Wannabe Dictator, Autocrat, Authoritarian, King...It's All Semantics - Part I - Stifling Dissent & Free Speech

The New York Times recently published an article Are We Losing Our Democracy? where they looked at various signs of dictatorship or autocracy and whether we had crossed that line. (I also provided the text in a Facebook post for those without NY Times access). I am going to look at each segment in turn and provide my own thoughts. 

#1 An Authoritarian stifles dissent and speech.

One of the excuses Trump supporters gave before the 2024 election was that Harris, and indeed the Democrats, would put an end to the freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment. 

A clip from a speech that Vice President Harris made in 2019 when she was a Senator running for president was making the rounds on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Typically the tweet would start with something along the lines of: "Kamala: I will censor content on X that I don't like", followed by a clip where she doesn't say anything like that. In the clip she is actually saying:

"We'll put the Department of Justice of the United States back in the business of justice. We will double the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to counter this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if you profit off of hate, if you act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don't police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable as a community.”

She is addressing the NAACP, a Black advocacy organization, and there had been a number of killings inspired by racial animus that had been abetted by social media posts. She specifically invokes the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. It's unclear from the context what she intends by "hold them accountable". What is clear is that does not mention censoring social media platforms or shutting them down. I can draw some conclusions based on who she is speaking to and what was going on nationally. 

 One can infer from her remarks that she is targeting online incitement to violence. I have seen arguments that what she is saying amounts to de facto censorship, if not censorship de jure. If Harris' 5-year old speech is indicative of her current policy position and it means censorship, of course I was concerned, but I don't believe that's the most logical, reasonable inference to be made. (More on this subject here)

But what actions has the supposed free speech president taken since his inauguration? What comments has he made that point to future actions?

• He claimed that criticism of him on television was illegal. Recently his FCC Director pressured ABC/Disney to remove Jimmy Kimmel for remarks he made critical of Trump, that the regime characterized as celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. ABC/Disney reversed their initial decision to remove Kimmel, but Trump has pushed for other comedians and talk show hosts who were critical of him to be removed. 
• Pam Bondi, his Attorney General claimed that "hate speech", which she suggested was speech that the regime didn't like, was not included in free speech. 
• Non-citizens, including those who were in the United States legally, had their visas or green cards revoked for participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. 
• Trump says that peaceful protesters should be put in jail
• Universities are being forced to change their curricula if it does not line up with his ideology
• Investigations have ordered into liberal organizations
• News organization covering the Pentagon were required to sign an agreement stating that they would not report information that hadn't been pre-approved
• Associated Press was removed from the White House press pool for refusing to use the term "Gulf of America"
• News organizations that reported negatively about Trump were threatened with investigations
• Private companies that have Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies are being threatened with federal investigation on the pretext that they are discriminatory
• Secret Service protection has been withdrawn from former officials who criticized Trump
• Several news organizations have been sued by Trump personally and have settled for hundreds of millions of dollars
• Pro-Palestinian activists are being investigated for their speech, characterizing it as "material support for terrorism"
• Law firms who represented clients opposed to Trump are being pressured
• Of course, the most recent is the pressure from Trump and his top officials to go after anyone who spoke negatively about Charlie Kirk 

Some of these items are overt actions, some are threats, others are just talk. But even the threats and "just talk" have the effect of stifling dissent and free speech when it comes from the president. Trump supporters have attempted to debunk the opinion that Trump's actions amount to autocratic maneuvers. They say that since I can speak my mind and haven't been locked up, and that millions have been able to protest on No Kings Day, that proves we are not a dictatorship. But elimination of a free press, freedom of speech and freedom to peacefully assemble to let the government know what our grievances are, doesn't necessarily happen all at once. The First Amendment is being chipped away, bit by bit, not blown up with dynamite. But it's heading in that direction. 

Trump's War-Ending Scorecard

Trump has claimed that he has ended eight wars, part of his pathetic grasping for a Nobel Peace Prize. But has he?

1. Israel-Gaza:

I wrote about this recently. In this article I showed how the supposed "New Dawn of Peace in the Middle East" was virtually identical to the cease fire that was in place when he took office in January which was over in March. This one has already been violated multiple times. Hamas has not agreed to several of the terms, in fact they were not consulted and had the "agreement" imposed upon them.

2. Pakistan-India:

It wasn't a war, just another in the many border scuffles that these two countries have engaged in since their existence. India says that Trump has nothing to do with the cessation of hostilities which were negotiated directly between India and Pakistan.

3. Rwanda-Democratic Republic of The Congo:

These two countries have had on again-off again periods of border fighting for years. As well as cease fires and "peace agreements" that are regularly violated. Peace talks are ongoing, as are the violations of the cease fire. 

4. Thailand-Cambodia:

After a week of cross-border fighting, Malaysia brokered a ceasefire. The only involvement by Trump was a threat to leave high tariffs in place. 

5. Armenia-Azerbaijan:

These two former Soviet Republics have been fighting over where the border should be since they achieved independence. The biggest disagreement has been over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan effectively ejected all Armenians from the enclave, making that a sect of the conflict moot. 

6. Egypt-Ethiopia:

Not even fighting, let alone a war. They're arguing over water use. 

7. Serbia-Kosovo:

Also no fighting. Trump is claiming that he stopped a war before it started. 

8. Israel-Iran:

Israel had been conducting preemptive strikes against Iran and it's regional non-state allies like Hezbollah in tandem with its war against Hamas. Israel and Iran traded missile strikes for 12 days, ending after Trump had our military drop a bomb on Iran's nuclear facility. Iran declined to escalate. There is no peace agreement, but their is a cessation of hostilities. 

So here's the score:

• Conflicts that involved no fighting whatsoever: 2
• Conflicts that involved decades-long border fighting that will likely continue: 2
• Conflicts that involved decades-long border fighting that already resumed: 2
• Fighting that stopped after we dropped a huge bomb on one side: 1
• Big, supposedly comprehensive plan with a cease fire that has already been violated several times: 1
• Actual last peace: 0

Meanwhile, the one war that we were involved in, Afghanistan, which he campaigned on ending in his first term, was not ended in his first term. And of course, the Russia-Ukraine war, which claimed he could end "in 24 hours, even before he was inaugurated" is still going on. 

Extending the ACA Subsidies

What is Obamacare?

It's not a healthcare plan, like a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). It's not insurance coverage. It's not Medicaid-For-All. It doesn't set costs for medical care or insurance. 

