We may wish that he would long be gone, but he’s hard to erase. The damage he has done to our national psyche is enormous. We elected a common real estate broker with a limited belief in democracy to be the leader of our land, and nothing will ever be the same again. He has impacted our institutions of governance in a way that should never be forgotten. If we are lucky, or at least peripherally vigilant, we won’t make the mistake of electing such a personage to be our President ever again.

Already, I digress.

He is not in this story at all, except for the long shadow that he has been able to cast over our previous concept of democracy, a notion that goes back to the Colonies in New England in the early 1600’s. We’ve had centuries of practice in democracy. We honed to, discussed it, fought over it, legislated it; the overwhelming majority of us based our lives on its tenets. We thought we were good. We came to love the hypothesis that we were all created equal, and we utterly believed that our vote, once we were all awarded it, counted. We learned that nobody was above the law.

The property-owning huckster begged to differ.

God knows what image of himself he fell in love with in front of his mirrorball; however he did it, he fell for a self-inflated ego the likes of which has rarely been seen across the land. He thought omnipotence, he thought all-powerful, he thought Ayatollah; he cosied up to Kim Jong Un. Things got out of hand. He ended up questioning the operation of democracy in multiple states, and pushed in Georgia for imaginary votes to materialize.

This man has, as far as I can tell, never encountered humility.

Confucious once said Humility is the solid foundation of all virtues. Without a solid foundation in life, where are you? Well, possibly in a Barbiland place called MAR-A-LAGO, about as far away from reality as you can get and still be in the United States.

Do we care?

Yes, and no. We don’t want him back in the White House, so we have to constantly keep an eye out and an ear cocked for erratic and half-baked truths that might again threaten our foundations of self-government. Let him busy himself on his apparently multitudinous golf courses; we don’t really have to give a second thought to his golf escapades unless, of course, he’s hiding highly sensitive and classified documents on nuclear programs in his golf course bathrooms. Then, we might need to be concerned.

We elected Biden. We were ready to move on, but our loser-in-chief resident of Inflated Ego Tower in New York, doesn’t want to let us go. He keeps dragging us, desperately, back, repeating his false claims and hurt feelings ad nauseum. His desire for headlines swamps us, even now, daily. Many of those headlines date back to his time in office, and many involve prosecutions and lawsuits that appear to be reproducing like rabbits. A date in 2024 has been set for a trial involving the man’s fetish for hoarding official government documents at his residences; the Justice Department has brought 37 counts against him for his handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. It doesn’t end there. New York is charging him with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. A jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million. This is only a partial list of accusations. Bubbling just under the surface is Georgia’s 2020 election meddling case; the Grand Jury has already submitted their report there.

Perhaps most serious of all is the January 6 insurrection case in Washington. Did the con man actually direct an assault on our Capitol? This past week, he received a letter of concern from Justice Department prosecutor, Jack Smith, informing him that he is a target in Smith’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The potential charges against our former loony-in-chief are obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the government, incitement of an insurrection and conspiracy to violate civil rights.

None of it looks good.

Where is Trump? Out on the campaign trail for 2024, where else, disinforming and continuing with his usual bragger and swagger, and now being threatening too. To understand that more, just take a gander at Robert Reich’s instinctive column today, Trump is gearing up for his ‘final battle’. So should we:

A Trump indictment for attempting the overthrow of the constitutional order and the verdict of the electorate will guarantee that 2024 will be more of a referendum on Trump than a referendum on Biden, as was the 2020 election.

It will make it harder for Republican candidates across the nation to focus on their fake nemeses – “woke” teachers and corporations, trans youth, LGBTQ+ people, immigrants and “socialism” – and force them instead to defend Trump’s side in the final battle.

Trump and the Republicans will lose this battle. Even if they win Republican primaries, they will lose the general election.

Let’s just hope. As Reich reminds us:

We want to live in a nation where no one is above the law. We want to be able to sleep at night without worrying that a president might unleash armed lackeys to drag us out of our homes because he considers us to be his enemy.

Here I was thinking that I was going to write a piece on the nascent concept of Bidenomics, much in the news these past few weeks.

