the entirely preventable collapse of american democracy (undergraduate overview)

15 messidor year CDXXVI

among academics—and that small sliver of the public that is aware, or cares—the consensus about the collapse of democracy in the united states of america in the 21st century CE is sufficiently uniform that no new insights or revelations are likely to be forthcoming, not even from the most revisionist thinkers. 

for an event that happened more than 400 yrs ago, the reasons remain remarkably self-evident, to the point where one marvels that americans of that era themselves did not see it coming—or worse, did but still failed to stop it. even so, we can take valuable lessons from the folly of these ancients, in hopes of avoiding the same sorry fate.

this summary, prepared for Political Science 107: The Collapse of American Democracy, will provide a brief survey. 


lets start at the end, shall we?

the united states, the first country on earth to establish a representative democracy, tragically committed a kind of political suicide, carelessly allowing the rise of a demagogue at the head of a ruthless right wing autocratic movement that used the very mechanisms of democracy to undermine and destroy it. 

terrible as that was, the autocrats succeeded only b/c the forces of law and order and were so slow to react—and when they finally did, moved timidly and fecklessly. by the time a significant number of americans awoke to the emergency they were in, it was too late. 

that paradigm, of course, is common in many nations that succumb to autocracy. indeed, historically speaking, the demise of a democracy via an extralegal takeover, violent or otherwise, is far less common than one that begins at the ballot box, with an authoritarian party gaining power thru legitimate or quasi-legitimate means, then slowly choking off the very mechanisms it used to gain it, and installing itself in permanent control. 

in the case of the US, it was an especially bitter fate, given that the country had succeeded in removing that demagogue and his party once, only to foolishly let them seize power again. 

how, you ask, could an empire like the united states have reached this pretty pass? to understand, its helpful to look back at the origin and history of those united states. 

(for those of you who are ambitious, try your hand at reading the primary source documents in 21st century english, in all its prissy formality.) 


the united states of america was founded some 600 yrs ago as the first modern republic, rejecting the primitive concept of monarchy in favor of rule by the citizens themselves on the then-revolutionary notion of “one person, one vote.”

the US was the foremost power of its time, akin to the roman empire of 2000 yrs before, the global leader in everything from the arts to technology to manufacturing to pop culture. it also had, for many yrs, by far the most powerful military on the planet, and was not shy about using it. the united states gave us the internet (peace be upon it), and the Information Revolution full stop, for good or ill. It was the birthplace of aviation, and—a mere 69 yrs later, a relative eye blink—the first country to put a human on the moon. american innovation, industry, and ingenuity, were the envy of the world; its artists, filmmakers, musicians, and designers set the international standard that all others emulated, with american culture reaching the most farflung corners of the planet and shaping human life to an almost obscene degree. for a period of nearly a hundred yrs, from the defeat of germany in the mid 20th century to its own decline in the mid-21st, america arguably ruled the world. 

but the united states was also a nation born in contradiction. the visionaries who founded it included a significant number of slaveowners—that is to say, people who actually owned other human beings in a state of violent bondage, servitude, and institutionalized rape. the unconscionable brutality of such a system is hard for the modern mind to comprehend, let alone among people who fancied themselves “enlightened.” but slavery had been prevalent thruout the ancient world, including the rebellious colonies that became the first thirteen american states. for that matter, the land on which the united states was established had been stolen in the first place from its original indigenous inhabitants, who were slaughtered in a horrific genocide by the forefathers of the settlers who would go on to found the USA. 

given that inauspicious start, it becomes easier to see why the US went down the way it did.

following america’s successful war for independence from its monarchist mother country, slave-owning remained commonplace in fully half of the new united states for almost 100 yrs. even after slavery was ended following a bloody civil war that almost destroyed the young republic, it left a legacy of systemic racism and an inherent domestic conflict between the formerly free and formerly slave states. (“one person, one vote” too was a cruel joke: originally only white property-owning males were enfranchised in the united states. it would take until 1920 CE for the country to grant full suffrage to all citizens, with women gaining it last.) 

the US never did reckon with the cancer that accompanied its birth, and in many ways it was the failure to do so, and the lingering, festering fanaticism of those who clung to the legacy of the slave-owning cause that would be at the heart of the countrys eventual demise.


having been born in a guerrilla rebellion against monarchy, the US prided itself on not being an imperial power. that may have been true in its early yrs, but by the end of the 19th century CE it had evolved into a nascent empire acquiring colonies of its own. it went on to become among the most militarily aggressive nations of its time, attacking, invading, and otherwise violently interfering in the affairs of countless nations all over the world, both overtly and covertly. (some, though not  all, of that military adventurism must be contextualized by americas rivalry with soviet russia, the other “superpower” of the time, to use the vernacular of that era.)

it was de rigueur for american politicians to refer to theirs as “the greatest nation on earth.” (im sure that didnt alienate anyone in the rest of the world.) arguably, this otherwise childish belief in “american exceptionalism” did have a kernel of truth at its core, in terms of america having pioneered representative democracy. but over the centuries that justifiable pride curdled into toxic self-regard bordering on a deadly nationalism.

ostentatiously rejecting old world ideas of aristocracy and hereditary wealth, america fancied itself a “classless” society and prided itself on its social mobility—the “american dream,” as its citizens proudly called it. for a time that, too, was relatively true. but by the turn of the 19th century, unchecked capitalism had led to levels of inequality such that in the year 1929 CE there ensued a severe economic crash and subsequent depression. the US pulled itself out thru a program of progressive-minded policies called the New Deal—laughably mild by our standards, but radical for the time, and viewed by conservatives of that era as a threat to all they held dear….which is to say, their hold on power.

the enactment of the New Deal, followed by a world war in which the united states admirably took a leading role against fascist tyranny in europe, vaulted the US into the period of its greatest prosperity and power. but american conservatives never stopped bristling at the power they had lost.

it took almost fifty yrs, but beginning in the 1980s CE, rapacious right wing political elements began dismantling the New Deal with a kind of voodoo economics that, risibly, convinced ordinary americans that the best thing for their economic well-being would be to cut taxes on the rich, on the theory that the benefits would “trickle down.” 

spoiler alert: the result was the exponential growth of an equality gap in which the rich got richer and the poor got the picture. 