It's not even "Obamacare", which started out as a pejorative by those opposed to it. It's correct name was the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the PPACA, or ACA for short. 

It is comprehensive legislation that had as its goal making healthcare affordable and accessible. 

Some of its features are:

• Prohibits lifetime monetary caps on health insurance plans.
• Forbids insurers from canceling health insurance unless there’s fraud.
• Doesn’t allow health insurers to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions.
• Prohibits insurers from charging higher rates based on health. 
• Requires that insurers use at least a minimum percentage of premiums to pay for members’ medical services.
• Allows parents to keep children on their health insurance until the age of 26.
• Offers subsidies based on income that help cut health insurance costs for Americans who qualify. 
• Allows states to expand Medicaid to more people by lowering income requirements to get coverage. 

The most visible feature of the ACA is the Marketplace Exchanges, where individual health insurance plans can be purchased. Those who use these plans are eligible for subsidies based on income. Individual insurance could always be purchased, but most people get their health insurance though group plans at their job, This is fairly unique.

Prior to World War II insurance was purchased exclusively on an individual basis. However, due to the competition for workers caused by so many young men joining the military, businesses were in a bidding war for those who remained. The government mandated a wage freeze to put a stop to it. Companies found a way around the mandate: offering benefits, such as health insurance, in lieu of a pay rate increase. After the war, this system was well established, continuing to the present day. Unless you were self-employed, you got your health insurance from your employer. Losing one's job put you in the position of being uninsured. 

The ACA's intent was to make it easier for people who were unemployed or self-employed to purchase insurance, and to make existing insurance plans more customer-friendly. One of the basics of any kind of insurance is shared risk. Not everyone needs it all the time. Typically, younger people are healthier and make fewer claims than older people. The younger, healthier insured effectively subsidize the older people...and hopefully will someday become older people. One of the requirements of the ACA was that most people be insured or pay a penalty. This was to increase the pool of insured people, theoretically keeping costs reasonable. (There were exceptions, income based, and some others). The penalty was ruled unconstitutional and no longer exists. 

The subsidies were what made marketplace exchange plans affordable, at least in theory. After I lost my job, and my group health insurance through my employer, I was on an ACA subsidized plan until I found a new job. It was a fraction of what I would have paid if I had remained on the COBRA plan through my former employer. The problem was that there was no restriction on what companies could charge for premiums, and plans could often still be out of reach, even after subsidies. But even so, there are millions who would be uninsured without the subsidies. 

Other aspects of the ACA are important as well. Before the ACA, many people were ineligible for insurance because they had a pre-existing condition—something that the insurance company knew that they would have to spend a lot of money covering. The prohibition on different rates for different health conditions was something that benefitted many. The company where I was employed pre-ACA charged a higher premium if you scored too low on an annual health assessment. many of the criteria were arbitrary and were often impossible to meet unless you were a twenty year old athlete. 

The Republicans have been saying since the passing of the ACA that they want to repeal it and replace it with "something better". They have failed, time and time again to get rid of it, even when they are in the majority. I've never even heard a broad outline, a "concept of a plan" if you will. What is it that they don't like? The only complaints that I have ever heard is that it's too expensive. What is their plan to make insurance more affordable? I suspect that they would suggest rolling back some of the requirements, theoretically making premiums cheaper. But there's no guarantee that insurance companies would reduce premiums, opting instead to just reap greater profits. 

But right now—in two months—the subsidies are expiring and people will either lose their insurance or pay substantially higher premiums. The Democrats are using the tiny bit of leverage that they have to try to extend the subsidies, what are the Republicans doing?

Autocracy

Trump's dictatorial acts have been a focus of mine since Inauguration Day. I mainly zero in on the how, rather than the what. It's not even debatable that one-man rule, with the legislative majority largely subservient, and the highest court complicit, isn't a dictatorship, or at least an autocracy. Supporters and enablers of Trump like to argue that we're not in a dictatorship because in a dictatorship I wouldn't be able to freely express my opinion, and millions of people wouldn't have been able to protest on No Kings Day last weekend.  Somehow they believe that dictatorships spring up fully formed from the brow of Zeus, and that they don't incrementally erode freedom and democracy until we have neither. We aren't (yet) at the point of 1930's Germany, or The Soviet Union under Stalin, but we are moving in that direction. One argument is that dictators seize power through violence or other illegal means, but there are examples of dictators, like Vladimir Putin who were initially elected, but who eroded democracy after assuming office. 

Just saying that you want to govern as an unquestioned ruler doesn't make you a dictator, but it tells you what the intent is, but it still needs the acquiescence of the other power centers that are designed to be checks on a president's power. We are seeing both. Trump subscribes to the Unitary Executive Theory, which states that the Executive branch of government set in Article II of the Constitution is the president. Not the president and all the various executive branch regulatory and enforcement agencies. All the agencies, cabinet departments, bureaus and their employees are completely subordinate to the president and exist only to carry out his will. In this theory, legislative intent, budget allocation, anything that dilutes the president's absolute authority is invalid and unconstitutional. Trump has taken this theory, which I doubt he understands the nuances of, and expanded it to embrace the idea that the president can do whatever he wants. He has said exactly that on several occasions. He's not even trying to hide it. 

In addition to the intent to rule unilaterally, the other branches of government must allow him to do so. The Republican majority in Congress has done just that. I have commented many times on the cultish behavior and mindset of Trump supporters. The Republicans in Congress fall into that special category of cult followers who know that what their cult leader is saying is complete bullshit, but follow along in order to retain their own associated power. It has been demonstrated that in most cases getting on Trump's bad side will get you primaried by a Trump loyalist. As in any religious cult, the only way to get ahead and to retain power and influence is to express fealty to the leader. Therefore Congress, instead of operating as a coequal branch of government, marches to Trump's tune. They have stood idly by as Trump has dismantled whole agencies that have been created by Congress, refused to carry out priorities passed by Congress, and spent only the funds that he agreed with. 

The courts are a (slightly) different story. While district courts and some federal appeals courts have ruled administration actions as illegal or unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has been more sympathetic, often forgetting that they adhere to the textualism/originalism judicial philosophy. He has been given permission to rule by fiat. 

So, what has Trump done with his ability rule as an autocrat? 