What do you know? The elephant in the room trumpeted (ah ha, that’s what elephants do!), growled, squeaked, and snorted. The churning of the legal battles of the man who held the most prestigious office in the land not even 4 years ago, got in the way. The most damning legal struggles of our President from 2017 to 2021 seem to be getting underway at a moment when Biden’s economic initiatives are clicking into place.

As someone once said. That’s politics.

There was never going to be a Trump in this headline. There never should be. There never should have been.

But there you go.

Life is full of surprises. It will continue to stymie us until we can never be stymied again, or until justice is served.

Fingers crossed.

The post The Elephant in the Room (or There Is No Trump in this headline) appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Being a Republican in Congress is a lot easier than being a Democrat. That’s because there are very few things that Republicans have or want to do. Most Democrats have full plates in front of them as they want to reform our society so that government provides a strong and secure safety net for all of us, particularly those most at risk. If we reach a point of gridlock, of stalemate, it is the right that wins, because if nothing happens, that is exactly what they want.

In the wake of the January 6, 2021 insurrection and other rebellious acts from the right, there is increasing talk of a new American civil war. What shape it might take is open to all kinds of interpretation. It certainly would not be like America’s first civil war, or even a feared possible upcoming war between Russia and Ukraine.

That does not mean there would not be violence. The January 6 insurrection resulted in the deaths of five individuals and the injuring of hundreds. The Right certainly does not hesitate to use threats of violence against those with whom they merely disagree.

For example, Fox News anchor Jesse Watters recently told a group of conservatives to “ambush” Dr. Anthony Fauci with questions and “go in for kill shot.” Fox News has not reprimanded Watters; in fact, they have not said a word about his using their platform to threaten to kill someone. Fox did the same things with correspondent Lara Logan who compared Fauci to the Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele (also included in the clip below).

As we approach the end of 2021, the Washington Post reports “Inside the nonstop pressure campaign by Trump allies to get election officials to revisit the 2020 vote.” The Big Lie continues more than thirteen months after the 2020 safe, secure and democratic elections.

The fallout has spread from the six states where Trump sought to overturn the outcome in 2020 to deep-red places such as Idaho, where officials recently hand-recounted ballots in three counties to refute claims of vote-flipping, and Oklahoma, where state officials commissioned an investigation to counter allegations that voting machines were hacked.

The important point in the article is that the Trumpsters are continuing their efforts to intimidate Republican-controlled state legislatures to undo the past and change the future so that free and fair elections become something of the past.

A “civil war” could include numerous other acts of aggression by the right including the intimidation of teachers, vigilante forces, Congressional action to not raise the debt limit and not fund necessary programs that are the framework of our social and economic safety net.

COVID has already played a key role in dividing the nation and threatens to do so for some time to come. Samuel Goldman in The Week suggests:

I’m not the first to compare the way of thinking about the pandemic still dominant in official statements to the military disasters of the last two decades. My colleague Noah Millman and the journalist Daniel McCarthy have both noted parallels between the interminable conflicts that followed 9/11 and the “war” on COVID. “Like the old Afghan government,” Millman wrote, “those in charge of public health have little practical ability to shape events. But they speak as if they are sovereign and in control.”

It is hard to imagine what aggressive actions those on the Left may take. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, extremists far to the left of the Democratic Party engaged in bombing attacks on both public and private buildings. But there was very little coordinated about that and as it became apparent that the bombings were counter-productive, the bombings essentially ended.

Regrettably, there is very little that the Right needs to do now to win a “civil war.” The current stalemate allows those on the Right to generally get their way.

Progressive legislation will not pass. The right to safe and legal abortions will be ended in most states when Roe v. Wade is overturned, elections will be rigged to favor far-right Republicans, COVID and other infectious diseases will continue to run rampant, gun-control measures will not be passed, climate change legislation will stall and those who do not agree with those on the Right will live in fear of violence.

The only real way that progressives and others can prevent an escalated “civil war” is by winning big in elections and having protections against Republican electoral manipulation. This means that the U.S. Senate is going to have to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in order to maximize the chances of free and fair elections. Additionally, Democrats are going to have to figure out a way to elevate the popularity of Joe Biden and improve their chances of winning 2022 Congressional races. Perhaps a backlash to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade would help, but that seems unlikely.

