Showing posts with label creeping authoritarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label creeping authoritarianism. Show all posts

Nov 2, 2024

It's Creeping Up On Us

When the word "democracy" becomes a partisan term.

When you're a partisan hack if you're in favor of a Pro-Democracy Movement.

When resisting authoritarianism makes you "unpatriotic".

When you're quiet in the face of someone threatening violence in support of bigotry.

When you hedge your bets just in case the bad guys win.

We're being trained. This is the run up to minority rule.



Oct 19, 2024

Dr Trump

What must it be like for Mary Trump - who holds an honest-to-god doctorate - to be called stupid by her Uncle Donald? A guy who runs around telling everybody that he's really smart simply because he had a relative who taught at MIT - so he has these great genes and blah blah blah.

Anyway, Mary Trump has the guy's number.



And we should be listening for Donald Trump's use of some very fascist tropes. Although he always paraphrases them, and speaks in code.

The primary slogan in the Fourteen Words is,

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children ...

Followed by the secondary slogan,

... because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the Earth.

That shit is always there. He never says it straight out, but it's always there.

He has to keep people alarmed and on edge, so they'll run to Daddy for comfort and protection. Which is odd in itself, because he's always carping about "the government" being worthless, even as he tells people to look to the government - his government - for help.

Anyway.
  • He wildly overstates the "problem" by using a ridiculously inflated number. ie: "30,000 Haitian immigrants."
  • Then he says Biden used "a trick" to give them legal status.
  • And then he puts himself above the law - again - as always - by saying they're illegal as far as he's concerned.
And that's how it works.
  • Amp up the fear and anger
  • "There oughta be a law" 
  • Make it a law
It doesn't matter if you can pull it off or not. It doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not. The expectation of the mob is that you should be allowed to do it. As long as you've got the mob, you've got the power.

Oct 2, 2024

The Bromance

Democracy has to constrain the majority, even as it delivers power to the majority.


Sep 24, 2024

The Big Hack

This is a small piece of the whole. And while I doubt it's some kind of big time key, it's an additional thread that runs through the whole sorry fucked up mess that is the Trump cabal's effort to break us down and take us over.



Trump Didn’t Call the FBI Because He Refused to Meet the Standard to Which He Held Hillary Clinton

In a piece laying out how Trump tried to undermine rule of law with a press release stating that the former President wanted the State of Florida, not the FBI, to investigate the suspected Ryan Routh assassination, WaPo provides more explanation for why Trump’s campaign didn’t call the FBI after Microsoft or Google told them they had been hacked:
Because they feared sharing their email server with the FBI.

Trump’s mistrust of federal agencies has complicated the investigation into Iran’s cyberattack on his campaign. When a technology firm first discovered the breach, campaign aides huddled to discuss what they should do. After hours of discussions in July, they decided they trusted the software experts to handle the matter and did not call the FBI. Co-campaign manager Susie Wiles, whose email account was targeted, was among those who questioned whether they could trust the Justice Department. The fears centered on giving federal officials access to campaign email servers and whether they would leak information out publicly.

Donald Trump and his Republican allies spent years spinning conspiracies off of misleading Jim Comey testimony about how the FBI conducted the investigation into the Russian hack of Hillary’s campaign, claiming that because (they claimed) FBI had not obtained Hillary’s server, any attribution to Russia must be suspect. This was a key prong of Roger Stone’s criminal defense. Republicans spent years suggesting that Hillary, a victim of a nation-state attack, somehow failed to meet the standards of responsible victim.

Yet Hillary, in 2016, was in fact situated in the place Trump claims to currently be: facing a counterintelligence investigation stemming out of a partisan witch hunt in Congress.

Hillary was, in fact, faced with the prospect of having to ask for help from the very same people who had been criminally investigating her for years.

And any precedent that information shared with the FBI would “leak” (as opposed to get shared in court filings)? Trump’s the guy who did that, leaking materials from the investigation that resulted, going so far as to prepare his entire Crossfire Hurricane binder to release to the press.

Trump did that, not the FBI.

I am genuinely sympathetic about the plight Trump faces, trying to run an election campaign while facing real threats, including assassination attempts, from a hostile foreign actor.

The ongoing burden of trying to reclaim digital security and stave off physical threats takes a lot of energy that would otherwise be focused on running a campaign.

I know that, because I’ve heard a bit about how much time Hillary’s team had to spend fighting serial hacks, all the way through election day.

But understand: This decision not to call the FBI because Susie Wiles was afraid the FBI might ask to access the compromised server, what amounts to a decision to delay taking necessary steps to try to fight back?

That decision stems from a refusal to abide by the standards Republicans have demanded of Hillary for eight years.

Sep 15, 2024

Project 2025

A list of shitty things Trump plans to do if elected in 2024.


Aug 11, 2024

Let's See That Again



Inside Project 2025’s Secret Training Videos
by Andy Kroll, ProPublica, and Nick Surgey,

Reporting Highlights
  • Deep State Battle: Project 2025’s plan to train an army of political appointees who could fight the so-called deep state on behalf of a future Trump administration remains on track.
  • New Videos: Dozens of never-before-published videos created for Project 2025 were provided to ProPublica and Documented by a person who had access to them.
  • Advice Given: “If the American people elect a conservative president, his administration will have to eradicate climate change references from absolutely everywhere.”
Project 2025, the controversial playbook and policy agenda for a right-wing presidential administration, has lost its director and faced scathing criticism from both Democratic groups and former President Donald Trump. But Project 2025’s plan to train an army of political appointees who could battle against the so-called deep state government bureaucracy on behalf of a future Trump administration remains on track.

One centerpiece of that program is dozens of never-before-published videos created for Project 2025’s Presidential Administration Academy. The vast majority of these videos — 23 in all, totaling more than 14 hours of content — were provided to ProPublica and Documented by a person who had access to them.