• He has unleashed what amounts to a personal army in the form of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct a reign of terror in our cities. We can disagree about immigration policies, but ICE is not prioritizing criminal immigrant gangs, but the low-hanging fruit of people who are attempting to "do it right". Legal residents and even citizens are being caught up in ICE's nets and due process has been eliminated in many cases. 
• Despite his pledge to "bring back free speech" he has targeted immigrants, even those here legally, for making public statements that he disagreed with, such as support for Palestinians
• Free speech was threaten in the aftermath of the murder of conservative podcaster Charlie Kirk. Government officials actively went after people who had an unapproved opinion of Kirk. 
• The military has been dispatched to several cities. This is illegal except with very narrow exceptions. The National Guard has been activated in several states, often against the wishes of those states' governors, ostensibly to aid in law enforcement. Despite court rulings prohibiting this, Trump has activated National Guard units from states with sympathetic governors to states that don't want them there. This is arguably the same as sending in the military. Trump told a gathering of Generals, Admirals and Senior NCOs that our cities could be used as training grounds for the military. 
• He has authorized the military to kill alleged drug runners in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific. We are not at war with the suspects' countries of origin, they haven't fired on our military, and no due process has even been considered.
• He has turned our economy into a vehicle for his personal grievances.  His tariff "policies" are incoherent and are often based on who annoyed him rather than what is best for the nation's economy. Tariffs are the purview of Congress. 
• He has turned the increasingly-inaccurately-named-Justice Department into a personal vendetta arm of government. He has fired dozens of lawyers and other staffers who were involved in previous investigations into his alleged illegal activities. He has targeted those who spoke out against him for prosecution, including former members of his administration and other Republicans. He has pardoned or commuted sentences of political allies. 
• Journalists who offended him have had their White House credentials revoked. The entire Pentagon press corps was pressured to sign an agreement that they would only report pre-approved information. Most walked out rather than agree. 
• His crypto business is an easy way for prospective supporters to funnel bribes his way. 
• He has pushed states with majority Republican legislatures to gerrymander their Congressional districts to gain a electoral advantage in the midterms. He is sending "election monitors" to California and New Jersey. He has claimed that early and mail voting, which favor Democrats, will be banned
• He has openly speculated about seeking a third term, despite its unconstitutionality. Adding to his characterization of the media that he didn't like as "the enemy of the people", he has tarred anyone who opposed him as "the enemy within". 

Many of his supporters seem fine with this, since they believe that his depredations won't affect them. They increasingly downplay the concept of democracy and play up the undemocratic aspects of our system of government. . Even if there are policies of Trump's that one agrees with, there's no question that he is governing as an authoritarian, an autocrat, a dictator, and that our country has become an autocracy, and the ruling cabal a dictatorship. 

What Did The "No King" Protests Accomplish?

So, what did we accomplish?

Several Trumpists mockingly brayed that Trump was still the president.

Well...yeah...did they think we were attempting a coup? 

No, we were exercising our First Amendment rights

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

At least while we still can. 

I have seen criticism, including from one of the speakers at our gathering here in Lincoln, that we should be doing more, that in order to affect real change we need to make the regime uncomfortable, and we need to make ourselves uncomfortable. The individual who led the invocation at our rally noted the paucity of Black and Brown faces—and suggested that White faces were absent during Black Lives Matter protests—and thought the atmosphere seemed more like a party than a protest. He opined that Black, Brown and Native people put their lives on the line for protests like Black Lives Matter, and that Native people were suffering oppression even under Democratic administrations. Many leftists thought the protests were unfocussed and lacked specific demands. One day of protest every few months isn't going to fix anything. 

True enough.  

There is always more that can be done. There is no shortage of things to be outraged about. 

This is the problem I see with progressive/liberal/leftist voices in this country. We're enthralled with the idea of ideological purity. We excoriate Democrats who aren't completely on board with whatever our corner of liberalism has decided is important. Institutional Democrats undermine left-leaning office seekers; leftist activists inveigh against moderate Democrats. Voters stay home or vote third party because a Democratic candidate falls short of fully supporting their favorite cause. We eschew coming together against a common foe, preferring instead to huddle in our nice warm nest of political spotlessness. 

How about we celebrate the No Kings rallies for what they are, instead of booing them for what they aren't? Millions of people stood up and expressed their opposition to authoritarianism, to dictators, to fascism...to kings. Thousands in medium sized cities, hundreds and dozens in tiny municipalities in Trumpist strongholds. Millions of people who recognize that what's happening isn't simply political differences, but an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of our founding principles. 

We all have to do what we can, which is going to vary from person to person. Some people can run for office, others can organize locally. Those with means can contribute financially. I, like others with blogs, podcasts, or media platforms, use our words. Keep up the pressure, and don't forget to vote.

Do We Have a King?

On Saturday people across the country, and even in other countries, gathered for the "No Kings" protests. I attended the one here in Lincoln Nebraska for a few hours. Afterwards I spend some time perusing social media to see what "the other side" had to say about them Of course, the fact that the Trumpers, and Trump himself, would downplay, and even misrepresent them, came as no surprise. At the nadir of disgustingness, also no surprise, was the Truth Social post by Trump himself. The post featured a video of The Dotard at the controls of a military jet, which had the words "King Trump" emblazoned on the side, bombing the protesters with shit. Most of the other comments sunk merely to the level of childish taunts. 

The commenters who attempted to explain why the protests were a waste of time tended to focus on the fact that, literally, Trump is not a king. He is not a member of a royal family, nor did he inherit his position. He was elected to it. Variations on the theme included references to July 4th being the real "No King" day, or that we haven't actually had a king since 1776. All of that is true, so why have we, the Trump opposition, latched on to the "No King" label? One of the reasons comes from Trump himself. After inserting himself into the congestion pricing debate in New York, he declared that he was canceling it, and added "The King has spoken". He has also posted pictures of himself wearing a royal crown. Most of us, hopefully all of us, realize that Trump is not a literal king. We are using the term as shorthand for the kind of absolute ruler archetype that Trump is aspiring to become. Even those who rebelled against Great Britain in 1776, while using the language of opposition to a king, were in reality opposing the British parliament, since the actual king was at that time in their history not an absolute monarch, and parliament made the rules. It's shorthand, it's an image, intended to convey our protestation against rule by one man. The Trumpers' attempt at cleverness portrays their ignorance of symbolism and nuance. 