The stakes are truly high for progressives; we need to do all that we legally and non-violently can do.

The post Why A “Civil War” Would Be So Hard for Progressives to “Win” appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Earlier this month, Heather Cox Richardson reported that both the New York Times and the Washington Post ran op-eds penned by Republicans or former Republicans urging members of their party who still value democracy to vote Democratic until the authoritarian faction that has taken their party is bled out of it.

Most Democrats would say that if they had a choice between the United States being a well-functioning democratic-republic, or the Democratic Party prevailing in about 50% of elections, they would prefer America to be a democracy.

In 2016, when Donald Trump was selected by the Electoral College to be president, a national conversation began concerning how American democracy was becoming more at risk. With each passing day of his presidency, as he said or did one outrageous thing after another, there became more discussion on how his method of ruling was similar to a dictator. Virtually all Democrats, most independents, and a minority of Republicans knew that America would be in for a rough ride with Trump. But as his outrageous behavior escalated, more came to fear for the preservation of our democracy. This culminated with Trump’s refusal to acknowledge that he had lost the 2020 election, and then the planned assault on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On the strength of the 2020 election results, Democrats gained control of the federal executive and legislative branches. Even though Joe Biden won the presidency by more than seven million popular votes, absurdly his victory is still being challenged. In the House, the Democrats actually lost seats in 2020 and have merely a eight-vote margin. Because Democrats won the two January run-off elections in Georgia, the Senate is locked at 50-50, with Vice-President Kamala Harris casting the deciding vote. But two of the Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, act like outcasts in the party and are major obstacles to the agenda advocated by most other Democrats.

Progressive Democrats have a very well-crafted agenda designed to effectively move the country forward economically, socially, and promoting human rights. Members of the House like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin, and in the Senate like Bernie Sanders and Cory Booker, are positioned to implement a genuine wave of progressive legislation somewhat akin to the New Deal and the Great Society.

But because of the two Senators (Manchin and Sinema), we’re largely at gridlock. However, two good things may happen: (1) democracy will function as two of fifty Democratic senators can stymie the overwhelming will of their colleagues, and (2) something will pass – a watered down compromise which is a far cry better than had we had Republican rule.

Let’s face it, progressives, we’re not going to have the kind of victory that we wanted. We are hamstrung in effecting more progress because of structural problems in our system; ones that go back to our founding fathers and ones that are continuously being developed by activists on the right. They make it very difficult for Democrats to advance a progressive agenda.

A few of the structural problems in our current system include:

1. The U.S. Senate. A key issue among the founders was whether or not to have a bi-cameral legislature, and if so, how each house would be constituted. In the interest of democracy, the House as based on population. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, the only eligible voters were white men who owned property. This naturally benefited the larger states. For that reason, states small in population, such as Rhode Island and Delaware, wanted the second house to have equal representation for each state. Thus the U.S. Senate. Fast forward to today and it means that Wyoming and California each have two members of the Senate, but it’s highly undemocratic because the Wyoming senators represent only one-fifty-seventh of the population of the senators from California.
2. Gerrymandering – the drawing of legislative districts in a fashion that favors one party over another. For example, Missouri, which generally votes of 40% for Democrats has only two of eight members in the House (25%).
3. Corruption – while Trumpsters squawk about fraud and fake elections, it is the Republicans who are pushing all barriers to protecting our democracy. When the term ‘truth’ has no meaning to a large segment of the electorate, we run the risk of losing the people’s connection to democracy.

So, progressives would serve themselves well to harness some of their enthusiasm for immediate enactment of the policies of “The Squad” or even Joe Biden. Instead, the focus should be on protecting our democratic institutions at a time when they are under relentless attack from Trumpsters and others on the far right.

As we work at the governmental level to further protect our democracy, we need to work with our schools to reach out into the electorate in order to optimize a population that is empathetic and has the capabilities of critical thinking.

Only with a more aware electorate and a new generation of logical and compassionate thinkers will we be able to protect our democracy. If we can strengthen those two items, then we can adapt the next leg of the New Deal and the Great Society.