The Project 2025 videos coach future appointees on everything from the nuts and bolts of governing to how to outwit bureaucrats. There are strategies for avoiding embarrassing Freedom of Information Act disclosures and ensuring that conservative policies aren’t struck down by “left-wing judges.” Some of the content is routine advice that any incoming political appointee might be told. Other segments of the training offer guidance on radically changing how the federal government works and what it does.

In one video, Bethany Kozma, a conservative activist and former deputy chief of staff at the U.S. Agency for International Development in the Trump administration, downplays the seriousness of climate change and says the movement to combat it is really part of a ploy to “control people.”

“If the American people elect a conservative president, his administration will have to eradicate climate change references from absolutely everywhere,” Kozma says.

In the same video, Kozma calls the idea of gender fluidity “evil.” Another speaker, Katie Sullivan, who was an acting assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice under Trump, takes aim at executive actions by the administration of President Joe Biden that created gender adviser positions throughout the federal government. The goal, Biden wrote in one order, was to “advance equal rights and opportunities, regardless of gender or gender identity.”

Sullivan says, “That position has to be eradicated, as well as all the task forces, the removal of all the equity plans from all the websites, and a complete rework of the language in internal and external policy documents and grant applications.”

Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, falsely saying that he knew nothing about it and had “no idea who is behind it.” In fact, he flew on a private jet with Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation, which leads Project 2025. And in a 2022 speech at a Heritage Foundation event, Trump said, “This is a great group and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America.”

A review of the training videos shows that 29 of the 36 speakers have worked for Trump in some capacity — on his 2016-17 transition team, in the administration or on his 2024 reelection campaign. The videos appear to have been recorded before the resignation two weeks ago of Paul Dans, the leader of the 2025 project, and they are referenced on the project’s website. The Heritage Foundation said in a statement at the time of Dans’ resignation that it would end Project 2025’s policy-related work, but that its “collective efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels — federal, state, and local — will continue.”

The Heritage Foundation and most of the people who appear in the videos cited in this story did not respond to ProPublica’s repeated requests for comment. Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign who features in one of the videos, said, “As our campaign leadership and President Trump have repeatedly stated, Agenda 47 is the only official policy agenda from our campaign.”

Project 2025’s 887-page “Mandate for Leadership” document lays out a vast array of policy and governance proposals, including eliminating the Department of Education, slashing Medicaid, reclassifying tens of thousands of career civil servants so they could be more easily fired and replaced, giving the president greater power to control the DOJ and further restricting abortion access.

Democrats and liberal groups have criticized the project’s policy agenda as “extreme” and “authoritarian” while pointing out the many connections between Trump and the hundreds of people who contributed to the project.

“Trump’s attempts to distance himself from Project 2025 have always been disingenuous,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “The discovery that the vast majority of speakers in Project 2025 training videos are alumni of the Trump administration or have other close ties to Trump’s political operation is unsurprising further evidence of the close connection there.”

Several speakers in the videos acknowledge that the Trump administration was slowed by staffing challenges and the inexperience of its political appointees, and they offer lessons learned from their stumbles. Some of the advice appears at odds with conservative dogma, including a suggestion that the next administration may need to expand key government agencies to achieve the larger goal of slashing federal regulations.

Rick Dearborn, who helped lead Trump’s 2016 transition team and later served in the Trump White House as deputy chief of staff, recalled in one video how “tough” it was to find people to fill all of the key positions in the early days of the administration.

The personnel part of Project 2025 is “so important to the next president,” Dearborn says. “Establishing all of this, providing the expertise, looking at a database of folks that can be part of the administration, talking to you like we are right now about what is a transition about, why do I want to be engaged in it, what would my role be — that’s a luxury that we didn’t have,” referring to a database of potential political appointees.

Dan Huff, a former legal adviser in the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, says in another video that future appointees should be prepared to enact significant changes in American government and be ready to face blowback when they do.

“If you’re not on board with helping implement a dramatic course correction because you’re afraid it’ll damage your future employment prospects, it’ll harm you socially — look, I get it,” Huff says. “That’s a real danger. It’s a real thing. But please: Do us all a favor and sit this one out.”


“Eradicate Climate Change References”

The project’s experts outline regulatory and policy changes that future political appointees should prepare for in a Republican administration.

One video, titled “Hidden Meanings: The Monsters in the Attic,” is a 50-minute discussion of supposed left-wing code words and biased language that future appointees should be aware of and root out. In that video, Kozma says that U.S. intelligence agencies have named climate change as an increasingly dire threat to global stability, which, she says, illustrates how the issue “has infiltrated every part of the federal government.”


She then tells viewers that she sees climate change as merely a cover to engage in population control. “I think about the people who don’t want you to have children because of the” — here she makes air-quotes — “impact on the environment.” She adds, “This is part of their ultimate goal to control people.”

Later in the video, Katie Sullivan, the former acting assistant attorney general under Trump, advocates for removing so-called critical race theory from public education without saying how the federal government would accomplish that. (Elementary and secondary education curricula are typically set at the state and local level, not by the federal government.)

“The noxious tenets of critical race theory and gender ideology should be excised from curriculum in every single public school in this country,” Sullivan says. (Reached by phone, Sullivan told ProPublica to contact her press representative and hung up. A representative did not respond.)


In a different video, David Burton, an economic policy expert at the Heritage Foundation, discusses the importance of an obscure yet influential agency called the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The Trump administration used OIRA to help roll back regulations on economic, fiscal and environmental issues. Under Biden, OIRA took a more aggressive stance in helping review and shape new regulations, which included efforts to combat housing discrimination, ban the sale of so-called ghost guns and set new renewable fuel targets.

Burton, in the Project 2025 video, urges future political appointees to work in OIRA and argues that the office should “increase its staffing levels considerably” in service of the conservative goal of reining in the so-called administrative state, namely the federal agencies that craft and issue new regulations.

“Fifty people are not enough to adequately police the regulatory actions of the entire federal government,” Burton says. “OIRA is one of the few government agencies that limits the regulatory ambitions of other agencies.” (Burton confirmed in a brief interview that he appeared in the video and endorsed expanding OIRA’s staffing levels.)