There are a number of other words that have been used to describe the Trump presidency: fascist, dictator, Nazi, authoritarian. I have seen some Trump opponents object to some of these because they aren't completely accurate in painting a picture of the regime. Some Jewish friends have pointed out that Trumpism hasn't yet sunk to the level of depravity of the Nazis in World War II; Fascism has a specific meaning that includes the economic in addition to the political side of things. There are even technical differences between an authoritarian and a dictator. This article lists the differences between the two. In short, while both are essentially one-man rule, an authoritarian relies somewhat on a constitutional structure and a dictator controls all aspects of the state and society. The article presents the differences in more detail; Trump's regime resembled the authoritarian model more closely (although I believe the author has defined "dictator" in a way that only the very extreme cases qualify). I have chosen to characterize Trump as a dictator, rather than an authoritarian, mainly because the word has more impact—doesn't sound as academic—and is more recognizable. 

I have had people argue with me that the fact that Trump was elected disqualifies him from the category of dictator, although it is pretty easy to find dictators who were initially elected but eventually accreted all power to themselves, like Putin in Russia. Others have maintained that the fact that we have been able to hold mass protests like Saturday's, or can publicly criticize the regime means that we aren't a dictatorship. I argue that a dictatorship exists on a continuum—not very dictator starts by going full Stalin—but that it builds and gets steadily worse. Yes, the protests were allowed to happen, and our social media accounts haven't been shut down, but the attacks on the First Amendment are already happening—universities are being threatened, former high-ranking officials are being indicted, and the arrests have started with non-citizens. It's only a matter of time. 

In my opinion the defining characteristic of dictatorship in Trump's second term is the fact that he is unilaterally making decisions that are either should be decided jointly with Congress, or are Congress's sole purview. This is entirely separate from the issue of whether what he is doing is beneficial or is harmful for the country, but goes to the question of whether he has the authority to do what he does on his own. This blog post of mine outlines in detail why I think we are now under a dictatorship. But whether you call him a dictator, an authoritarian, a fascist, a Nazi, or a king, the bottom line is that he is acting illegally and extra-constitutionally. He is making unilateral decisions and claiming that, as president, he "can do whatever he wants". This is not how a representative democracy works, not how a constitutional republic works. 

The defenses of Trump have fallen into two main camps. One type of Trumper is fully on board with his policies and is willing to accept anything that puts those policies in effect. A Trumper friend the other day rationalized the blowing up of boats alleged to be smuggling drugs to the United States by stating how reprehensible drug dealing was. I don't disagree with his assessment of drug dealers, but there are several illegal things happening with these attacks. We are using the military in what is essentially a law enforcement capacity. Trump has declared the drug cartels, not just a criminal conspiracy, but a terrorist group supported by the Venezuelan government. We have not be shown any evidence that these boats are running drugs, or in any way connected with drug cartels—we are summarily executing people from a country with whom we are not at war and have not been accused of, let alone convicted of, a crime. We also already have a method to stop drugs coming in by boat: the Coast Guard stops and searches them, and if carrying drugs, subjects them to the legal system. Yet my friend believes the end justifies the means. The other camp believes that the actions that Trump has taken are legal, and believe his assertion that he can do whatever he wants. These people truly believe that the president has the authority to take whatever action he deems fit. They don't understand, and don't want to understand the constitutional nuances. 

So yes, if we are speaking figuratively, we have a monarch wannabe. We have a president who craves the unrestricted power that the absolute monarchs, exercising the divine right of kings, had once upon a time. That's why we march.

The "20 Point" Concept Of A Plan

Trump is once again claiming to have ended a war. Unlike previous claims, this one was actually a war, albeit pretty one-sided, with Israel bombing a territory that is theoretically under its control with little if any war being conducted from the other side, Hamas, the governing entity of Gaza. It's an unalloyed good thing that Gaza is not being bombed into the Stone Age at the moment and the Israeli hostages who aren't dead have been reunited with their families. But it's a long way from a lasting solution. 

Earlier this week I got into a disagreement with a friend who is a Trump cheerleader. I had mentioned in passing that there was a lot of work still to be done, and that we were effectively at the same place we were at January through March of this year when hostages and Palestinian prisoners were being released and a cease fire was in effect. He didn't see it that way, claiming that the two agreements were nothing alike. I'll concede that this week's full framework differs from what was negotiated in January, but there's no guarantee that we will progress past this initial phase, just as we didn't seven months ago. Something that is being overlooked, although it is being reported by reputable news sources, is that neither Israel nor Hamas were present at the signing in Sharm Al-Sheikh. The 20 Point Plan was presented by Trump to Netanyahu, who secured the Knesset's blessing, but Hamas was not given that opportunity; they have also announced publicly that several points were unacceptable to them.

Here are the Twenty Points:

The points themselves are in this font, my comments will be in italics

1. Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.

This is an aspiration, a vague goal, not a plan. 

2. Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.

This is an aspiration, a vague goal, not a plan. 

3. If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed-upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.

This has been achieved

 4. Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.

This has been partially achieved; around a dozen remains have been returned to Israel, there have been problems with the rest

5. Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1,700 Gazans who were detained after October 7, 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.

This has been partially achieved; around a dozen remains have been returned to Israel, there have been problems with the rest

6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.

Hamas has stated that they have not agreed to this point

7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the January 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.

This has begun

8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed, without interference from the two parties, through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah Crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the January 19, 2025 agreement.

Restatement of #7

9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of state to be announced, including former prime minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.

Sounds like a good idea. Are there timelines? The major problem is that Hamas has not agreed to give up the governance of Gaza. 

10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.

The concept of a plan?

11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.

When will this be implemented?

12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

Okay

13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors.

This looks like a restating of #'s 6 and 9. Who will be responsible for destroying the "terror" infrastructure? 

14. A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.

What form will this take? Peacekeepers from the militaries of Arab nations?

15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.

An expansion or restatement of #14. Again, who will be in this ISF? What authority will they have?

16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the United States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.

Nothing really wrong with this, although can you trust Israel to honor this point? They are in the process of effectively annexing the West Bank

17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.

A tacit admission that this "agreement" was put together without any input from Hamas

18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.

Good luck

19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.

Not the first time, but it is nothing but weasel words

20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence.

Pretty much a restatement of #'s 18 and 19

Okay, there are six points that are restatements of other points, so it's really a Fourteen Point Plan. 

One of the belligerents (Hamas) had this "agreement" imposed upon them with no input from them, and they have been threatened that it's "comply or else". 