The post Time for Dems to Take a Step Back in order to Move Forward appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Three hours before the first presidential “debate” debacle kicked off, as I was blithely sautéing a batch of mushrooms, my kitchen sink inexplicably plunged—with a loud thunk—to the bottom of the cabinet beneath it. Slightly more than a year earlier, the pricey stainless steel sink had been one of the final finishes to a long overdue, professional kitchen renovation. But, somehow, over the course of 12 months, it had worked its way loose from its moorings.

Then I witnessed a much worse disaster: Donald Trump’s off-the-rails performance at the presidential debate. He was unhinged, out of control, unmoored, unglued, unbolted. Just like my kitchen sink. But with vastly more dangerous consequences.

Minutes after the sink sank, I put in a desperate call to the kitchen renovators. They were shocked. This doesn’t happen, they said. We’ll be out to fix it in the morning, they promised. And they were. When they arrived and assessed the situation, they blamed the problem on the original installers, who, they said, didn’t seem to know what they were doing and did a half-assed job.

Again, I was struck by the parallel with Donald Trump’s presidency. Voters apparently didn’t know what they were doing when they installed him. And he has demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn’t know what he is doing as the “leader of the free world.” Also, he’s not a half-ass, he’s the full Monty.  (One aspect of this comparison that doesn’t work is that, unlike the minority of the American electorate who voted for Trump, I didn’t buy a product that was obviously damaged goods from the get-go.)

The repair squad showed up as promised, their truck stocked with every tool, part, and adhesive product they needed to re-instate my sink to its proper condition. It took them a while to figure out what had happened (the sink had not been correctly braced). And they had to jerry-rig a solution (shoring up the sink with wooden supports). But they got the job done, and I feel  confident that my sink is more stable than it was before.

And despite the emotional hangover I was suffering post-debate, I saw another, convenient metaphorical connection. With Donald Trump as America’s know-nothing, incompetent contractor-in-chief, the underpinnings of our democracy are coming undone, falling apart at the seams.

Can Joe Biden do for American democracy what the repair guys did for my kitchen? I hope so. But he damage is already deep. Trump and his cohort of greedy, corrupt, and anti-democracy cronies have subverted our agencies, our institutions, our traditions and even our hopes and expectations. It’s going to take a lot of work, and more than a metaphorical morning, to shore us back up and restore stability. Even if  we manage to elect Biden, take back the Senate, and keep the House majority, we’re going to need a truckload of good ideas and willing workers. We’ll have to throw everything at the job—including the kitchen sink.

The post My kitchen sink: A 2020 Election Metaphor appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’ve been teaching political science full time at a community college for the last 18 years. And though I still love it, it’s gotten much harder. When I started, I reveled in the idea of educating young minds about the “American experiment.” Refreshing their memories (hopefully!) about basic civics but getting into the deeper and more complicated stuff, too.

I teach American politics with a passion. And part of that passion has always come from a joyful and almost patriotic presumption that my students and I were all part of the same political culture. Though we can differ greatly when it comes to policy, Americans were all grounded in certain universal givens.

Rule of law. Separation of powers. Equal protection and due process. The sanctity of our elections. Freedom of the press.  These are the pillars of the American republic.

And all have been under unprecedented attack by Donald Trump.

More troublesome have been the Americans that have sanctioned this war on these fundamental principles. The Americans pledging more loyalty to a crass and corrupt authoritarian than the ideals that connect us. The Americans acting as enablers to this president’s historic abuse of power.

With every cry of “coup” or “witch hunt” or “hoax” the president is attempting to destroy the long-established principle of checks and balances and the independence of the justice department.

With every assault on Congress and the courts he lays waste to the bedrock American principle of separation of powers.

With every yelp doubting the legitimacy of the electoral process he scorches the foundation of our democratic government.

With every tantrum about “fake news” he delegitimizes the place that journalism holds as a bulwark against tyranny.

And still, a disturbingly large fraction of the nation looks the other way. Others even applaud such behavior. They’re energized by the president’s nonsense about a “deep state” and even think that this crusade against the Constitution is somehow “draining the swamp.”

Students sitting in my classroom next semester will run the entire range of opinion about this president. Each of them will sit there attentively as I lecture about these principles. How should I do it?