to make matters worse, almost alone among industrialized nations, the US eschewed things like investment in education, universal health care, government sponsored childcare, paid family leave, retirement and pension plans, aid to the poor, and other social services, leading to an unbearably cruel darwinian state. by the time the US eventually collapsed, it was among the most egregiously inequitable of all industrialized nations, with an obscenely rich elite controlling virtually all its wealth, while all the vast majority of americans struggled and suffered. 

bizarrely, a great many working americans enthusiastically supported this dynamic, consistently voting against their own self-interest, a testament to the sheer effectiveness of the con that had been perpetrated upon them, and their own willingness to abet it. in part that was b/c of a deviously successful right wing propaganda campaign, conjuring foreign enemies, “socialists,” and what they derisively referred to as “elites,” even as it was waged by the true elites themselves. 

which brings us to the rogues gallery of cretins, con men and monsters who finally brought down american democracy, and sweet but feckless fools who let them do it. 


in ancient america, the republican party—as it was known, with no discernible irony—identified as the party of conservativism. both terms were screaming misnomers. far from being middle of the road moderates, the self-described conservatives of the late american empire were reactionary radicals who sought to maintain their hold on power by transforming the republic into a right wing autocracy.

the republicans ostentatiously presented themselves as the party of “small government” and individual liberty. for some that position was genuine, for others nothing but a useful pose that allowed them to pursue an agenda that belied both precepts. the republican party had always been the defender of the rich, of big business, and of aggressive militarism, but it had, for more of its history, been solidly within the bounds of the rule of law and the principles of american democracy as they were generally understood. but beginning in the 1990s the party became increasingly radicalized, under the sway of a cunning sociopath with the unlikely name of Newt Gingrich who advocated a scorched earth brand of politics that preached no cooperation or compromise with the other side, not even on the most anodyne matters of governance, twinned with a permanent attack mode that sought to demonize those foes as not merely the respectable opposition, but downright satanic. 

it was a strategy as effective as it was cynical.

the US was also deeply superstitious society, with tens of millions of its citizens fanatically devoted to their various mythological gods. (after all, the first invaders who came to the western hemisphere were religious fundamentalists fleeing persecution in the old world in order to perpetrate it in the new one.) beginning in the late 20th century, that religiosity too was ruthlessly weaponized by reactionary forces, whose hypocrisy on the matter beggared belief. yet tens of millions of the devout were willing dupes, conned into taking the side of some of the most openly impious, libertine, and morally degenerate forces in american life, simply b/c they had been duplicitously assured by these same folks that they were “defending the faith.” 

not for nothing was it america that gave us the maxim that “theres a sucker born every minute.” 

the rise of brute force Gingrichian politics coincided with the Information Revolution—or perhaps more correctly, the Disinformation Revolution—which allowed for the dissemination of propaganda, fake news, and outright lies at a theretofore unheard of rate. slander, conspiracy theory, and fearmongering took off exponentially, with entire swaths of the populace siloed off from anything resembling the truth. hand in hand, legitimate journalism was starved of oxygen, becoming functionally inconsequential except among the “thinking classes,” where it served as little more than an echo chamber that had no appreciable impact on broader society. some colossally self-absorbed private individuals even wrote “blogs”—a portmanteau for “web log—bloviating screeds of personal opinion that ran to thousands of words a week, read by almost no one, and with all the impact of a gnat screaming in a hurricane. 

that right wing propaganda found fertile soil in the american psyche. the independent spirit of rugged individualism that distinguished the country from its very founding had also brought with it a predisposition to paranoia, anti-intellectualism, suspicion of government, skepticism of science and of empiricism full stop, and worst of all, a deadly fetish for guns unique in the developed world. such a people were primed to believe the most outrageous bullshit. when turbocharged by the advent of social media and high tech, that phenomenon became positively deadly.

Gingrichs brand of ruthless politics came into its own with the election of the first and only Black US president, Barack Obama, who ascended to the White House (the metonym for the US presidency) after his republican predecessor—the callow and inexperienced son of a previous republican president—led the country into both a disastrous foreign war and a banking meltdown that nearly destroyed the entire global economy….the 2nd time, in fact, that a republican president had done so in the span of 80 yrs. 

(by that time the republican party already counted within its ranks the only US president ever to be forced to resign in disgrace over an epic scandal—Nixon, was his name for your footnotes—and a dimwitted but affable former movie star who championed the disastrous “trickle down” economics.) 

despite that abysmal record of republican leadership, the rise of a Black president so incensed the reactionary swath of the american public that a widely believed conspiracy theory arose that Obama was not really american by birth and therefore constitutionally disqualified for office: such was the teeth-gnashing panic over the idea that white people would lose their grip on power. 

during Obamas reign the american right wing became more and more radicalized and extreme and violent, so loath were these people to accept the idea that a Black man could be head of state. it was fitting then that this development should set in the motion the fall of the United States into neo-fascist autocracy, given the central role that race had played thruout US history, stretching back to its very founding.

and it was into this volatile and explosive climate that stepped a man named Donald Trump. 


Donald Trump was an almost laughably inconsequential figure prior to his election to the US presidency—a fact may have caused many to vastly underestimate the danger he posed. 

the spoiled son of a rich but disreputable racist slumlord, he had dodged the draft as a young man, then rode his fathers coattails into the real estate business in new york city, making a name for himself primarily as a boorish playboy thirsty for fame and trailing serial bankruptcies, lawsuits, and allegations of sexual assault behind him like toilet paper stuck to his shoe. yet late in life he found a 2nd act as the host of a moronic tv game show—ironically, playing the kind of business tycoon he never was IRL—unjustly paving his way into politics. as we all know now, there is no God.

a narcissistic manchild and textbook sociopath of no special intellectual ability, Trump was nevertheless a prodigiously talented con artist and demagogue. that such a feeble and unremarkable figure would be at the center of such historic change remains a cautionary tale for the ages. 

defying all predictions, Trump won the presidency in 2016 CE on the back of three factors. first and foremost was the racist panic of white americans who feared losing “their” country. 2nd was the vicious misogyny toward his opponent, the first woman to make a serious run for the presidency (almost 250 yrs into the history of the republic), Hillary Clinton, whose story is familiar today to every schoolchild. and lastly but most astonishing, was the assistance of americas chief enemy, the russian empire, which held Trump in its thrall and worked assiduously to aid him, with a sophisticated propaganda campaign that would become the norm in US politics going forward.