To boil this down to its essentials, this is what the "Plan" is all about:

• Cease Fire (in place for now)
• Repatriation of hostages (completed)
• Return of remains of deceased hostages (partially done)
• Hamas will disarm (Hamas will not do this)
• Hamas will step back from their governing role (Hamas will not do this)
• Humanitarian aid will recommence (started)
• Some kind of neutral governing body will be set up
• Some kind of international peacekeeping force will be set up
• Somebody will undertake rebuilding and redevelopment 
• Somebody will encourage Israelis and Palestinians to be nice to each other

...and implied, if noy actually stated in The Plan:

• If Hamas doesn't comply, Israel, backed by Trump, will recommence bombing Gaza back into the Stone Age

Hey, if this holds, I'll be glad to give Trump credit, I will even refrain from complaining if he gets a Nobel for it...if it holds. But how many "peace plans" have there been over the years? How many times have they been broken? The assumption seems to be, however, that Hamas is the only bad guy in this, with little consideration given to how Israel's actions have contributed to the violence. And even if there isn't any overt military actions, how often are Palestinians engaged in low level attacks on Israel and how often is Israel giving the Palestinians a pretext for those attacks? Outside of any arguments about the legitimacy of Israel itself, Israel has kept the Palestinian territories in limbo since 1967, and until that is redressed, the conflict will continue. 

A Lasting Peace (Again)

Let me start off by saying that anyone who thinks they understand fully the Israel-Palestine issues doesn't.  

Including me. 

Some specific events can unequivocally be categorized: Hamas' October 7th attacks against civilians were horrific. Israel's bombing of Gaza, killing tens of thousands, was horrific. Yet every act of violence can be traced back and rationalized as a response to previous barbarism by the other side. No matter how terrible the retribution, those exacting it always believe that they are justified. 

But you have to begin somewhere.

The beginning is the release of the surviving Israeli hostages (which as of this writing has been accomplished) and the cease fire, which started once the hostages were freed. Both of those things are unambiguously good. The hostages were nothing more than pawns in the hands of Hamas and the war was extremely one-sided in favor of Israel, reducing much of Gaza to rubble, and killing tens of thousands of civilians in pursuit of Hamas fighters. 

Trump is claiming credit for the agreement. How much he had to do with it is debatable. It's true that the United States was part of the mediation between Israel and Hamas, but so was Qatar, Egypt and Turkey. It's likely that Trump finally got tired of being played by Netanyahu, and decided to apply some pressure. If only he had chosen to so earlier. For all his talk about being the "Peace President" he made no effort to restrain Israel's government from their campaign of "kill 'em all and let God sort it out", even suggesting that the path to peace was through Israel's annihilation of Gaza's population. Even today, on a day that was supposed to be about celebrating the first phase of the peace accord, he commented about the contribution our weapons made to the effort.

It's pretty obvious that Trump thinks he should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Despite his attack on Iran earlier this year and his continuing destruction of  boats of alleged drug traffickers in international waters near Venezuela, he regularly claims to be the "president of peace" and boasts about having ended seven wars (might be eight or nine by now). The problem with that claim is that none of them were actually wars, a few didn't even involve fighting (one was a disagreement over water rights), and one was entirely fictional, involving countries that were nowhere near each other. But we all know that Trump lies and exaggerates. If the killing stops, I don't care if he claims credit. I don't even care if he gets a Nobel. 

Trump has been touting this agreement as an "historic dawn of a new Middle East", and proudly characterizing it as an "end to the war" and a "lasting peace". Netanyahu called it simply a "proposal to end the war and free the hostages". It's not even clear what was in the document that Trump and leaders and representatives from Qatar, Egypt and Turkey signed. What is clear is that not only are there parts to the so-called 20-point plan that have yet to be agreed to, but the underlying conditions that led to the war and the terrorist attack that preceded it, still exist.  Without going into the history of the State of Israel in detail, or debating whether Israel is "legitimate", the current state of affairs is not one that can continue without violence erupting once again. Since 1967 Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza (which had previously been occupied by Jordan and Egypt) and the Palestinians have lived in a stateless limbo. They do not have their own state, nor are they citizens of Israel, and therefore have no civil rights. (Palestinians who live within Israel proper are citizens and can vote -- some are members of Parliament). In addition to the war in Gaza, the West Bank, ostensibly Palestinian territory, has seen increasing encroachment by Jewish Israeli "Settlers", often violently taking land and even whole villages from Palestinians, usually with no repercussions. Palestinians have no legal recourse against these depredations. None of this has changed. 

Let's not forget, before we get all giddy about lasting peace in the region, that Trump began his term with a similar "peace" deal in place that would facilitate the freeing of the hostages and a cease fire leading to an end of the war. Negotiations started during President Biden's term with a Trump representative joining the team towards the end, with Trump of course claiming credit for the agreement. Hostages were released, but the cease fire was soon broken with each side blaming the other. Israel is already saying that failure to deliver the remains of the deceased hostages would be viewed as breaking the agreement by Hamas. Hamas is claiming that they don't know the location of all the remains and will have to look for them. And how many cease fires have come and gone over the years that ended up being broken? 

We all hope that war doesn't break out again, but let's hope that justice for the Palestinian people breaks out in the aftermath. 

 

The Daisies in the Dell Will Give Off a Different Smell

This is an update of an article I wrote in July 2024

If Donald Trump were to drop dead of a heart attack today, this country would be a better place. 

In the days after the murder of Charlie Kirk, anyone pointing out how the world was a better place without him, or how he himself said that gun violence was a fair price to be paid for the Second Amendment, was accused of "celebrating" his death. I would imagine that the death of Donald Trump would inspire celebrating that would require no interpretation. 

No - I am not suggesting that political assassination is a good thing nor am I wishing that the bullet had struck a fraction of an inch to the right. I didn't make jokes about the attempt on Trump's life; nor am I sharing "clever" memes. It's not funny. Even as bad as things are now, that's not how to do things. (Although I have to wonder whether the assassination attempt was a false flag where the bystander was collateral damage)

But do I think Trump dying (of natural causes) is a good thing? Absolutely. 

Politics is, and always has been, a dirty business. Idealistic people of all political persuasions run for office but get caught up in the system and often are corrupted to greater or lesser degree. They spend so much time and effort raising money and campaigning for the next election that it's amazing that anything ever gets done. Members of the House of Representatives are up for re-election every two years! But Trump is an entirely different political animal. Policy is beside the point with him and his legions of followers are loyal to him no matter what he does and says. He is upfront about wanting to tear down any semblance of democratic institutions - the danger that he poses is well known and documented in detail. 