As a philosopher would? “These principles are the ideals that we should strive for?”

As an historian would?  “These principles are what the nation used to value in the past?”

As a political science professor, I used to think that we all agreed that these principles always had defined what it means to be an American. Now, I sincerely don’t know.

We use the metaphor of a “pillar” to describe things -– like the pillars holding up a building –- that are structurally necessary. These democratic principles are supposed to be pillars of our republic –- necessary components in the political structure of our nation.

By supporting this president, American citizens are making a mockery of these principles.  They are proving that to them these concepts never really mattered all that much.

Pillars? For way too many of our fellow citizens, these principles are less like pillars and more like impediments. And for those who embrace these principles with passion –- some of us are even employed to espouse them in the classroom — that is nothing short of a tragedy.

The post I Guess They Weren’t Pillars After All appeared first on Occasional Planet.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff [D-CA] has published an open letter to his Republican colleagues, urging them to, at long last,  break their silence and speak out against the democracy-killing actions of Donald Trump –actions that they privately acknowledge as dangerous, but have been afraid to talk about publicly.

“The president has just declared a national emergency to subvert the will of Congress and appropriate billions of dollars for a border wall that Congress has explicitly refused to fund. Whether you support the border wall or oppose it, you should be deeply troubled by the president’s intent to obtain it through a plainly unconstitutional abuse of power,” writes Schiff.

Noting that many Republicans have expressed alarm about Trump’s actions — but only in whispered conversations behind closed doors, Schiff issues an urgent plea to these concerned Republicans to come out of the shadows in the interest of preserving America’s democracy.

To my Republican colleagues: When the president attacked the independence of the Justice Department by intervening in a case in which he is implicated, you did not speak out. When he attacked the press as the enemy of the people, you again were silent. When he targeted the judiciary, labeling judges and decisions he didn’t like as illegitimate, we heard not a word. And now he comes for Congress, the first branch of government, seeking to strip it of its greatest power, that of the purse.

Many of you have acknowledged your deep misgivings about the president in quiet conversations over the past two years. You have bemoaned his lack of decency, character and integrity. You have deplored his fundamental inability to tell the truth. But for reasons that are all too easy to comprehend, you have chosen to keep your misgivings and your rising alarm private.

That must end. The time for silent disagreement is over. You must speak out.

Then he asks for courage — the inner strength and concern for something greater than oneself that supersedes political loyalties and the short-term, self-interested need for re-election:

This will require courage. The president is popular among your base, which revels in his vindictive and personal attacks on members of his own party, even giants such as the late senator John McCain. Speaking up risks a primary challenge or accusations of disloyalty. But such acts of independence are the most profound demonstrations of loyalty to country.

And if not now, when, asks Schiff.

If we cannot rise to the defense of our democracy now, in the face of a plainly unconstitutional aggrandizement of presidential power, what hope can we have that we will do so with the far greater decisions that could be yet to come?

Although these times pose unprecedented challenges, we have been through worse. The divisions during the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement were just as grave and far more deadly. The Depression and World War II were far more consequential. And nothing can compare to the searing experience of the Civil War.

If Abraham Lincoln, the father of the Republican Party, could be hopeful that our bonds of affection would be strained but not broken by a war that pitted brother against brother, surely America can come together once more. But as long as we must endure the present trial, history compels us to speak, and act, our conscience, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Republicans, Trump propagandists and Trump-TV commentators will undoubtedly give Adam plenty of Schiff over this. I think he should be applauded for doing exactly what he’s asking his Republican colleagues to do–what we all should be doing — speaking out for democracy.

The post Schiff to Republicans: Speak out, already! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The current state of proliferating Trump scandals presents a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity for the first Republican to truly stand up for what is right.

Think about it: One brave Republican congressperson, senator, governor or state legislator could build a 2020 presidential campaign on a single act of courage — standing up to the bully, being the first to publicly say no, and saving America from a despot. Remember Woodrow Wilson’s re-election slogan, “He kept us out of war?” Here’s one for a courageous — and ambitious — Republican: “He saved democracy.”