Trumps first term was characterized by wanton criminality and kleptocracy, paired with neo-fascist politics that included the kidnapping and brutal imprisonment of immigrant children, to name just one atrocity. it was also marked by ongoing collusion with hostile foreign powers like russia that had helped install him in power and whom he rewarded with almost embarrassingly obvious servitude. yet millions of americans who adamantly fancied themselves “patriots” excused and ignored and even applauded it.

with his schoolyard bullys mindset and carnival barkers preternatural talent for the grift, Trump showed the republican party—already a gobsmackingly venal organization—what it could do by abandoning all fealty to the truth, the rule of law, or any semblance of principle. as noted above, prior to Trump, the “grand old party,” as it liked to call itself, was plenty horrific, but it still operated more or less within the bounds of objective reality. after Trump all bets were off, with the republicans becoming less a political party, as the term was understood at the time, than a radical insurgency for which nothing was beyond the pale.

by contrast, their opponents, the democrats, failed to grasp that this transformation had taken place, and continued to operate as if politics as usual were still in play. it would prove a fatal error…. kind of like wearing a tutu at an 8maudlinMax concert. (and you thought I wasnt up on the latest pop music!)

Trump was impeached twice during those first four yrs, but his party closed ranks and prevented him from being removed from office, an appalling miscarriage of justice which the democrats were legally powerless to prevent. i say again: twice. that had never even come close to happening before in US history….and never would again, as Trump and his party eventually saw to it that they were never again challenged in a legitimate democratic election. 


at the end of his first term, Trump was soundly defeated by the democratic challenger, an inoffensive veteran politician named Biden. it helped that in the final year of that term Trump haplessly presided over a gruesomely botched mis-response to a global pandemic that wound up taking the lives of more than a million americans—more than the worst wars the country had ever fought all put together. (in particular, his conscious decision to let the virus run riot in communities of color—of a piece with the vile racism at the core of Trumpism—is generally remembered as a near-genocidal crime against humanity.) whats more, most of those deaths would have been preventable had Trump and his party not doubled down on disinformation and denial in the short-sighted belief that they could wish the pandemic away, gripped as they were in the Gingrichian mindset that no failure or weakness could be conceded to “the other side,” even when the common good of the country was at stake. 

but Biden’s win was the not the final word. in the month known as January in the year 2020 CE, for the first time in american history, a defeated US president refused to concede that he had lost the election or participate in a peaceful transfer of power. instead, Trump marshaled his fanatical supporters with the lie that the election had been “stolen” from him—and by extension, from them—and mounted an aggressive, multi-pronged campaign to overturn its results, culminating in him sending a mob of thousands to attack the american parliament as its members finalized the vote count. the image of so many americans attacking their own government was something the US had not seen since its civil war in the 1860s—and never before on behalf of a cult of personality—and left the nation rightly shook. but perhaps not shook enough.

the rebellion failed and Trump slunk out of office, still insisting that he had been robbed, and repeating that claim to his tens of millions of still-loyal followers, encouraging them to view his successor as illegitimate. which they did, passionately.

and heres where it gets really unbelievable, dear students. 

after that close call, one would assume that the inheritors of the US government—the democratic party led by Biden that had defeated Trump—would take every available measure to punish the seditionists and the leaders who inspired them, to secure future elections, and to ensure that no such insurrection could ever happen again. 

they did not do so. the consequences were epic. 

the democrats success in ousting Trump from office only spurred the republicans to new and even more dangerous extremes, which their lethargic opponents failed to note, or at least stir to counter. it was no coincidence, then, that 2020 was americas last free and fair election.

unable to win fair and square, the republicans took control of the electoral process at the local level, changed the rules to favor themselves and marginalize their foes, re-wrote the election laws so that they could throw out results they did not like, and even deployed thugs and vigilantes to intimidate and brutalize election officials. they stubbornly undermined attempts at rational governance by the party that had ousted them, then blamed that party for its failure to accomplish anything; shielded their own leaders from accountability for the attempted coup of january 2020 even as those same leaders plotted the next one; whipped their followers into a frenzy with a cavalcade of lies and, jiu-jitsu like, fiendishly turned a gullible mainstream media to their advantage. as this unfolded, a not small segment of the american people enthusiastically cheered it on, glorying sadistically in the denial of rights to their fellow americans, even as they vehemently insisted on those rights for themselves.

while the republicans rampaged across the political landscape eviscerating the very heart of american democracy, the democrats slumbered, rousting themselves only to offer the occasional polite throat-clearing, and to debate the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin. one would have thought the people would have taken to the streets, but few did.  there were half-hearted legislative attempts at protecting the vote, and lots of handwringing in the legitimate media, but riven with infighting, and—incredibly—with a handful of their own senators blocking reform, the democrats put up little resistance as the republican campaign rolled on virtually unopposed, coasting on the gullibility of the short-memoried american public. 

to be fair, the democrats were hamstrung by their admirable loyalty to the rule of law, which is what makes them at least the sympathetic protagonists in this story, though far from its heroes. but the story is, in the end, a tragedy, as their fatal flaw was their failure to realize the stakes of the fight, and just how far their foes would go. they need not have sunk to the republicans’ level to recognize the threat they were up against, and to have taken aggressive, effective action to combat it.  

and so it was that the republicans were able to regain both parliament and the white house just a few short yrs after being unceremoniously chucked out. (they had already largely secured control of the country’s judiciary thru a decades-long sub rosa infiltration of right wing ideologues onto the bench.)

once again ensconced in power, the republicans turned the trappings of american democracy into a farce, carrying on with the windowdressing of free elections while establishing their own unchallengeable control. they pursued and even accelerated their longstanding, retrograde program of reverse robin hood plutocracy, appalling misogyny, systemic racism, xenophobia, and jingoism, all papered over with howlingly hypocritical faux religiosity. they also continued—and even expanded—their use of police and the other mechanisms of government to violently terrorize america’s Black and Brown citizens, and its female, gay, and trans ones as well, and to further the rape of an already dying ecological environment. indeed, relieved of the need to worry about the verdict of the public opinion in the next election, the republican party took all those atrocities to new extremes. 

thus ended the noble cause once known as “the american experiment,” not w/a bang but a whimper. may it rest in peace.


the american empire had been in moral decline for many decades prior to its ultimate collapse. i say “moral” decline b/c those decades saw the US betray the ideals which it flattered itself that it stood for. it might be argued that it had never fully lived up to them; in truth, american history was checkerboarded with moments of both shining nobility and appalling disgrace. 

looking back on the centuries prior to the arrival of the Singularity, before humans  became completely extinct, when they still served as our menial laborers, sex objects, and pets, it is easy to be sanctimonious and condescending toward these ancient americans, to gaze upon their suicidal foolishness and dismiss them as idiots who got what they deserved. but in their tragedy is a lesson for all of us.  