Expanding the federal workforce — even an office tasked with scrutinizing regulations — would seem to cut against the conservative movement’s long-standing goal of shrinking government. For anyone confused by Project 2025’s insistence that a conservative president should fill all appointee slots and potentially grow certain functions, Spencer Chretien, a former Trump White House aide who is now Project 2025’s associate director, addresses the tension in one video.

“Some on the right even say that we, because we believe in small government, should just lead by example and not fill certain political positions,” Chretien says. “I suggest that it would be almost impossible to bring any conservative change to America if the president did that.”

A Trump Government-in-Waiting

The speakers in the Project 2025 videos are careful not to explicitly side with Trump or talk about what a future Trump administration might do. They instead refer to a future “conservative president” or “conservative administration.”

But the links between the speakers in the videos and Trump are many. Most of those served Trump during his administration, working at the White House, the National Security Council, NASA, the Office of Management and Budget, USAID and the departments of Justice, Interior, State, Homeland Security, Transportation and Health and Human Services. Another speaker has worked in the Senate office of J.D. Vance, Trump’s 2024 running mate.

Sullivan, the former DOJ acting assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s Office of Justice Programs, which oversees billions in grant funding, appears in three different videos. Leavitt, who is in a training video titled “The Art of Professionalism,” worked in the White House press office during Trump’s first presidency and is now the national press secretary for his reelection campaign.

A consistent theme in the advice and testimonials offered by these Trump alums is that Project 2025 trainees should expect a hostile reception if they go to work in the federal government. Kozma, the former USAID deputy chief of staff, says in one video that “many” of her fellow Trump appointees experienced “persecution” during their time in government.

In a video titled “The Political Appointee’s Survival Guide,” Max Primorac, a former deputy administrator at USAID during the Trump administration, warns viewers that Washington is a place that “does not share your conservative values,” and that new hires will find that “there’s so much hostility to basic traditional values.”


In the same video, Kristen Eichamer, a former deputy press secretary at the Trump-era NASA, says that the media pushed false narratives about then-President Trump and people who worked in his administration. “Being defamed on Twitter is almost a badge of honor in the Trump administration,” she says.

Outthinking “the Left”

The videos also offer less overtly political tutorials for future appointees, covering everything from how a regulation gets made to working with the media, the mechanics of a presidential transition process to obtaining a security clearance, and best practices for time management.

One recurring theme in the videos is how the next Republican administration can avoid the mistakes of the first Trump presidency. In one video, Roger Severino, the former director of the Office of Civil Rights in the Trump-era Department of Health and Human Services, explains that failure to meticulously follow federal procedure led to courts delaying or throwing out certain regulatory efforts on technical grounds.

Severino, who is also a longtime leader in the anti-abortion movement, goes on to walk viewers through the ins and outs of procedural law and says that they should prepare for “the left” to use every tool possible to derail the next conservative president. “This is a game of 3D chess,” Severino says. “You have to be always anticipating what the left is going to do to try to throw sand in the gears and trip you up and block your rule.” (In an email, Severino said he would forward ProPublica’s interview request to Heritage’s spokespeople, who did not respond.)

Operating under the assumption that some career employees might seek to thwart a future conservative president’s agenda, some of the advice pertains to how political appointees can avoid being derailed or bogged down by the government bureaucrats who work with them.

Sullivan urges viewers to “empower your political staff,” limit access to appointees’ calendars and leave out career staff from early meetings with more senior agency officials. “You are making it clear to career staff that your political appointees are in charge,” Sullivan says.

Other tips from the videos include scrubbing personal social media accounts of any content that’s “damaging, vulgar or contradict the policies you are there to implement” well before the new administration begins, as Kozma put it.

Alexei Woltornist, a former assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, encourages future appointees to bypass mainstream news outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post. Instead, they should focus on conservative media outlets because those are the only outlets conservative voters trust.

“The American people who vote for a conservative presidential administration, they’re not reading The New York Times, they’re not reading The Washington Post,” Woltornist says. “To the contrary, if those outlets publish something, they’re going to assume it’s false. So the only way to reach them with any voice of credibility is through working with conservative media outlets.”


And in a video about oversight and investigations, a group of conservative investigators advise future appointees on how to avoid creating a paper trail of sensitive communications that could be obtained by congressional committees or outside groups under the Freedom of Information Act.

“If you need to resolve something, if you can do it, it’s probably better to walk down the hall, buttonhole a guy and say, ‘Hey, what are we going to do here?’ Talk through the decision,” says Tom Jones, a former Senate investigator who now runs the American Accountability Foundation.


Jones adds that it’s possible that agency lawyers could cite exemptions in the public-records law to prevent the release of certain documents. But appointees are best served, he argues, if they don’t put important communications in writing in the first place.

“You’re probably better off,” Jones says, “going down to the canteen, getting a cup of coffee, talking it through and making the decision, as opposed to sending him an email and creating a thread that Accountable.US or one of those other groups is going to come back and seek.”

Jul 7, 2024

It Is And It Ain't

... at the same time.

It's Schrodinger's GOP Platform.

Trump has repeatedly made statements very similar to what the Project 2025 playbook says.

But the Daddy State lies - all the time about everything - so when he feels the need, he claims he knows nothing about it at all.



Trump seeks to disavow 'Project 2025' despite ties to conservative group

July 5 (Reuters) -
Former President Donald Trump tried to distance himself on Friday from a conservative group's sweeping plans for the next Republican presidency, days after its leader claimed a second American Revolution was underway that would "remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

(Emphasis added)

The Republican presidential candidate renounced any connection with Project 2025, a plan Democrats have been attacking to highlight what they say is Trump's extreme policy agenda for a second term should he beat President Joe Biden in the Nov. 5 election.

Many people involved in the project lead by the Heritage Foundation, America's top conservative think tank, worked in the Trump White House and would likely help fill out his administration if he wins in November.

But Trump said on his Truth Social platform he had nothing to do with the plan.

"I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it," he wrote.