Clearly, taking a stand against Trump’s corruption, incompetence and mental unfitness is the right thing to do. Doing it for the sake of America’s future would be the purest of motivations — because it needs doing. But such an act of pure patriotism is probably too much to expect.

So, although I know it’s cynical to say this, an astute Republican with presidential aspirations could build a lot of political capital by being the first to seriously take on Trump. Doing so would be seen as an act of integrity and fortitude and leadership. Politicians have run — and won — on a lot less.

And if it’s a legacy one is seeking, this could be a big one: You could win the Profiles in Courage award, have a page reserved for you in every high-school textbook in America, be memorialized as a great American hero.

So, who’s it going to be? An article in the New York Times highlights several Republicans to watch  — not necessarily as potential presidential candidates, but as possible key players in the investigations into Trump/Russia that are now ramping up: Senators Susan Collins [ME], James Lankford [OK], Roy Blunt [MO], Marco Rubio [FL], Richard Burr [SC]. Judging from their past records, I have a hard time imagining any of these people taking a principled stand on anything, let alone bucking party loyalty and challenging Trump.

But maybe there are others whose political history is not as tainted as these old-guard party loyalists. Surely, if Trump’s popularity plummets and he is seen as a liability to continued Republican dominance in Congress, somebody’s going to glom onto the notion that breaking away–and being the first to do so — would be politically smart. So, even if a Republican can’t find the inner strength and moral imperative to do it for the good of the country, I’d settle for someone doing a good thing for the far less noble reason of seeing a political opportunity when it stares them in the face.

[This is not to imply that I would actually vote for such a person.]

The post Stopping Trump: a once-in-a-lifetime political opportunity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I have not been the same since November 8, 2016. Trump’s presidency hurts. I’m taking it personally. But my anger, sadness and fear aren’t just about Hillary Clinton losing, or about the obvious fact that Trump is unqualified and unfit. Sure, those things factor in. But the hurt goes much deeper. Why am I taking this so hard? I’ve been thinking about that, and here are some of the reasons I’ve identified.

It hurts because I think we are much better than the policies we are seeing coming out of the Trump White House. With all of our national flaws — the wars we’ve fought for the wrong reasons — the harm we’ve  done, deliberately and inadvertently, to people who are not to blame for their circumstances — our national original sin of slavery — despite all of these national failings, the impulse to do the right thing, to correct mistakes, to make life better for more people — has  always existed, I believe, in the DNA of the United States. We have a history — replete with many detours — of becoming, over time, more inclusive, more open to new ideas, of expanding rights, of looking out for people in difficult circumstances, of fairness, and of looking outward into the world beyond our borders and welcoming the world in. The overall trend has been to increasingly see ourselves as being a part of something bigger than one person or one country.

It hurts because the Trump presidency represents a sharp turn away from those values. It hurts because we are moving backward toward us vs. them, toward zero-sum politics and policies, toward a narrowing of vision, toward a constriction of rights, toward the re-institutionalization of unfairness

In the overall scheme of things, I thought our country was maturing. It hurts to see an emotionally immature president who is unconcerned about other people’s pain, who — like a child — wrecks things for his own entertainment, and who refuses to look beyond his own financial interests and bottomless emotional needs.

It hurts because this narrowing, this darkening, this closing up is not happening because of a sudden trend or crisis that calls for a shutdown of generosity. It’s happening deliberately — not based on evidence, but on manufactured fear. There’s a cynical, calculated effort to turn people against one another as a means of creating the kind of chaos and dissension that consolidates power in an autocratic leader. It’s all happening by design — some of it stemming from ideologies that were once so far out on the fringe that they were considered laughable — some of it for pure profit — and some of it from reptilian anger, prejudice, fear and meanness. It hurts to see a democratic system — with all of its many flaws — that has the potential to do so much good — being manipulated to further enrich and empower an already privileged class that has no empathy for people unlike them — and who blame other people’s misfortunes on their own lack of will.