OK, thats all for today. a few housekeeping notes: my office hours this term are posted in the cloud; contrary to rumor, the take-home exam is NOT optional for members of the varsity quidditch and rollerball teams; and anyone who wants to have VR sex with me can sign up on the google doc via subcutaneous BrainBlink chip.

next weeks lesson will cover the bloody and sorrowful aftermath that followed the 2nd and 3rd Donald Trump administrations, and the infighting between his eldest son and daughter to succeed him in the united states post-democratic era.  


adjunct professor, dept of ancient american studies 

university of phoenix (online)

go firebirds!


Illustration: Bethesda Softworks LLC

All praises due Margaret Atwood, Pierre Boulle, and Anthony Burgess

Has That Boat Sailed? 

Late last January, in the wake of the Insurrection, I had a conversation with my fellow commie bastard libtard blogger Tom Hall of The Back Row Manifesto about how the country ought best reckon with that historic travesty, whether Biden was bringing a feather duster to an RPG fight, and similar issues. We recently met again to reassess those and related topics nine months down the road. 

Bottom line: Back in January, Tom was more pessimistic than I about the chances for a proper reckoning, both legal and moral. He turned out to be right. Presciently, Tom said: 

I see signs, multiple, aggravating signs, that the Republican narrative machine is going to be effective in re-shaping this conversation. 

It is not even three weeks since the mob attacked US Capitol at the order of the President to physically prevent lawmakers from certifying a free and fair election. The most obvious, blatant lie, that the election was “stolen,” told precisely and reinforced by a network of propaganda on TV and social media, was a narrative that, after the failure of the mob, was still supported by over 150 lawmakers in Congress. They voted to overturn the election results in multiple states. The result? Nothing. No consequences. And they immediately pivoted to typical Republican obstructionism and seeking to shame Joe Biden for acting to implement his agenda as somehow not being about “unity.” And they get away with it, because “both sides.” 

At the time, I was still hoping that there would be repercussions for a violent attempt to overthrow the government. (!) Silly me. I said:

I think it remains to be seen what the consequences are. I’d like to see Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley removed from the Senate, and the 150 House members too. At a minimum I’d like to see them censured, stripped of committee memberships, and more intangibly, made pariahs except in Alex Jones World. I’d like see them criminally prosecuted for inciting violence. Maybe some of that happens or maybe none of it does. It’s up to us to keep the pressure on.

But none of that has happened. There have been no appreciable consequences. Maybe the gears of justice are just grinding slowly, but if so, they are grinding so slowly as to be functionally nonexistent, and far too slowly for the speed at which Republican autocracy is careening. Meanwhile, the lack of repercussions is allowing the seditionists to carry on with their vile campaign, putting the country at even greater existential risk.

In regard to what I called “the inevitable Republican gaslighting and disinformation blitz” that we knew would arise surrounding the Insurrection, I wrote that, “It remains to be seen if rational voices rise up to call out that vile absurdity, and that hypocrisy, and if the American people will listen.”

This just in: they haven’t. Close to a third of the country considers the Insurrectionists either peaceful protestors, or—if they admit to them engaging violence at all—great patriots for having done so.

At the time, I also expressed the hope that we would not let Trump’s allies get away with distancing themselves from the Insurrection, and from him, and trying act like they’d always been part of the rational world of normal politics. But even that turned out to be laughably over-optimistic. If anything, they have bound themselves closer to him than ever on the (correct) assumption that that is the only way forward in the still-Trumpist Grand Old Party. 

Trump has never accepted his defeat, and has now made fealty to the Big Lie the cornerstone of Republican politics and a litmus test for anyone who wants to be a player in the GOP. In fact he has openly stated that it is the core principle of Republican politics to which all Republicans who hope to win elected office must bow down.

Some saw January 6th as a chance for the Republican Party to break with Trump at last, but when are we going to learn that THEY DON’T WANT TO BREAK WITH TRUMP! Trump’s was never a hostile takeover of the GOP: Republicans welcomed him with open arms, once they realized what he offered, which was the answer to their dreams. Trump became the mechanism by which the GOP could put its inherent autocratic impulse into overdrive. Yes, he has destroyed the party as its principled members (now pariahs) once saw it, but it has not been that party for a long time. And even with him out of office that autocratic campaign continues unabated and even, in some ways, accelerated. 

As Susan Glasser recently noted in The New Yorker, “Nine months after the storming of the Capitol, Trump is more popular with the GOP and his Big Lie is more widely believed.” That is astonishing and soul-crushing—to me and to many people. (Not Tom, whose capacity for gloom is vast.) But perhaps we ought to stop being surprised by the depths of Republican depravity, and the willingness—eagerness even—of our right wing countrymen to buy into the most vile Orwellianism to justify it.


Like many observers, myself included, Congressman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has stated that we are now in the midst of a second Insurrection—or if you prefer, a second phase of a single rebellion—this one being carried out by Congress itself. The legislative branch’s refusal to protect voting rights and its abetting of voter suppression and electoral subversion at the state and local level is “nothing less than insurrection by other means,” in the words of the Washington Post’s book critic Carlos Lozada, in reviewing Schiff’s new book Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could.

The formidable and eloquent Mr. Schiff, who was the lead House manager in Trump’s first impeachment, is also a member of the House select committee on January 6th. That committee is moving fairly aggressively by Congressional standards, but it may not be nearly enough, as demonstrated by the defiance of its first batch of subpoenas by the Republicans served with them: Meadows, Bannon, Scavino, and Patel. The problem is that no matter what Schiff and his colleagues do, they will always be operating within the realm of rational political discourse and a deliberately cumbersome and cautious democratic structure…..but the threat they are fighting is a radical, borderline nihilistic one unconstrained by rule of law, principle, or anything else. Indeed, it is a movement that eagerly weaponizes the very mechanisms of representative democracy and turns them back against it. 