"I disagree with some of the things they're saying," he continued, adding some of their assertions were "absolutely ridiculous and abysmal."

Trump's post came three days after Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts' comments on Steve Bannon's "War Room" podcast about a second American Revolution. Democrats and others criticized what they viewed as a veiled threat of violence.

In a statement provided by a Project 2025 spokesperson on Friday, Roberts repeated his claim that Americans were carrying out a revolution "to take power back from the elites and despotic bureaucrats" and said it was the political left that had a history of political violence.

The spokesperson said that while Project 2025 provided recommendations for the next Republican president, it would be up to Trump, should he win, to decide whether to implement them.

Trump's move to create distance with Project 2025 could in part reflect an effort to moderate his message in the final months of the race, especially with Biden's campaign faltering after the Democratic candidate's June 27 debate, said James Wallner, a political science professor at Clemson University.

"Trump is basically now seeking to appeal to a broader audience," Wallner said.

The Biden campaign has stepped up its efforts to tie Trump's campaign to Project 2025.
“Project 2025 is the extreme policy and personnel playbook for Trump’s second term that should scare the hell out of the American people," campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said in a statement.

The 900-page blueprint calls for drastic reform of the federal government, including a gutting of some federal agencies and a vast expansion of presidential power. Trump's statements and policy positions suggest he is aligned with some but not all of the project's agenda.

The plans have been drawn up by the Heritage Foundation in coordination with a collection of other like-minded groups.

A number of people who worked on Project 2025 have close ties to the former president. Russ Vought, who was Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget and is heading up a key committee at the Republican National Convention, authored one of the project's chapters.

Stephen Miller, a former senior adviser to Trump who is widely expected to be tapped for a top job in a second Trump administration, heads up a legal group on Project 2025's advisory board.

Jun 20, 2024

It Bears Repeating

Here's the full set that I posted about a few days ago.


"We need to do better than this."


PROJECT 2025
  • Prosecute political rivals
  • Fire 50,000 federal employees & replace them with MAGA loyalists
  • Remove America from NATO
  • Pardon himself and Jan 6 insurrectionists
  • Slash DOJ budget
  • Dismantle the FBI and DHS
  • Eliminate Dept of Commerce
  • Sharply reduce EPA regulations to favor Fossil Fuels
  • End the independence of federal agencies such as FCC and FTC
  • Tax cuts
  • Tariffs
  • Abolish the Dept of Education
  • Cut funding for climate research
  • Reform NIH along conservative principles
  • Reject abortion as health care
  • Eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception
  • Infuse the government with elements of Christianity
  • Criminalize pornography
  • Remove legal protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity
  • Terminate DEI programs and Affirmative Action
  • Immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement
  • Direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807
  • Arrest, detain, and deport undocumented immigrants
  • Capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences
Project director, Paul Dans, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."

Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Trump and his 2024 campaign.

Jun 18, 2024

Project 2025

Keep this up front.


Jun 11, 2024

Ain't Nuthin' New Here

Trump has not remade the GOP in his image. He is the perfect reflection of what that party has been morphing into for 60 years.

Sixty years ago, many GOP leaders resisted radicals in their ranks. Now they’re not even trying.



When Jackie Robinson Confronted a Trump-Like Candidate

At its core, Barry Goldwater’s campaign threatened blacks’ ability to fully engage in a two-party system.


“The danger of the Republican party being taken over by the lily-white-ist conservatives is more serious than many people realize,” Jackie Robinson cautioned in his syndicated column in August 1963. He was worried about the rise of Barry Goldwater, whose 1964 presidential bid laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement. Today, Goldwater’s shadow looms over Donald Trump’s campaign for the Republican Party’s nomination.

“During my life, I have had a few nightmares which happened to me while I was wide awake,” Robinson wrote in 1967. “One of them was the National Republican Convention in San Francisco, which produced the greatest disaster the Republican Party has ever known—Nominee Barry Goldwater.” Robinson, a loyal Republican who campaigned for Richard Nixon in 1960, was shocked and saddened by the racism and lack of civility he witnessed at the 1964 convention. As the historian Leah Wright Rigueur describes in The Loneliness of the Black Republican, black delegates were verbally assaulted and threatened with violence by Goldwater supporters. William Young, a Pennsylvania delegate, had his suit set on fire and was told to “keep in your own place” by his assailant. “They call you ‘nigger,’ push you and step on your feet,” New Jersey delegate George Fleming told the Associated Press. “I had to leave to keep my self-respect.”

The 1964 campaign was pivotal for Republicans because, despite Goldwater’s loss, the GOP came away with a dedicated network of people willing to work between election cycles to build the party. The GOP has won more presidential elections than it has lost since Goldwater. Donald Trump’s campaign plays on fears and resentments similar to those that fueled Goldwater’s presidential bid five decades ago. It is not yet clear, however, how this strategy will play out with an electorate that will be the most racially and ethnically diverse in U.S. history (over 30 percent of eligible voters will be racial or ethnic minorities).

As the Draft Goldwater campaign expanded in early 1963, the editors at the Chicago Defender warned that Goldwater’s “brand of demagoguery has a special appeal to ultra conservative Republicans” and that he “cannot be laughed off as a serious possibility as is being done in some quarters unfriendly to him.” After the 1964 Republican National Convention, the Defender suggested, “Goldwater in the White House would be a nightmare from which the nation and the world would not soon recover.” Another editorial two days later struck a stronger tone: “The conviction is universal that Goldwater represents the most diabolical force that has ever captured the leadership of the Republican Party. After 108 years of exhortation to freedom, liberty, and justice, the GOP now becomes the label under which Fascism is oozed into the mainstream of American politics.”

Recalling the applause line in Goldwater’s acceptance speech—“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”—the Defender argued, “Goldwater’s extremist pronouncement is an invitation to violence and race riots.” On the eve of the election, Defender editors wrote that Goldwater “is in a frantic search for an issue that can stir the voter to an emotional pitch. He tries to frighten the people into believing the country is not in safe hands.” (These and other editorials cited here can be found at Black Quotidian, a digital archive of black newspapers.)