It hurts because we are only at the beginning. As the new regime rushes to prove itself action-oriented and decisive, we have already begun witnessing the direction it is taking us in — especially in undermining the institutions that were designed to prevent precisely this kind of autocratic, demagogic leadership. It hurts to see a president who revels in the breakdown of trust, and who abets that breakdown by lying and exaggerating, and by shutting down the free flow of information that has always been a critical line of defense. And it hurts to see that there is apparently no one around him — in the White House or in the Republican party — with enough spine or morality to say no.

It hurts because recovering from the damage already being done — as well as the wreckage that will surely follow — will be difficult. It’s been a hard fight, through the years, to expand civil rights, protect workers, keep information flowing freely, protect the integrity of voting and elections, guard the environment, and keep democracy from eroding. We are already witnessing how easy it is, by the stroke of a Sharpie, to destroy years of progress. It hurts to realize that, with the complicity of a self-serving and bullied Republican Congress, so much could be undermined with so little thought. And it hurts to realize how hard it will be to gain back rights and protections after they have been taken away.

And it hurts because we have seen how much better things can be. We have had presidents who rose above themselves, who came equipped with ideas, who pushed for policies and laws that helped people, who valued fairness, who accepted criticism and even occasionally admitted mistakes, who listened to advice and formulated ideas based on facts, and who, properly awed by the responsibility of the job, took their work seriously and acted with dignity. [And I’m not just talking about Obama here. Even Republican presidents —  well, just about any president you can name — has approached the job with more intellectual curiosity and humility that the current holder of the office. ] With each day, with each new spiteful executive order, with each new tweet and lie and focus on petty distractions, we are reminded of the contrast.

I’m pretty certain that I’m not alone in feeling this way. I haven’t figured out an effective treatment. So, I’m just going to keep my eyes open, learn, speak out, protest and write.

One thing I know for sure: This hurt will not go away by playing through the pain.

The post Why does the Trump presidency hurt so bad? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In his first weeks in office, Donald Trump has been all about executive orders. He has also talked about going after Federal regulations. But, there are indications he could go much further. Trump may be a big-strokes person, but he has minions to get down in the weeds, and therein is the real danger. We have a complicated Federal system, and there are too many levers that can be pulled the wrong way and without accountability.

In a recent Washington Post article, Fred Barbash cites a remark made by Reince Priebus in a memorandum freezing any new or pending regulations. In his memo, in addition to regulations, Preibus references “guidance documents.” Barbash thinks this is a clue that the Trump administration has discovered the dark matter of government regulation.

Why dark matter? In our universe, ordinary matter, including planets, stars, gases, debris, make up less than five percent of mass-energy. Dark matter and dark energy make up the remaining 95 percent. (Complicated physics stuff, see Wikipedia.) Guidance encompasses much of what goes on in the regulatory sphere. Hence, the reference to “dark matter.”

So, what are guidance documents? Barbash explains,

The departments and agencies an administration controls issue edicts variously referred to as “guidance,” “interpretive rules” and most prominently in recent years, “Dear Colleague Letters,” a form of “significant guidance.” Unlike executive orders and regulations, these don’t pretend to have the force of law. But recipients often treat them as if they do, since to ignore them can lead to a nasty tiff with the United States government that can wind up with a threat to cut off funds or a lawsuit.

This is pretty wonky stuff, but these seemingly low-level documents can wield a lot of power – for good or evil. They come in a variety of other flavors as well: “waivers” of rules, “non-rule rules,” “subregulatory guidance.” Barbash continues with an example,

The most controversial of these guidance documents in recent years was the joint Justice Department-Department of Education “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students,” which, after its opening “Dear Colleague” salutation, informed school systems, among other things, that they “must allow transgender students access” to restrooms and lock room facilities “consistent with their gender identity.”

Described as “significant guidance” by the departments, failure to adhere to it could result in a loss of federal funding to school systems under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bar discrimination on the basis of sex. The uproar it produced made it famous and it has been at least temporarily blocked by a U.S. District Court.

Barbash explains why guidance letters are necessary,

Think of the vast regulatory apparatus of the United States government as a pyramid. At the top are laws, like the Clean Air Act, actually passed by Congress and signed by the president, the way the framers of the Constitution envisioned things.

Since the laws can’t deal with most situations that will arise as agencies try to enforce them, the agencies generate regulations to do so. Regulations are just below laws in the pyramid. But regulations have a long gestation period ranging from months to years during which the public has an opportunity to comment on them.

