and helpful way.
The ongoing disconnect between those who want fairness and equality through democracy (the vast majority of Americans) and those who want to restore the hierarchy through authoritarianism (a relatively small minority of Americans) is still terrifying, but we can protect democracy through a voter mandate. Right now, it couldn’t be more obvious that massive voter turnout is the only thing that can save our democracy from more insanity like we’ve seen in the last week.
Having spent my career in the defense industry, this last week has been disturbing in ways I never thought I would live to see in the U.S.
I agree that the only real solution to the problem is massive turnout at the polls. For new subscribers, I have a “to do” tab on the blog with ideas for how people can get involved. I am currently doing legal research for We Vote, the largest voter protection organization. I think right now the best thing people can do is get involved with voter turnout operations.
Thank you for the insight into fairness v hierarchy as concepts that shape political views. Explains so much. However, not understanding how voting against your interest because you’ll maintain the hierarchy (poor but you’ll get a woman) explains female Trump voter or the working poor diabetic rationing insulin doses. Might authoritarian parenting style be more pertinent, e.g. I will suffer because strong dad knows best.
Thank you for this. It has been a mind-boggling week for me, and I really appreciate your efforts to help make this all understandable.
Thanks for putting the system and values that enforce white male supremacy (aka ‘patriarchy’) at the core of the current maelstrom.
The female Trump voter or the working poor diabetic sees themself as at least above those dark people “below” them.
You raise an interesting question, how people are socialized (trained) to accept the hierarchical view vs egalitarian thinking. Would love to understand this better.
I’ve seen a number of apologies from people who spent the last several months bellowing non-stop slanders of Merrick Garland. He was – so we were informed – lazy, incompetent, corrupt, in on the fix.
Most of the apologies run something like this: “Gee, I’ve never been so glad to have been proven wrong about something! I guess he has the goods after all! Who knew?” These emissions are followed by numerous commenters praising the apologizers for being so big and brave and goodhearted.
What I haven’t seen is the least bit of awareness of the damage, the well-poisoning, created by the constant attacks. I’ve seen no introspection about possibly being more mindful with one’s speech going forward. It seems to be too much to hope that “progressives” will learn that having your team’s back is sometimes more useful than the pleasures of endless carping and denunciation.
I’m still angry, and will be for a long time to come. I will trust nothing said by any of the slanderers, no matter how glib their apologies now. They’ve demonstrated that their powers of analysis are meager at best.
I’m angry too (as are many others). What bothers me is that these are the same people talking about “consequences” and “accountability” and yet they are still looked to as “experts” in what is now happening.
The political psychologists tend to argue that these characteristics are innate (which annoys people). For more, use the search function on my blog to find “authoritarian dynamic” for more. Also look for Karen Stenner’s website. She builds on the classic political psychologists.
To update and paraphrase Martin Niemoller’s famous quote,
First they came for the young, and looted their future, saddling them with enormous debts for schooling, that is if they happened to make it intact through a gun-riddled elementary education. I already had a fine mid-century public education and, while I was dismayed, I couldn’t stop the gun lobby.
Next they came for women, and took away their right to control their own bodies.
I wasn’t a woman, or I don’t plan to have kids and so I did nothing.
Next they came for the elderly…(the contents of your email goes here)
I’m not as eloquent as Niemoller, his quote is here:
https://quotepark.com/works/first-they-came-7641/
Teri, my wife has been reading”Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” by Richard Hofstadter. It ties in with the hierarchical thinking and why our schools are so terrible. Education, in my opinion, should be front and center of any society.
But here we are.
R
A lot of people say that’s his best book. The one that I like best is The Paranoid Style in American Politics
There’s a dangerously self-defeating tendency to over-egg the pudding. Republicans were able to turn Robert Mueller’s investigation into a damp squib when it didn’t yield the kind of dramatic findings some sensationalized reporting suggested it would. What we already know is seriously bad, and more will emerge.
I recommend following Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom), Cold War policy specialist formerly with the Naval War College (now staff writer for the Atlantic), for references and level-headed assessments of where we stand. And of course, Teri is brilliant at keeping discussion on an even keel. She certainly has helped me retain some shreds of sanity!
You are right. However, I think Garland has always been the kind of man who keeps his head down and gets it done.
Well said!
“Being more mindful with one’s speech”: This is a constant bugbear of mine. How can people in the public eye not understand that the words they use often only give fodder to the right-wing propaganda machine?
Stealing.. but i’ll give you credit… I’m a 64 year old woman and I feel this… wish my rightie friends did too. including my 84 year old aunt!
I would tend to agree with those who argue that authoritarianism is innate. Both my brother and I were raised by an authoritarian father, in an evangelical religion that taught that wives should be in “subjection to their husband.” (My mom still spouts this, even after years of both emotional and physical abuse from that husband who is now deceased) My brother still adheres to that authoritarian philosophy. Obviously, I do not. I think the concrete rules make him feel comfortable.
It is frustrating to hear rhetoric that promotes weaponization of our party and government
institutions, something the Right-GOP uses so liberally to attack and undermine democracy. This tactic being similarly utilized by supposed “supporters” of our democracy is demoralizing. I remain focused on and so thankful to those who offer information based on facts from whichever political party they come from, and who support institutions that uphold law and order including the hard won progress that’s already been made. There are so many serious threats to democracy right now coming from multiple destructive sources, it’d sure be nice if they weren’t also coming from inside the “big tent.” I don’t know, I question whether personal “relevance” has become the primary motivation to speak out, versus supporting our democracy/the greater good. Tribalism often stoked by fear, always a serious challenge in politics. Especially when purposefully cultivated.
Thank you for this reference-a genuinely confusing dynamic. How people appear to vote or act against their own ethnic or gender interests feels disorienting. Observing irrational adherence to ideological beliefs that harm them and negatively affect relationships within extended family, shocked me from both a historical and rational perspective, yet obviously the facts or background are not nearly the whole picture I’d imagined they were, nor division and fracture a unique outcome. Hopeful moving forward with “granite singularity” of purpose by those that support democracy, eventually will win the day. Thank you for your persistence, work and contribution to that end.
These are great points.
One thing that is working in the favor of the “fairness” people is that when Trump talks about making America great again, the “great” time that his fans are thinking of is the time after WWII when, as you point out, the New Deal reforms and programs created a strong middle class.
In other words, the more Trump actually implements policies, as opposed to just talking garbage and getting media coverage for his insolence, the more his fans have to wonder if he’s really on their side. That’s why, when he actually governed, he lost popularity fast. People are afraid of Trump, but remember, he lost the 2016 election by 3 million votes, then lost the House, then lost the Senate, and finally lost the 2020 election by 7 million votes. Not a record of winning! Trump will always have a small fan base who love him passionately, but he has no plan to actually become popular and win office, other than cheating.
We are lucky that reality has a liberal bias. But it does have a liberal bias. 😉
Becuase such people are happy to be in the gutters if someone, preferable if they´re “the other” is worst off than them.