But what about Project 2025 and the many Trump supporters who have been taking over the Republican party? Wouldn't they still be a threat? Of course. The anti-abortion movement didn't suddenly spring up in 2017; Mitch McConnell was stealing Supreme Court seats during Obama's time in the White House. But the grass roots support, voters who will turn out for their guy, just wouldn't be there to the same extent without Trump. I was in a cult and have seen first hand what happens to a cult when their charismatic leader dies. And make no mistake about it, Trumpism, "MAGA" if you will, is a cult. Can you see anyone in MAGA-land who can energize the crowds like Trump does? Anyone who can, without fail, cause millions of people to believe their every lie? 

That person does not exist.

The reason that Project 2025 is such a threat is that its authors counted on Trump getting elected. They counted on Trump appointing 2025-friendly cabinet members and staff. Since the Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate they are counting on Trump bullying members into supporting the program. If the Democrats had won one or both Houses of Congress they would have been counting on Trump using executive orders or novel constitutional interpretations to achieve their goals. It all falls apart without Trump. All the local MAGA election officials, school board members, county board members, they all lose interest and fade away without Trump. Even with Trump, Trumpism isn't the overwhelming choice of the electorate. Trump received more votes than Harris in the last election, but it was a statistical dead heat with Trump receiving slightly less than a majority of votes cast. 

As long as he is alive Trump is a threat. Even if he had lost we'd have seen a repeat of "Stop the Steal". It wouldn't have been Confederate Wannabes and Sentient Oakleys beating up cops with flagpoles, or Rudy Giuliani's hair dye running down his forehead - it would have been real lawyers flooding the zone with lawsuits and challenges just inside the boundaries of legality. Without Trump - no one cares. And you don't have the MAGA cult leader telling them to care. 

Will Project 2025 still exist, still embedded in the government? Will there still be Republicans intent upon dismantling our institutions? Will many rural Americans still be convinced that the Democrats are a bunch of baby-killing, gun grabbing communists? Yes, yes, and yes. But does anyone think that J.D. Vance (or whatever his name is) has the charisma to mesmerize the MAGA cult the way Trump does? In the religious cult that I was in, when the founder died, his top lieutenants fought among themselves and the cult splintered in many small groups, all claiming to be carrying on the legacy of the founder. That's what will happen to the MAGA cult. Vance will claim the MAGA banner, one of the Trump family will do the same; various Republicans will all shout from the rooftops that they are the true heirs of the orange buffoon. 

Trump can't live forever, and the poison that he has spread will take a while to dissipate, but there is no doubt that the country will be a better place without him in it. 

And the daisies in the dell will give off a different smell 'cause Donnie is underneath the ground. *

* Apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein

Filibusters and Government Shutdowns

Nobody likes the filibuster when the other guys are doing it, and everybody likes it when it prevents the other guys from doing things that you don't like. When Democrats were in the majority there was a lot of talk about eliminating the filibuster in order to enshrine a right to abortion in legislation, as well as accomplishing other Democratic priorities. But since Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema were not in favor, it never got done. Now that the Republicans are in the majority, the Democrats in Congress love the filibuster. 

The Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any bill. However debate can be ended by a three fifths (60 vote) "cloture" (Cloture = ending debate). A filibuster is an attempt to extend debate indefinitely, therefore effectively killing a bill since it will never be voted upon. In practice the threat of a filibuster is enough to kill a bill if it is determined that there are not 60 votes for cloture, which is why major legislation is said to require 60 votes in the Senate, allowing the minority to kill any bills they don't support. Or simply to hamstring the majority just because. As frustrating as the filibuster, and by extension the 60 vote requirement can be to getting anything done, I believe it serves an important function. 

I am well aware that the filibuster was long used by segregationists to stymie civil rights legislation. It's possibly one of the main reasons that this rule existed in the Senate. However, it is my belief that it serves as a brake on major changes that are supported by a slim or transient majority that might not represent a majority of the electorate. The founders couldn't think of everything (in fact they didn't include the filibuster in the Constitution, that was added later as part of Senate rules) but one thing that they included as part of the design of the new government was a framework to prevent things from preceding without due consideration. There were three branches. The executive and legislative had to come to agreement before legislation could pass and the judicial could override any legislation that was unconstitutional. Even within the legislative branch there were two houses of Congress which may not agree. (Originally Senators were appointed by state governments, not directly elected). Every part of the governing process served as an invitation to stop and think about what was happening and get buy-in from other stakeholders. 

We often hear the phrase, which I first heard from President Obama, "elections have consequences". It's true that whoever wins an election has the constitutional authority to carry out their agenda, but with majorities so thin that a case of the flu can leave the majority party without enough votes to pass their bill, and a president who won a majority of the electoral votes but beat out the main competition by a razor thin margin (with slightly less than 50% of the votes), should we be attempting a major restructuring of government, with changes affecting millions of ordinary Americans, on such a shaky foundation? And I'm not even factoring in the arguably unconstitutional power grab by the president who is attempting to rule by fiat. 

Currently the Senate majority (53 Republicans) is attempting to circumvent the filibuster, and therefore the 60 vote threshold, in order to push through their budget which includes huge changes in the government. A process called reconciliation allows a bill that includes only spending or taxes to proceed with limited debate and no option of a filibuster. One of the requirements is that it be revenue neutral over ten years. The Republicans in 2017 were able to push through their tax plan in this manner. They were able to claim that it was revenue neutral over ten years by having it expire in 2025. Yet here we are seeing an attempt to extend it past this year, so the original terms have been thrown out the window. This year's subversion is using similar creative accounting -- having aspects of the plan -- those that benefit ordinary Americans and not billionaires and corporations -- expire at the end of Trump's term. [Since I first wrote this in May 2025, the budget bill favored by Trump passed with no Democratic votes]

Government policy should embody at least some consistency. Our allies have no idea how to interact with us as each administration seesaws back and forth; domestically we have no idea what the next day will bring -- inflation and stock prices (and with them our 401(k)'s) are at the mercy of a man ignorant of economic reality, and Congress, at least the majority, willing to acquiesce to his whims.  Even aside from questions of constitutionality, we need some bulwark against the tyranny of the (bare) majority. The filibuster is one of those checks.