In 1964, unlike 2016, it was not a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of black voters would support the Democratic Party. Republicans Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon received 39 percent and 32 percent of the black vote in the 1956 and 1960 presidential elections, compared to 6 percent for Goldwater in 1964. No Republican candidate since Goldwater has earned support from more than 15 percent of black voters.

“A new breed of Republicans has taken over the GOP,” Robinson wrote just after Goldwater claimed his party’s nomination. “It is a new breed which is seeking to sell to Americans a doctrine which is as old as mankind—the doctrine of racial division, the doctrine of racial prejudice, the doctrine of white supremacy.” He continued, “If I could couch in one single sentence the way I felt, watching this controlled steam-roller operation roll into high gear, I would put it this way, I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.”

In a statement published in the New York Amsterdam News, Martin Luther King Jr. described Goldwater’s nomination as “both unfortunate and disastrous.” “While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to racists,” King argued. “His candidacy and philosophy will serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes will stand.” King issued his statement a month after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, legislation that Goldwater opposed. “On the urgent issue of civil rights,” King wrote, “Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and politically and socially suicidal.” For his part, Robinson described Goldwater as a “bigot” and “an advocate of white supremacy” who “seeks to gain the Presidency by capitalizing on white resentment to demands for Negro justice.”

In the 1964 election, Robinson, a stalwart Republican, backed New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton, moderate Republican rivals to Goldwater, before eventually launching a Republicans and Independents for Lyndon Johnson organization after Goldwater secured the Republican nomination.​

“From Dr. King on down, we plan to get out the largest Negro vote in history,” Robinson said. “We want to believe in the two-party system but if Goldwater is the candidate we won’t be able to vote for him.” Robinson was relieved that Johnson defeated Goldwater by a landslide, but he was worried when he surveyed the wreckage of the Republican Party. “We must have a two-party system,” Robinson argued. “The Negro needs to be able to occupy a bargaining position. If Goldwater has been defeated, but Goldwaterism remains triumphant in GOP councils, America faces a difficult future.” As Robinson foresaw, the post-Goldwater Republican Party was only occasionally interested in competing for black voters.

Jackie Robinson, Chicago Defender editors, and Martin Luther King Jr. watched Goldwater’s rise with a mix of anger, fear, and dismay. Their criticisms of Goldwater contained skepticism about the long-term implications of the racism and xenophobia espoused by the candidate. Today, Latino, Muslim, Asian American, and Arab American voters who hear echoes of Goldwater in the rhetoric of Donald Trump also fear that they might find themselves in a one-party system—to their detriment, and that of the party.

Jun 9, 2024

There's A Plan


PROJECT 2025
  • Prosecute political rivals
  • Fire 50,000 federal employees & replace them with MAGA loyalists
  • Remove America from NATO
  • Pardon himself and Jan 6 insurrectionists
  • Slash DOJ budget
  • Dismantle the FBI and DHS
  • Eliminate Dept of Commerce
  • Sharply reduce EPA regulations to favor Fossil Fuels
  • End the independence of federal agencies such as FCC and FTC
  • Tax cuts
  • Tariffs
  • Abolish the Dept of Education
  • Cut funding for climate research
  • Reform NIH along conservative principles
  • Reject abortion as health care
  • Eliminate the Affordable Care Act's coverage of emergency contraception
  • Infuse the government with elements of Christianity
  • Criminalize pornography
  • Remove legal protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity
  • Terminate DEI programs and Affirmative Action
  • Immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement
  • Direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807
  • Arrest, detain, and deport undocumented immigrants
  • Capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences
Project director, Paul Dans, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army of aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state."

Dans admitted it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many to join the government to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future president to "regain control" of the government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Trump and his 2024 campaign.


Get your ass out there
and vote, dammit

Jun 8, 2024

The Problem

An underlying problem driving a lot of our political difficulties is a standard tactic of The Daddy State to manufacture a general distrust of expertise. And it's been going on for a very long time.

At least 30 years ago, my brother-in-law - a decent, smart, and funny guy who was eventually afflicted with the kind of aggressive brain rot that's come to characterize MAGA - started to love shit-talkin' people who knew stuff.

"Y'know what an expert is, dontcha, Mike? The word is a combination of Ex and Spurt - a has-been drip under pressure."

Propagating suspicion about intellectuals is a hallmark of authoritarianism, because the guys who know stuff will contradict a lot of what the authoritarian needs us to believe. In order to manipulate a political culture, the autocrat has to exert some control over what and how we think.


Trump totally fucked up the pandemic response, and needed ways not only to deflect criticism, but to turn the whole thing to his advantage. So:
  • Fauci's a tool of Big Pharma
  • Fauci's lying so he can duck his responsibility for COVID
  • The eggheads at CDC are power-mad bureaucrats in cahoots with radical socialistic unions out to destroy the schools, the economy, and America's way of life
  • Masks are a distraction - unnecessary - bad for you and your kids
  • Vaccines cause autism - they're a way to put ID tags and tracking devices in your arms - they modify your DNA to make you obedient - it's a population control scheme and when the time is right, the 5G network will activate a neurotoxin that kills millions and blah blah blah
  • Buy more ivermectin
And of course, there's a slew of others:
  • Climate Change is a hoax; big government controls the weather
  • Wildfires are started by space-based lasers directed by a global cabal of Jewish bankers
  • The Rapture
  • China is about to launch a massive EMP attack
  • Don't go to a doctor for your cancer - he'll keep you sick so he can sell you more chemotherapy - just stay home and eat lots of blue-green algae
  • and on and on and on
It's all pointed at getting us to cede our personal agency to the authoritarians, and giving us a nice ego massage so we can feel better about our C-minus GPA, and the fact that we really don't know jack shit about nuthin', and that's how it should be anyway because why would I listen to a buncha radical lefties who just wanna keep me ignorant?

And that ain't the half of it, but here endeth the rant.