That’s far from a fair fight. 

On his HBO show Real Time, Bill Maher recently ended an episode with a much-discussed segment titled The Slow Moving Coup that was essentially a more comedic version of Robert Kagan’s also-much-discussed WaPo column “Our Constitutional Crisis Is Already Here.” Maher makes the same predictions Kagan did: that Trump will run in ‘24, that he’ll get the GOP nomination, and no matter what the results, he will claim he won. He concludes by arguing that Democrats are living in a dream world if they treat 2024 like a normal election. 

It’s an alarm that many are raising, and the more the better. But some action in response to that alarm would be even better. 

It makes me insane when I watch MSNBC or CNN or any of the legitimate networks and hear the pundits talking about poll numbers and approval ratings and the other legislative horse-trading of politics as usual. But therein lies the rub. Democrats still have to do all that regular political stuff—stuff that is even harder than ever thanks to new GOP-driven voter suppression laws—and at the same time have to go far beyond that and worry about a flatout ratfucking of our electoral system more akin to guerrilla warfare than normal politics. 

In my conversation with Tom last January, I wrote of the failure of Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election:

I don’t have any truck with the oft-heard, self-congratulatory cry that “the system worked!” The system only worked because of Team Trump’s haplessness and because a handful of people of good faith happened to be in key positions that came under attack. With a better demagogue or weaker local officials in crucial roles, “the system” would have collapsed like wet cardboard.   

This is precisely the scenario that is now unfolding for 2022 and 2024. From county election officials to secretaries of state to state legislatures, governors, and Congress itself, the GOP intends to have Trump loyalists in power who will ignore the popular vote if need be and award the Republican candidate (i.e., Trump) the win. So the second insurrection of which Schiff warns is well under way, aimed at making sure Republicans control the electoral process at every level in order to ensure their “victory.” 

It will be a bitter irony if Vice President Kamala Harris has to decide whether to throw out electors who really are fraudulent after Team Trump tried to get Mike Pence to throw out legitimate ones (and Pence tried everything he could to figure out a way to comply). Be prepared to hear that the Veep doesn’t have that power, along with the expected cries of “Tyranny!” and “Coup d’état!”

The best case scenario is that we pass voting rights protections that safeguard the integrity of the vote—which needs to be done immediately, in case Republicans retake the House (and maybe the Senate too) a year from November. The worst case scenario is that Republicans get control of Congress, and possibly the White House as well—even if it’s through rigging the system—and, in conjunction with the control of the judiciary that they have carefully established over a quarter century, slam the door to democracy behind them. Then what? 

A less dramatic scenario, but ultimately one that would be even harder to combat, would be if Republican efforts at voter suppression result in popular vote counts that actually award the GOP victories at the state level, albeit misrepresenting the genuine will of people, but requiring no such obvious travesties as a state legislature overruling the results, or governors or Congress throwing them out.

The even more worrying question is whether that Republican chokehold has already happened?

Don’t ask Tom Hall, unless you have a strong stomach.


THE KING’S NECKTIE: When we spoke last January you were already convinced that there would be no consequences for the Insurrection and you were correct. Why do you think that is?

TOM HALL: I just think there’s no narrative for consequence. The narrative right now is infrastructure and Democratic infighting and the collapse of the Biden agenda over spending bills and all that. But the whole premise of Republican “governance” at this point is opposition. They have no principles: it’s just whatever the Democrats say, fuck them, we’re not going to do that, no matter what it is, while they carry out this active plan to subvert democracy. 

TKN: But don’t you think that the Democrats and the left in general ought to be able to craft a narrative in the wake of January 6th that is compelling and says, “This is an unprecedented horror in American history and they’ve not stopped and we have to do something about it.” Seems simple enough. 

TH: But the Democrats and the left haven’t said that. At least I’m not seeing an active campaign to frame it that way from the leadership. Every three weeks or so, there’ll be articles saying, “Oh boy, Republicans sure are passing a lot of laws that look bad for democracy. Don’t you think we should pass this bill to stop it? It’s never going to pass because we’re not willing to make the institutional changes required to pass it. But boy, it doesn’t look good.” That’s the extent of what I’m seeing. As recently as a month ago, I saw people saying, “We just have to get out the vote. If we turn people out, we’ll win.” No. There’s a process that’s being enacted by the right that’s going to be turnout-proof. The other side is going to disregard the election. They’re going to call it a fraud. It’s not like they’re hiding their plan. The plan is happening in plain sight and there’s a refusal to take it seriously.

It’s incredibly maddening to be in control of the levers of power and watch nothing happen. 

TKN: Not long ago, James Carville was interviewed in Vox, and he said we have to pound the Republicans with January 6th, every single day, and never let the American people forget what they did. Now, you may like Carville or hate him, but he’s smart and he’s strategic and he was totally right about that. Yet last night he was on MSNBC and all he was talking about was a kind of pre-2016 sort of politics, attacking the progressive caucus for not passing the first infrastructure bill, taking the win, etc, etc. He conveniently left out the part where the so-called “centrists,” the so-called “moderates,” are the ones behaving dishonestly and not even saying what they want, while the progressives are the ones acting in good faith and being grownups, even as they have learned to play hardball. But my point is that even James Carville, who knows that we have to shout “Insurrection, insurrection, insurrection!” every day, is not doing that.

TH: Yeah, totally. That whole generation is used to a transactional politics where you give this to get that and figure out a middle ground, because the other side has legitimate needs that you can live with. In this case I don’t think that’s true at all. First of all, no one knows what Kyrsten Sinema wants. There’s no indication that she wants anything. There’s just a nihilistic void that’s sitting in the middle of the Senate stopping everything. And of course, no one will do anything about it. She and Joe Manchin have decided they don’t want to enact Biden’s policies. They don’t like spending, unless it’s for a yacht from which they can shout down at paddling constituents, which is the same position as the Republicans, even though they wedged through a multi-trillion dollar tax break for the rich. It’s always the same with the right. “It’s okay for us and not okay for you.” 