Right now, the first week of October 2025, we are dealing with a government shutdown. The reason we have government shutdowns at all is that the different factions in Congress usually can't agree how to fund government operations. Not just Republicans vs. Democrats, but disagreements within the majority party. The Republicans, including President Trump, are blaming the Democrats and the Democrats are blaming the Republicans. The Republicans in the House of Representatives, with one Democratic House member joining them, passed what is called a "clean" Continuing Resolution. A Continuing Resolution (CR)  is a bill which simply extends the budget levels from the previous fiscal year. (An essentially meaningless action, since Trump seems to believe he can simply ignore the budgets that Congress passes) A "clean" bill is one where there are no new items attached to it. The Democrats in this case are incorrect in calling it a "dirty" CR, since it doesn't have any new, hidden, Republican dirty tricks. 

Now the CR is in the Senate, where we have filibusters. (There is no option for a filibuster in the House of Representatives). So the Republicans cannot pass the CR with their majority of 53 alone. Assuming all Republicans sign on, they also need 7 Democrats or Independents to vote "yes". Democrats are using this leverage to demand that the ACA subsidies, which are expiring this year, be made permanent, and for cuts to Medicaid made earlier this year be repealed. Republicans are claiming that it is inappropriate to add anything to a clean CR and that ACA subsidies and Medicaid can be negotiated and voted upon separately, and it's the Democrats that are shutting down the government. The Democrats are maintaining that all the Republicans have to do is agree to these two things (in reality, they'd probably accept the ACA subsidies alone), so it's the Republicans who are shutting down the government. 

Two things to consider. First: why, since the Republicans have had control of both houses of Congress all year, were they waiting until the final week of the fiscal year to come up with a new budget...and fail to do so? Passing a CR is an admission that they couldn't agree on a budget, even within the Republican Party. Second: legislation has always been the art of compromise, despite the way the current administration is acting like a conquering army even though the electorate is virtually evenly split. factions within parties use their influence to extract concessions from the majority within their own party, the minority party doing the same to the majority when able. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party often holds the moderate institutional Democrats hostage, while the far right faction seems to call the shots in the more traditionally conservative Republican Party. In this case the Republicans need seven Democrats to vote with them. But why should they? They have the leverage they need to get something for their votes and they're taking it. Why should they believe that a "clean" vote on the ACA subsidies or reversal of Medicaid cuts will go anywhere? They have something that the Republicans need (seven votes) and want something in exchange. That's politics. 

Of course, there's nothing to stop the Republicans from changing the rules and eliminating the filibuster and passing the CR with 53 votes. 

We've Become An Anti-Democratic, Anti-Constitutional Republic

What is a republic? What is a democracy? Are they different? Do the definitions overlap? If you engage at any level of political discourse you have probably had the phrase "We're not a democracy, we're a republic (or constitutional republic). Why the emphatic belief that they're different?

"Republic" comes from the Latin Res Publica, "a matter of the people", whereby the government is a public matter and not the private property of a monarch. In other words, in the strictest interpretation, a republic is simply "not a monarchy". The form that a republic can take is quite varied. In the United States, most people who refer to republics are talking about a representative-constitutional government, whereby the executive and legislators are elected by the people for fixed terms and are guided by laws, in our case, a constitution. However who "the people" are can be circumscribed quite broadly. In the early days of the United States only adult, white, male, landowners were permitted to vote in most states. This eventually gave the way to voting rights for all adults, except some felons. In a Socialist, or Communist, Republic, the will of "the people" is assumed to reside in the ruling party, which has elections, but decides ahead of time who may run. In an Islamic Republic, the Quran and the clergy empowered to interpret it decide what's good for the people. Ancient Greek republics limited voting to a citizen class. 

"Democracy" literally means power or rule of the people. The simplest form of this is Direct Democracy, often referred to as "Mob Rule", where every decision is voted upon by everyone. Obviously this could only work in very limited situations, such as (very) small towns, or people in small isolated groupings. Direct Democracy almost never exists. A less "pure" form of democracy would involve an elected administrator and/or hired technical people who would keep things running, while important decisions would be voted on. The other end of the democracy continuum would be a system indistinguishable from what we defined above as a representative, constitutional republic: you elect representatives for fixed terms, who are then responsible to run the government according to a constitution. Those who are careful about their words refer to this as a democratic republic, or just a democracy for short. Nobody who calls the United States a democracy really believes that it is a direct democracy or thinks that a direct democracy is a good thing for a large nation.

The terms "republic" and "democracy" are not mutual exclusive. 

But why would supporters of the Trump regime want to emphasize so vociferously that we aren't a democracy? 

It's pretty obvious to anyone who pays attention to politics that the United States Constitution, while providing for representative government, is a decidedly anti-democratic document. It was written in decidedly undemocratic times. Although the power of monarchs had been diluted over the previous century, the ruling classes represented only a small sliver of the population of any European country. The Constitution provided for the officers of the government to be elected, but did not define who would be allowed to do the electing. Individual states set the qualifications to be met by anyone who wanted to vote, and most of them restricted the franchise to white male landowners. Neither descendants of the original inhabitants nor enslaved people were considered "people", let alone allowed to vote. Even that restricted electorate was not trusted fully by the founders. The Electoral College system provided a check against "the people" making the "wrong" choice when electing the president. 

The Founders were men of their time. This is not to say that it was morally right to hold the positions that they did, just that it was not unusual. It was perfectly normal in that time to look down upon non-White people as "lesser races", or to believe that it was the natural order for the élite to rule and the common folk to be ruled. 

But times changed. People changed. 

Few seriously believe that only the élite should get to make the decisions for the rest of us, that women should have no rights, that certain people were not "people" within the meaning of the law. We have, in so many ways, moved beyond the ethics and morals of eighteenth century society. So why do we still deify the men who instituted the framework of a nation based on eighteenth century ethics and morals and worship the document that they created?

The Constitution provided within itself a means to change it. In addition to the first ten amendments we collectively refer to as The Bill of Rights it has been amended seventeen times. A few of those of been procedural: changing the way the Vice President is chosen, providing for the direct election of Senators, changing the date a new presidential term begins, limiting a president to two terms; others were hugely consequential: outlawing slavery, prohibiting the denial of voting rights due to gender; and of course alcohol prohibition and its subsequent repeal. 

Changes have been made, but antidemocratic features still persist.