Opinion
The Checkup With Dr. Wen: In defense of the 6-foot social distancing rule

Anthony Fauci didn’t deserve the abuse he received about the COVID pandemic guideline.


Pandemic-era social distancing guidelines have taken a beating this week. Critics have argued passionately that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation to remain six feet apart was arbitrary, wrong and should never have been implemented.

I disagree. The guidance, like other public health recommendations, wasn’t perfect. But it did help to reduce transmission and was an important point of reference at a time when people needed simple, easy-to-follow guidelines.

Anthony S. Fauci, who during the pandemic was the nation’s top infectious-diseases expert, endured the brunt of the criticism during a bruising congressional hearing on Monday. Questions zeroed in on testimony he gave during a closed-door session in January that the six-foot rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” At times, the exchange devolved into personal attacks, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) repeatedly refusing to address Fauci as “Dr. Fauci,” saying his medical license “should be revoked” and that he belongs in prison.

Recall that, at the start of the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 was a novel coronavirus. Health officials knew little about it and assumed it behaved like other common respiratory viruses. Influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are among the viruses that are transmitted predominantly via small droplets expelled when someone coughs, sneezes and breathes. These particles can land on someone’s nose, mouth or eyes, or they can be inhaled by those in proximity. They can also land on surfaces and infect people who touch them.

Over time, scientists learned that the COVID-19 virus — and especially new variants of the pathogen — was highly contagious. Studies demonstrated that it not only spread via droplets, but also by much smaller aerosol particles. Whereas droplets are heavier and quickly fall to the ground, aerosols can linger and be carried over longer distances.

Public health guidance eventually pivoted toward improving ventilation as an infection control measure, as aerosol experts had long advocated. Today, the science is pretty well settled that COVID-19 can be transmitted via both droplets and aerosols.

Critics of the six-foot rule are right in some ways. With aerosol transmission, someone could become infected even if they are further than six feet away. And, as Fauci suggested in his testimony, there have been no randomized-controlled trials looking at six feet of distancing vs., for instance, the World Health Organization’s more lenient recommendation of one meter, which is just over three feet.

But here’s what the six-foot rule got right: Droplet transmission remains one of two dominant routes of spread. A rule that reduces droplet transmission won’t curb all spread, but it can help protect people from the virus.

Moreover, I think Americans understood there wasn’t something magical about the exact distance. Did anyone really believe that being five feet away from others was dangerous while seven feet was safe? Rather, this guidance was based on a common-sense understanding that being in close contact with an infected person is risky.

This understanding is still correct. A large contact-tracing study published last year in Nature found that household contacts accounted for 6 percent of exposures to the COVID-19, but 40 percent of transmissions. Most positive cases occurred after at least an hour of exposure, suggesting that prolonged close contact is of highest risk.

Another interesting study examined a cluster of COVID cases on a 10-hour commercial flight with 217 passengers and crew. Of the 16 people who ended up testing positive, 12 were seated near the infected person. Seating proximity increased infection risk more than sevenfold.

As readers of the Checkup newsletter know, I often discussed the six-foot rule alongside two other ways to reduce transmission: being outdoors and masking. If the goal is to avoid COVID, someone in an indoor crowded area should wear a high-quality mask, but it’s not necessary if they are outdoors or well-spaced from others. The six-foot rule provided a helpful starting point to help people decide what precautions they needed to take.

Don’t get me wrong: I think it’s crucial for lawmakers to discuss whether workplaces and schools needed to impose six-foot separation rules And I would love to have more research on how much mitigation measures such as social distancing and masking reduced transmission. We also need data on their very real harms. Such information is necessary to guide policy decisions moving forward.

But none of this means people were misguided in keeping their distance from potentially infected people. It also does not mean that we should disregard social distancing as a mitigation measure against other contagious diseases. If, for example, the avian flu outbreak progresses to human-to-human transmission, we might need to bring back distancing to reduce droplet exposure.

And it definitely does not mean that Fauci somehow misled the public. Those viewing Monday’s congressional testimony should ignore the partisan noise and focus on the calm responses from the physician-scientist who guided the country through a once-in-a-generation health crisis and continues to serve as the very model of a dedicated public servant.

In The Year 2025

I know we're all getting a bit tired of hearing it, but this has to be at the top of everybody's list of Things We Need To Think About:
2025 will mark the end of our little experiment in democratic self-governance, unless we get our collective ass wired together with our collective brain and stomp the GOP until there's nothing left but a greasy spot on the rug.


And yet, somehow, WaPo runs the story 2nd, below hostages in Gaza, and along side destinations for your summer trip, and tips on how to find affordable furniture.



Trump loyalist pushes ‘post-constitutional’ vision for second term

Russ Vought, the former president’s budget director, is laying the groundwork for a broad expansion of presidential powers.


A battle-tested D.C. bureaucrat and self-described Christian nationalist is drawing up detailed plans for a sweeping expansion of presidential power in a second Trump administration. Russ Vought, who served as the former president’s budget chief, calls his political strategy for razing long-standing guardrails “radical constitutionalism.”

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
He has helped craft proposals for Donald Trump to deploy the military to quash civil unrest, seize more control over the Justice Department and assert the power to withhold congressional appropriations — and that’s just on Trump’s first day back in office.

Vought, 48, is poised to steer this agenda from an influential perch in the White House, potentially as Trump’s chief of staff, according to some people involved in discussions about a second term who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

Since Trump left office, Vought has led the Center for Renewing America, part of a network of conservative advocacy groups staffed by former and potentially future Trump administration officials. Vought’s rise is a reminder that if Trump is reelected, he has said he will surround himself with loyalists eager to carry out his wishes, even if they violate traditional norms against executive overreach.

“We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”

Vought aims to harness what he calls the “woke and weaponized” bureaucracy that stymied the former president by stocking federal agencies with hardcore disciples who would wage culture wars on abortion and immigration. The proposals championed by Vought and other Trump allies to fundamentally reset the balance of power would represent a historic shift — one they see as a needed corrective.