There is no dynamic leadership on the Democratic side. I’m not even talking about like accountability for January 6th. The White House has washed its hands of that whole thing and is leaving it to the select committee to do the work of investigation, but what’s really to investigate? It’s pretty clear cut. This is another case, like Russia or Ukraine, where we’re waiting and waiting and waiting for information that we already know. There’s not going to be some big moment where Steve Bannon’s going to tell us that Trump was involved in planning the Insurrection. Yeah, no shit—we already know all this. This whole slow thing of, “We have to live by the rules of journalistic verification” doesn’t work when people are hiding stuff and lying all the time. It’s an impossible environment in which to make progress, because they’re never going to tell the truth. They’re not going to participate in democracy in the same way that we’re expected to do. 

As you saw when we talked last time, I have a very dark outlook on how this is going to go down, because I don’t think it’s going to be good.

TKN: Not only is there no big “aha!” moment coming, but even if it did come, it wouldn’t matter. On January 7th people were generally kind of appalled, and nine months later, you’ve got a Republican fundraiser for Glenn Youngkin in Virginia where the crowd is pledging allegiance to a flag carried by the insurrectionists when they attacked the Capitol. They’re not trying to distance themselves from what happened—they’re embracing it. It’s same Trumpian evolution that was in play in all his scandals, going from, “We didn’t do it,” to “We did it but it wasn’t so bad,” to “Hell yeah we did it and it was a great thing and all-American!”

TH: It’s been normalized by the right as acceptable, and turned into “we’re the victims of injustice.” Yesterday, Trump said that the number one agenda for the Republican Party needs to be to state that the 2020 election was a fraud. Number one. So you have to tell the lie, continue to tell the lie, build energy around the lie. You’re not going to get his support or any support from the party unless you claim that the wound of his defeat is false and that he won, because he’s psychologically incapable of taking the “L.” And as a result, the whole nation, and the whole world, has to suffer in order for him to feel legitimized. If not, he’ll burn it all down and he doesn’t give a shit.

There’s no line in the sand that they won’t cross. There’s no moral anything there, just this emptiness, and the narcissistic injury of Donald Trump. That is the unfillable, irredeemable heart of all this, and the whole Republican Party has given itself over to it because they know the energy of Trump’s fanatical supporters is beyond anything else that you’ll see in the country. 

I don’t share their energy. I’m not crashing school boards to stand up for mask mandates. The left does not have the same fire to preserve common sense and rational thinking and political normalcy. An infrastructure bill is going to carry us to victory? It’s crazy that the counterweight against burning down the country is, “Well, let’s build roads so that when the other guys take over, it’ll be in great shape.” 

What’s going to happen with the January 6th commission in a year and a half, after they grind out these hearings and write a report that’s released right on the edge of the 2022 elections? Are we going to have people going to jail? Is Merrick Garland’s Justice Department going to bring charges and try people for their crimes? If the shoe were on the other foot, I have no doubt that Republicans would. Their whole campaign in 2016 was about throwing Hillary Clinton in prison. And whose mind is it going to change, any legal result? Are there people who would look at the report and say, “Hmmm, that’s pretty criminal. All these convictions have made me rethink my position.” The report, or even convictions, would just be pitched as partisan. 

TKN: Right—more “political prisoners.” But that’s genius of rightwing propaganda, that everything can be pitched as partisan or turned inside out. The Wall Street Journal reported that Garland has expressed concern that throwing people in jail over the Insurrection would only further radicalize them. 

TH: Insane. 

TKN: I mean, we’re not talking about the Muslim Brotherhood in an Egyptian prison; we’re not talking about unjust imprisonment by a police state that becomes a university for radicalization. Generally when you commit a crime in the United States, we punish you and we don’t worry about whether it’s going to make you mad. That’s the sort of…institutionalism is too kind of word for it, but the sort of naivete that you were talking about before, and from Merrick Garland of all people. If Merrick Garland ends up getting fired, that would just be too ironic.

TH: Fine by me. You need somebody who’s going to uphold the law. If he’s not willing to do it, then he should go.


TKN: So this is the problem, and it’s not a newsflash. You’ve got a party that has abandoned representative democracy and is fully onboard with autocracy and isn’t even trying to hide it. And if I understand you correctly, you feel like we’ve already passed the point of no return. It’s not a matter of “get out the vote,” as you said before, it’s not a matter of having to stop these voter suppression laws or overcome them somehow. You think the boat has sailed. 

TH: I do. I’m still where I was in January. There’s not going to be any action taken. If everyone got together in Congress and passed a federal voter protection law that had to be implemented at the local level, and revised the Electoral College process so that the results can’t be changed or rigged, that would be one thing. But there’s not enough fight. I just don’t see it. 

It’s funny: I keep looking at Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Twitter feeds and thinking about Donald Trump’s Twitter feed in comparison. Biden and Harris are like, “Get vaccinated. It’s good for everybody!” (laughs) “Hey, you know what? If we passed the infrastructure bill, it’d be great for America. Let’s go get that bill passed!” And that’s how we want it. We want it normal. But you can’t fight a bully on the playground by saying, “Let’s talk about this for a minute. Why are you so angry?” (laughs) Sometimes you’ve got to punch back. Biden and Harris are not fighters. And I was worried about it when I had to vote for them. Biden’s an institutional centrist, and he’s up against people who are willing to burn the whole thing down in order to take over and impose their will on the country. 

TKN: We could do all the things you said in terms of passing voter protections if we just got rid of the filibuster. Clinging to this arbitrary mechanism that doesn’t exist in the Constitution, doesn’t exist in any other advanced democracy, that’s purely invented and could be changed with a simple majority vote of the ruling party, but they won’t do it because they’re afraid of “disrupting democracy.” Meanwhile, it’s achieving the exact opposite effect. And if the other side gets in power, the first thing they’re going to do is get rid of the filibuster so they can advance their agenda unhindered.

TH: Absolutely. The rationale behind keeping it is complete bullshit. The real rationale is that Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema don’t want to forfeit their own personal power and ability to get what they want. 

TKN: Of course, even without the filibuster, you’d still need Manchin and Sinema’s votes for anything you want to do in a 50-50 Senate, and more than half the time you can’t get those two, because they’re de facto Republicans. Look at Manchin and clean energy

But the scenario that worries me the most is the one you laid out, where the right has already rigged the electoral system such that they don’t even have steal it on election day. It’s pre-stolen. Because the vote count will be skewed and then there’s just nothing at all to grab onto and fight back against because it’s too abstract and any outcry at that point feels like sour grapes, as opposed to something like a Republican governor sending his own handpicked electors to be verified in Congress, where you can stand up and howl at an obvious armed robbery. 