The equal representation of each state in the Senate, where every state, no matter its population, receives two Senate seats, gives small states a voice well out of proportion to their population. The makeup of the House of Representatives is capped at 435 members, despite the overall U.S. population continuing to rise. Since each state is guaranteed at least one representative, no matter how small the population, the population of Congressional districts vary between around 500,000 to over 900,000. This discrepancy carries over to presidential elections where a state's electoral votes equal the total number of members in the House of Representatives plus two Senators. 

For a long time the arc of progress in this country has been toward more democracy. More people enfranchised, fewer barriers to voting, less decision-making in the smoke-filled back rooms. But lately this has been reversed, at least among the White, Christian, "conservative" electorate. Realizing that their hold on the democratic process has been eroded due to demographics they now proudly champion the anti-democratic features of the system. Gerrymandered state legislatures pass laws that make it more difficult to register to vote and eliminate polling places in majority Democratic areas. These same legislatures pass laws that a majority of their citizens are against, and draw electoral maps that guarantee their legislative majority despite receiving a minority of the votes. 

The cry of "We're not a democracy" is not just an argument over semantics. It's a mindset of a demographic that sees their ascendancy in our society reduced or even eliminated, and is determined to retain their power and influence even if they are numerically in the minority. They emphasize the nondemocratic aspects of our governmental structure and ignore anything that hints at honoring the wishes of the majority. 

This is one of the reasons the cult-like supporters of Trump ignore his dictatorial actions: his authoritarianism benefits them. 

Is Opposition to Trump a Cult?

Trump's MAGA movement started being called a cult during his first term, and it's only gotten clearer that his base is very clearly a cult. Standard operating procedure for the Trumpists is to accuse their opponents, or enemies, as they like to say, of the same thing they are being accused of. I'm not going to spend a lot of time backing up my assertion that Trumpism is a cult. I have done that numerous times over the years. Just type "cult" into the search bar for this blog and you'll see numerous articles supporting this thesis. I'm interested in examining whether groups who oppose Trump are in fact cultish also.

There is broad consensus among people who study cults that there are clear warning signs indicating whether a church or movement is a cult:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget
4. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
5. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
6. Abuse of members
7. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
8. Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough”
9. A belief that the leader is right at all times
10. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

Not all of these apply to Trumpism, #3 is a maybe, #6 - probably not, and #8, definitely not (as far as I know), so let's boil them down to the ones that I believe apply, re-number them, and see if they apply to Leftism or even opposition to Trump:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
2. Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
3. Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
4. A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
5. Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
6. A belief that the leader is right at all times
7. A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

Some of these could reasonably be applied to Trump opponents:

#2 - there are some segments of "the Left" that are very doctrinaire about their articles of faith. Some anti-Trump people will never believe that Trump is even capable of doing anything right 

#3 - Trump supporters might characterize Trump opponents' fears as unreasonable

#4 - The hardcore Trump opponents might be adamant that changing "sides" is an indicator of insanity

The rest point to a leader, which "the Left" does not have, and opposition to Trump is definitely diffuse. 

Who is telling Trump's opponents to oppose him? The Democrats, the mainstream media? A good portion of Trump opposition don't like the Democrats any more than they like Trump, and trust in the mainstream media is hardly an article of faith among those on the Left. In my opinion, which agrees with the consensus of those who study cults, a true cult requires a leader, or at least a small oligarchy, that gives the orders and decides what constitutes "truth". Trump opposition does not have a leader, it is therefore, in my view, not a cult.

But is it cult-like, or are cult-like behaviors exhibited? Or is it something else? 

There are behaviors that when viewed in isolation or out of context seem similar to cult behavior, here are a few:

• Succumbing to peer pressure
• Self censorship due to fear of being labeled a bigot, racist, sexist, ableist, etc.
• Lack of relevant education (ignorance about the subject)
• Assuming everything a person or group does is bad based on past performance

One of the defining features of today's political climate is that someone's own political leanings often cause them to identify strongly or even exclusively with one political party. This identification is paired with a strong loyalty, similar to how many people feel for their favorite sports team. Like it or not, there are realistically only two viable options politically. The Democratic and Republican parties, for good or for ill, dominate elections. Even though alternatives exist, for a variety of reasons they never get much traction, especially in national elections. You realistically have only two choices. 

Before I get to whether being opposed to Trump is itself cult-like behavior, let's look at whether Leftist politics in general is characterized by cult-like behavior. 

My observation is that Liberals often are obsessed with purity tests. There is often no room for nuance. Office seekers are often held to a standard of either 100 percent support for a position or are excoriated for seeing some middle ground. I understand that for some issues there is no middle ground. You're either for or against, but many more positions require thoughtful examination of the big picture. While this isn't unique to Liberalism, the loudest voices often carry the most weight; and those loud voices are often the ones that are most eager to pin labels on those they disagree with. The result is often self-censorship. Rather than face the wrath of the mob, many people will withhold their opinions, stifle their own voices, because they know that their take on an issue will likely get them tarred as a racist, a transphobe or a Nazi. Peer pressure plays into this as well. Most people want to fit in; if your social group is overwhelmingly a believer in "A", you might hesitate to speak out about "B". 

The one defining non-cult-like characteristic of Liberals-Progressives-Leftists, despite any groupthink or lemming-like behavior they might exhibit, is fragmentation. While there might be factions that are unbending on their opinions on Gaza, or transgender athletes, or autism, there are other factions that disagree. There are Democratic politicians who are indistinguishable from moderate Republicans and there are those who are Democratic Socialists and everything in between. And there is a constituency for them all! You'd think if Liberalism was a cult they'd get their story straight!

Opposition to Trump isn't quite the same. Virtually all subsets of Leftists unanimously oppose him. I have heard Trumpists claim that this opposition is cult-like. I'll stipulate that some opposition to Trump is by people who don't understand the issues, or why he is a malign element, or who are going along with the crowd. Some people will oppose anything Trump does, even if it would have been supported if someone else had done it. Trumpists are convinced that opposition is due to "propaganda" by the mainstream media, or maybe by George Soros. I'm convinced that unalloyed opposition to Trump is justified simply by reading and listening to his own words and observing his actions. Many opponents (myself included) spend what could be described as an inordinate amount of time focusing on Trump because, as president, he's always there. A day can't go by without him saying or doing something objectively harmful as well as unconstitutional. I'll concede that occasionally he'll make a good decision, but those few are swamped by everything else he is doing to turn this country into a dictatorship. 

Labeling opposition to Trump as a cult is nothing more than an attempt by his supporters to deflect from their own cultish behavior, and to discount any resistance as irrational.