“The president has to be able to drive the bureaucracy instead of being trapped by it,” said Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who led the GOP’s 1994 takeover of Congress.

Vought did not respond to interview requests and a detailed list of questions from The Washington Post. This account of his plans for Trump’s potential first day back in office and the rest of a second term comes from interviews with people involved in the planning, a review of Vought’s public remarks and writings, and Center for Renewing America correspondence obtained by The Post.

The Trump campaign has distanced itself from the extensive planning. Campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita said in a statement, “Unless a message is coming directly from President Trump or an authorized member of his campaign team, no aspect of future presidential staffing or policy announcements should be deemed official.”

But in a sign of Vought’s status as a key adviser, Trump and the Republican National Committee last month named him policy director for the 2024 platform committee — giving him a chance to push a party that did not adopt a platform in 2020 further to the right. Trump personally blessed Vought’s agenda at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for his group and said Vought would “do a great job in continuing our quest to make America great again.”

Some of Vought’s recommendations, such as bucking the Justice Department’s tradition of political independence, have long percolated in the conservative movement. But he is taking a harder line — and seeking to empower a presidential nominee who has openly vowed “retribution,” alarming some fellow conservatives who recall fighting against big government alongside Vought long before Trump’s election.

“I am concerned that he is willing to embrace an ends-justify-the-means mentality,” said Marc Short, formerly chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he won’t endorse Trump. Vought, Short added, is embracing “tactics of growing government and using the levers of power in the federal bureaucracy to fight our political opponents.”

Vought’s long career as a staffer in Congress and at federal agencies has made him an asset to Project 2025, an initiative led by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, to lay the groundwork for a second Trump term. Vought wrote the chapter on the executive office of the president in Project 2025’s 920-page blueprint, and he is developing its playbook for the first 180 days, according to the people involved in the effort.

“We’re going to plant the flags now,” Vought told Trump’s former strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, on his far-right podcast. “It becomes a new governing consensus of the Republican Party.”

From fiscal hawk to MAGA warrior

Vought was raised in Trumbull, Conn., the son of an electrician and a teacher and the youngest of seven children. Brought up in what he has characterized as a “very strong, Bible-preaching, Bible-teaching church,” he attended Christian camps every summer. He received a bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College, an evangelical Christian school in Illinois, and headed to Capitol Hill near the end of the Clinton administration.

Vought mastered the federal budget working for fiscal conservatives, including Sen. Phil Gramm and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, both Texas Republicans, while getting his law degree from George Washington University.

Years before the Freedom Caucus enforced right-wing ideology on Capitol Hill, Vought was the bomb-throwing executive director of the conservative House Republican Study Committee. His prime targets: big government and entitlement spending. He worked under Pence, then a congressman, who called him “one of the strongest advocates for the principles that guide us” in 2010.

That year, as the populist tea party movement was surging, Vought joined the Heritage Foundation’s new lobbying arm. From a Capitol Hill townhouse dubbed the “frat house,” Vought and his other brash, young male colleagues tormented Republican leaders by grading their fealty to fiscal conservatism.

“Russ was determined to make our scorecard tougher than others out there,” said Republican strategist Tim Chapman, who worked closely with Vought at Heritage Action. “He wanted to separate the wheat from the chaff.”

Joining the Trump transition allowed Vought to put his principles to paper. Later, Pence cast the tiebreaking vote for his confirmation in 2018 as deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Vought ascended to the top post in 2019.

But instead of slashing spending as Vought and other budget officials recommended, Trump resisted significant reductions to domestic programs and backed trillions in emergency pandemic assistance. The national debt ballooned by more than $8 trillion.

Vought blamed Congress. And he stood by Trump throughout his tumultuous presidency, as a procession of other Cabinet officials balked at breaching what they viewed as ethical and legal boundaries. “A bunch of people around him who were constantly sitting on eggs and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, he’s getting me to violate the law,’” was how Vought later described them at a Heritage Foundation event.

By contrast, Vought found workarounds to fulfill the president’s ambitions that tested legal limits and his own record opposing executive overreach and deficit spending.

When Congress blocked additional funding for Trump’s border wall, the budget office in early 2020 redirected billions of dollars from the Pentagon to what became one of the most expensive federal infrastructure projects in U.S. history. And it was Vought’s office that held up military aid to Ukraine as Trump pressed the government to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, prompting the president’s first impeachment. Vought defied a congressional subpoena during the impeachment inquiry, which he mocked as a “#shamprocess.” The Government Accountability Office concluded that his office broke the law, a claim Vought disputed.

Near the end of Trump’s presidency, Vought helped launch his biggest broadside at the “deep state” — an order stripping civil service protections from up to tens of thousands of federal employees. The administration did not have time to fully implement the order.

After the 2020 election, as Trump refused to concede, Biden officials complained that Vought was impeding the transition. Vought rejected that accusation — but wrote that his office would not “dismantle this Administration’s work.” He was already planning ahead; bylaws for what would become the Center for Renewing America were adopted on the day of Biden’s inauguration, records show.

“There’s a marriage of convenience between Russ and Trump,” said Chapman, senior adviser at Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom. “Russ has been pursuing an ideological agenda for a long time and views Trump’s second term as the best way to achieve it, while Trump needs people in his second term who are loyal and committed and adept at using the tools of the federal government.”

Radical constitutionalism

Since Biden took office, Vought has turned the Center for Renewing America into a hub of Trump loyalists, including Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer later charged in Georgia with trying to overturn Biden’s victory in 2020. Vought called Clark, who has pleaded not guilty, “a patriot who risked his career to help expose voter fraud.”

“I think the election was stolen,” Vought said in a 2022 interview with Trump activists Diamond and Silk. He is no longer in touch with Pence, his longtime patron, who has said Trump’s efforts to overturn the vote disqualified him from serving as president again, according to people familiar with the relationship who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive topic.

The Center for Renewing America is among several pro-Trump groups incubated by the Conservative Partnership Institute, founded in 2017 by former senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The center, a tax-exempt group that is not required to publicly disclose its donors, raised $4.75 million in 2023, according to its annual report.