So short of what you were talking about before, where all of a sudden we find our balls and pass voter protections and so forth—and it may already be too late even for that—what do you propose as the strategy for our side going forward? How do we fight against that?

TH: I guess the question is, what do you mean by “we”? Do you mean “we, the Democratic Party”? They’re not going to get it done because they don’t have discipline as a party around this issue, the way the other side is willing to bend itself backwards and be unified. Not a single Republican voted for anything Democrats have proposed, and they’re not going to lose any voters at home for that. They have a whole propaganda network in place to reinforce the messaging, motivate the troops, and get everybody in line. 

The left is a much messier coalition, and we know that. But if the left can’t agree on the fundamental principle of preserving democracy, I don’t know what to say. It’s just beyond belief to me. But that’s where we are. 

Everyone’s like, “Oh, the party in power always loses the midterms.” But are people’s memories really that short that they don’t see what that would mean? It’s already being framed as a horserace, which I can’t stand, as if it’s two equal horses on the track, the Democratic horse and the Republican horse, and who’s gonna win? Except that the jockey on one horse is shooting at the other jockey. But we won’t talk about that. So for me, the worst case scenario is if 2022 goes wrong and we lose the levers of power. Then we’re going to get Benghazi 2.0 with some sort of bullshit investigation into the nonexistent corruption of the Biden administration, which will be like a funhouse mirror representation of Trump’s corruption, just so they can twist the knife and make it even more bitterly ironic and ridiculous. And then 2024 comes around and the Republicans have rigged everything in their favor. There will be no voting rights protection, and voter suppression will happen en masse. If there’s any local official willing to announce results that are not in favor of Trump—which I doubt there will be on their side—they will go after that official and cry fraud and throw the whole election into question. Then Congress will reinforce that fraud claim and will install Trump as president in January 2025. I don’t see that not happening. I really don’t. 

The Republicans could also somehow win a popular election. I don’t think it’ll happen, but it could, because I think you’re going to see a lot of unmotivated Democrats looking at their own party and going, “Why aren’t you fighting?” Not even just the progressive wing; I just think there are a lot of people who want more fight out of the Democratic Party and will not be motivated enough to vote.

TKN: Not even motivated enough to get out and vote if it meant stopping Trump, regardless of what you think of the Democratic Party? Or are you saying the system would already be so rigged that the vote won’t matter?

TH: Both. 

TKN: So you asked “who do you mean by ‘we’?” If we rule out the Democratic Party to lead the resistance from the top down, what do progressive citizens do in a situation like that, where essentially you’ve already had a slow motion coup d’état in advance of the election?

TH: I don’t know. If you look at coups all over the world throughout history—”soft coups, hard coups, whatever—it just depends on how much the Republicans are willing to put into political violence. One thing we’ve not seen in this country that you see in a lot of states around the world is heavy duty political violence against the opposition party. So the lack of that does tend to create a false sense of security, or make us not take the threat seriously, at least the way that people do when you compare it to a Chile or to other military coups that have taken place historically, because people will say, “Oh, it’s not the same thing.” You can still get up and go to work everyday like nothing’s happened. The takeover doesn’t feel as extreme. 

TKN: But that’s why it’s more dangerous. 

TH: I think so too. It’s just a softer, more insidious version of the same thing. And when Trump’s back, is it going to be all about retribution? Are the police just going to be unleashed? Will the government be putting troops out into the streets? We saw them test drive that. Certainly there are not a lot of backstops to prevent that from happening. If you install loyalists all up and down the chain, and the right wing Congress approves every nominee, and you don’t make the mistake of having institutionalists and experts from previous Republican administrations and just put in diehard Louis DeJoys at every level of government instead, I don’t see how you stop it. 

So what do you do in the face of that type of threat? I think it comes down to leadership. A disorganized civil movement will get crushed in that environment, as happened in China. I’m not a big fan of “individuals above the group,” and I believe in collective action and all that stuff, and in the authenticity of organic action, but at some point, the other side’s got a commander and a very organized propaganda machine behind it. That is a recipe for getting your ass kicked if you don’t get organized. There has to be a leadership dimension to it. It could be just massive civil unrest, sort of like we’ve seen in other big capitals around the world when authoritarian governments take over, but I haven’t seen a lot of change come from that. It’s very disheartening. 

TKN: Well, that sort of rebellion happens very slowly, like the Velvet Revolution. It takes decades.

TH: Right. And that was with the support of the United States government and a global anti-Soviet campaign. (laughs) I don’t know what would happen here. You’re going to get France to come back and help again? 

TKN: We should have let them sell Australia those submarines.

TH: (laughs) But I really do think it’s very dark. I think about it quite often, and it’s worrying to me.


TH: Let’s have a little back and forth. I think that’s a really viable possibility, Trump’s return. What do you realistically think is going to happen? 

TKN: I think what you’re describing—that it’s already too late—is absolutely a viable possibility. I don’t think it’s done and dusted, there’s a lot of time before November 2024, and loads of unexpected things will happen, of course. But I had a sick feeling when we got rid of Trump last year that this was just going to be a respite, and the GOP would come roaring back. I didn’t think that they would be as brazen as they have been, and I don’t know why I didn’t think that, because at every turn they’re always brazen. But I think that your dark prediction is a hundred percent plausible.

Maybe we can hold the line. Maybe they will carve out an exception on the filibuster for voting rights protection only, if it lets Manchin and Sinema hold on to their selfish levers of power but still vote for that, if they care enough. I don’t know. But these are all such half measures in the face of that onslaught that you very eloquently described. And if we fail, our options are a grim menu.

I don’t think it would change the calculus, but one wrinkle would be if there was substantive criminal action against Trump on other fronts between now and then, whether it’s taxes or a rape allegation, or whatever. Anticipating your reply: I don’t think it would change things for his supporters. He could be in an orange jumpsuit, pumping iron in the senior citizens wing of the Supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado, and still win the Republican nomination, given MAGA Nation’s fanaticism. But it might change the contours of the situation.

TH: Yeah, it might make a difference if the party was decapitated. I don’t mean literally, obviously, but in the sense of removing its leader, the way Al Qaeda was when Osama bin Laden was removed. Which is a weird conversation to be having about a former President of the United States, but taking him out of public life by delivering real repercussions for his crimes. 