But regulations can’t deal with most situations that arise either, so the agencies responsible for them use such vehicles as “guidance” documents and Dear Colleague letters to deal with specific situations. Guidance requires no notice or comment period. Guidance documents have been called “non-rule rules.”

How could all this play out? Here’s a really long and scary list of targeted regulations and guidance letters put out by the conservative House Freedom Caucus. It’s entitled, “First 100 Days: Rules, Regulations and Executive Orders to Examine, Revoke, and Issue.” Most are regulations, but many are also “guidance letters.” Changes to these orders could dramatically alter the environment, LGBT rights, immigration, aid to the poor, food safety and so much more – all with the stroke of a pen by Trump or a cabinet secretary.

Here are just a few of the issues on the Freedom Caucus target list and the recommended actions:

Reverse the Obama Administration’s Directive Undermining Work Requirements in TANF. The Secretary should revoke the Obama Administration’s 2012 directive allowing Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) work requirements to be waived.

USCIS – Civil Immigration Enforcement: Guidance on the Use of Detainers in the Federal, State, local, and Tribal Criminal Justice Systems. Waives Obama’s actions on Amnesty (Sanctuary cities)

Rescind NEPA guidance on global warming compliance. The president should retract the Council on Environmental Quality guidance for National Environmental Policy Act reviews published in August 2016. The guidance requires all federal agencies to incorporate the global warming costs of a proposed activity in environmental reviews.

Securities and Exchange Commission: Climate Change Guidance at the SEC. Withhold funds for “The design, implementation, or administration of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Guidance Regarding Disclosure Related to Climate Change,” or any successor thereto.

We live in a very fragile democracy. There are so many ways for Trump to screw it all up. Vigilance required.

The post Going after Federal regulations: Trump discovers ‘dark matter’ appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Just one week into the Trump presidency, the newly inaugurated president and his circle of sycophants are working overtime to convince us that words and facts are meaningless. Sifting through President Trump’s rambling streams of disconnected, fact-less word spills can be discouraging and downright terrifying. When word upon contradictory word spills out in a jumbled torrent of ill-informed grandiosity and juvenile vindictiveness, confusion reigns.

Does anyone believe that this deeply disturbing spectacle of dysfunction at the highest levels of government creates a serious and focused environment for taking on the most difficult and dangerous challenges America and the world face? Job creation, health care, nuclear proliferation, terrorism, climate change – every challenge to our well being and security demands clarity and a mature mindset with the capacity for sifting through the facts and analyzing the nuances of debate.

Unfortunately, the chaotic pattern of pronouncements and then retractions that became the defining character of the first week of the Trump show inspires zero confidence.

Words and facts are foundational. They are what bind us together in common understanding and purpose. Peddling propaganda, falsehoods, and lies undermines our democracy. When words become empty and stripped of coherence or meaning, the essential dialogue necessary for a civil society to define commonly held principles and debate real policy prescriptions is rendered mute.

Whether we are progressives, centrists, conservatives, or members of the far right, we should at least be able to sit down together and agree on what is real and what is fiction.

When Kellyanne Conway paused during an interview on national television and swallowed hard before spewing out the most distortive words spoken by any representative of any administration in recent memory —her farcical “alternative facts”—she dropped a poison pill into our national discourse that will take the collective effort of all of us to expunge.

When White House strategist Stephen Bannon told the New York Times that the media should “keep its mouth shut and just listen for a while,” his words left no doubt about his disdain for the First Amendment and the press’s solemn obligation to hold the government accountable to the people.

Looking back on the Trump administration’s first shaky week in office, perhaps we should be grateful to Conway and Bannon for ripping down the curtain and pulling out all the stops. Perhaps this early stomach-turning glimpse into the deep cynicism at the core of the Trump administration will be the kick in the gut we all need.

For now we know. Now we can be sure of one indisputable fact: that this administration seeks to redefine our understanding of the words we use and the facts we observe and to use those distortions to bully those who disagree with them into silence.

We cannot let them succeed.

The post Toxic word spills are poisoning democracy appeared first on Occasional Planet.