As Vought and other Trump allies work on blueprints for a second term, he is pushing a strategy he calls “radical constitutionalism.” The left has discarded the Constitution, Vought argues, so conservatives need to rise up, wrest power from the federal bureaucracy and centralize authority in the Oval Office.

“Our need is not just to win congressional majorities that blame the other side or fill seats on court benches to meddle at the margins,” he wrote in the 2022 essay. “It is to cast ourselves as dissidents of the current regime and to put on our shoulders the full weight of envisioning, articulating, and defending what a Radical Constitutionalism requires in the late hour that our country finds itself in, and then to do it.”

In practice, that could mean reinterpreting parts of the Constitution to achieve policy goals — such as by defining illegal immigration as an “invasion,” which would allow states to use wartime powers to stop it.

“We showed that millions of illegal aliens coming across, and Mexican cartels holding operational control of the border, constitute an invasion,” Vought wrote. “This is where we need to be radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.”

Vought also embraces Christian nationalism, a hard-right movement that seeks to infuse Christianity into all aspects of society, including government. He penned a 2021 Newsweek essay that disputed allegations of bias and asked, “Is There Anything Actually Wrong With ‘Christian Nationalism?’” He argued for “an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society.”

Looking at immigration through that lens, Vought has called for “mass deportation” of illegal immigrants and a “Christian immigration ethic” that would strictly limit the types of people allowed entry into the United States. At a 2023 conference organized by Christian and right-wing groups, he questioned whether legal immigration is “healthy” because, in a politically polarized climate, “immigration only increases and exasperates the divisions that we face in the country.”

In a podcast interview last year, Vought said it’s appropriate to question whether immigrants “have any sense of the Judeo-Christian worldview that this country was founded on,” adding, “And that doesn’t mean we don’t give religious liberty, but it does mean — are they wanting to come here and assimilate?”

Vought’s views amount to a kind of Anglo-Protestant cultural supremacism, said Paul D. Miller, a Georgetown University professor who published a book critiquing Christian nationalism.

“The Civil War taught us that America is big and broad and strong enough to include non-Christians and non-Whites,” Miller wrote in an email to The Post. “It also should have taught us that the greatest threat to the American vision are racial and religious supremacists.”

Planning for 2025

Vought’s playbook for Trump’s first 180 days, the final phase of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, has not been publicly released. But a review of his proposals so far suggests that a second Trump term could breach even more political norms than the first.

Vought argues that protocols intended to shield criminal cases from political influence, which were adopted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, have allowed unelected prosecutors to abuse their power. Even as Trump vows to “go after” Biden and his family without providing clear evidence of alleged crimes, Vought wants to gut the FBI and give the president more oversight over the Justice Department.

“Department of Justice is not an independent agency,” he said at a Heritage Foundation event last year. “If anyone brings it up in a policy meeting in the White House, I want them out of the meeting.”

Echoing Trump, Vought supports prosecuting officials who investigated the president and his allies. “It can’t just be hearings,” he told right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on his podcast. “It has to be investigations, an army of investigators that lead to firm convictions.”

Vought favors boosting White House control over other federal agencies that operate somewhat independently, such as the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces consumer protection laws, and the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates television and internet companies. Trump’s never-implemented order from his first term making it easier to fire government employees would allow the White House to excise policymakers who resist the will of the elected chief executive.

“It really concerns me, and I know it concerns Russ, that these agencies have turned on the very people they are supposed to serve,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who led a House panel that Vought pushed for on the alleged “weaponization” of government.

Vought also recommends reviving presidential “impoundment” power to withhold funding appropriated by Congress; the practice was outlawed after President Richard M. Nixon left office, but Vought calls that move “unconstitutional.” And he supports invoking the Insurrection Act, a law last updated in 1871 that allows the president to deploy the military for domestic law enforcement.

On abortion policy, Vought calls for Congress to outlaw the drugs used in medical abortions — a hard-line stance at odds with some Republicans, who are sidestepping an issue that has galvanized Democrats in recent elections.

“My personal story has fortified my beliefs,” Vought told antiabortion activists in 2020, describing how his younger daughter, now 10 years old, was born with cystic fibrosis. The chronic illness can cause severe digestive and breathing problems and require intense, daily treatment; patients’ average life span is 37 years, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Vought said in that speech that 87 percent of fetuses diagnosed with the disease are “tragically aborted” — though the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the ACOG and other health organizations told The Post they were not aware of any research of that nature.

Vought proposes in his Project 2025 chapter a new special assistant to the president to ensure “implementation of policies related to the promotion of life and family.” To Vought, that means curbing abortion — and boosting the birthrate. “The families of the West are not having enough babies for their societies to endure,” he wrote in a Center for Renewing America policy paper.

When Trump said this spring that abortion limits should be left to the states and was silent on a national ban, disappointing some antiabortion leaders, Vought urged them not to lose faith. “Trust the man who delivered the end of Roe when all the other pro life politicians could not,” he said.

Even fellow critics of the federal bureaucracy said some of Vought’s proposals would face legal challenges and other hurdles. Michael Glennon, a Tufts University constitutional law professor who wrote a book that Vought cites as a formative critique, said in an interview that the framers were wary of concentrating too much power in the presidency.

If Trump owns the courts, what "legal challenges" are going to succeed?

And here's another little taste of the intellectual naiveté that will get us all killed: 

“If conservatives trash long-held political norms to move against liberals, what will protect them when liberals retake power?” Glennon asked.

Look, dumbass, once the MAGA dickheads have ushered in the Post Constitutional Regime, what makes you think liberals will ever get a chance to "take power" again?


Bannon, the former Trump strategist ordered this week to serve a four-month prison term for contempt of Congress, touted Vought and his colleagues as “madmen” ready to upend the U.S. government at a recent Center for Renewing America event.

“No institution set up within its first two years [has] had the impact of this organization,” Bannon said. “We’re going to rip and shred the federal government apart, and if you don’t like it, you can lump it.”