Who would step in? I feel like they would lose a lot of momentum, because this is a cult of personality and not an ideological movement per se. I don’t see Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley or Nikki Haley or Kristi Noem stepping into the void. So maybe that does make an impact. But I just don’t think the left has the institutional will to do that. And if they do, then the next time the right gets in power they will manufacture charges and throw the previous Democratic president in jail. 

TKN: They may try to do that even if the left doesn’t prosecute Trump. 

TH: Right.

TKN: And the problem is, tens of millions of countrymen would thrill to that.

That’s the thing about Republican rule. Don’t get me wrong: we are definitely talking about anti-democratic minority taking power in defiance of the will of the people. But it’s not a small cabal that would be holding the country hostage: t’s a cabal that has the eager backing of tens of millions of our fellow Americans who are fully onboard with a racist, right wing autocracy. Which is often the way autocracies work.

This faction has always been with us, but they are newly aggressive in a way we’ve not seen since the 1920s, really. Until we reckon with this sickness in the American public, the Republican Party—which is to say, the forces of John Birchism that now control that party—are going to continue to be a menace.


TKN: This gets back to what you were saying before, and I’m glad you brought that up, the idea that the Republican Party is in thrall to this manchild and is somehow debasing itself to please him. That is one way to look at it, but that is really not the dynamic. Throughout his whole reign, you’d hear, “Why don’t Republican stand up to him?” Well, it’s because they don’t want to. They love it. So the fact that Trump is insisting that everybody who’s running on the Republican ticket has to sign on to Stop the Steal: they’re fine with that. They’re weaponizing that. Trump is the greatest thing that ever happened to the GOP. And so, as you say, if he were to die, that would be a real blow to the Republicans because he’s super useful to them. He’s certainly used them, but they’re using him too. He’s the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party. Also the worst, but also the best.

TH: Well, he’s the energy machine. This is what I’m saying about the other side: this is the energy that they want, because they were living in an imaginary version of America where people like you and me want to control their lives and tell them what to do. We’re smug elitists living on the East Coast. 

But again, you can’t even have a rational conversation about it because it’s built on this false perception of what the other side is. We’re baby-eating, child rapist, pedophiles…..the right has to go to the worst extremes to build their enemies. And people will believe it—not the people who are propagating it, because they know they made it up, but it energizes the “low information voters” as they’ve been called. 

TKN: Somebody was saying to me the other day, “God, it’s one thing to have a cult of personality, but it’s another to have a cult of personality that worships the worst person you can possibly think of.” But I don’t think that’s an accident. There’s no cult of personality around a Tom Cotton or a Josh Hawley. They’re awful, but they’re boring. It’s the sheer extremity of Trump’s awfulness that is appealing to his followers because it lets their id out. “He’s maligned, I’m maligned. He’s a victim, I’m a victim.” They love it. And the pussy grabbing and all that? Feature not a bug. OK? That is precisely what they like. 

TH: Right. Like I said, it’s absolute jet fuel for the grievance engine, and that’s what they’re built on.

It used to be that the right would say, “Oh, the left is the grievance party.” But then the right realized that there is energy around this idea of victimhood. And Trump built that. The weird part is that it’s all personal grievance on his behalf that gets sort of blown out into the world. It’s like an expanding amoeba that starts at this very small cellular level of the narcissistic injury of one person and becomes a catch-all for everything and everyone who identifies with him. 

I just don’t get it, because who’s more elitist than the guy who owns gold-plated buildings? It just doesn’t make any sense to me at all, this idea that this person is sort of the vessel for this energy, but it’s completely true.

TKN: I recently saw that a majority of the Republican Party is now against mandatory vaccines period: against the measles vaccine and the rubella vaccine and all that. A little less than half of Republicans now favor something that has been the norm for decades, across party lines. So we’re moving backward.

TH: Yeah, anything that would create human progress under the Biden administration they would be against, until it’s their turn. 

TKN: It beggars fiction. My only regret is I will not live long enough to see what our robot overlords someday make of this in the history that they write about the fall of the American empire.

TH: I got an email today at my job asking why I’m discriminating against unvaccinated people by not allowing them into movie theaters. I was told by this individual that it was a discriminatory policy and that I should be in favor of diversity and inclusion. 

TKN: So diversity, including people with lethal infectious diseases. It’s the same Orwellian thing they did with “religious freedom” and “religious liberty.”

TH: Yes, exactly. Because now they’re going to co-op diversity, equity, and inclusion narratives. 

And where’s the narrative energy going the other way? Everyone’s just shaking their heads and rolling their eyes about school board meetings being crashed, but now you have school board members resigning, and people running for school boards who believe this right wing conspiracy stuff. The guy from Q Anon just declared that he’s running for Congress in Arizona. There’s all this sort of energy to take over institutions and impose their will, and there’s no one standing in the way; there’s no firewall, no dam of support going the other way. You and I aren’t going to school board meetings in the Midwest and fighting back. There’s no buses taking us there. It seems like a bunch of local problems, but it’s not. I mean, I sort of sit in Park Slope and watch that stuff and go, “I’m glad I don’t live in such-and-such a place.” But on the other hand, a lot of people do live there.

TKN: We even have the Oathkeeper guy running for the New York City Council from Park Slope. (A man in the neighborhood where Tom and I live is an overt member of the Oathkeepers—even advertising it on his car—and is now running for public office in NYC.) So if it’s penetrated here in District 39, where the City Council vote was like 98.5% Democratic in the last election, that gives you some idea of where we’re at. 

TH: He’s really counting on apathy. You need a lot of apathy , when you’re polling at 1.5%.

TKN: He saw that Brad Lander was term limited, so he thought, “Here’s my chance.” He’s the change candidate.

TH: I just don’t know what to do about it. We need leadership.


Tom Hall is the Executive Director of Montclair Film and its eponymous film festival in Montclair, NJ, and writes The Back Row Manifestoa blog about politics, cinema, and culture.

Previously Tom has been Director, Artistic Director, and Director of Programming at numerous other film festivals, and prior to that was former Director of New Media for Bravo/The Independent Film Channel. He directed short films for Bob Mould’s Carnival of Light and Sound Tour, written extensive film criticism, and conducted and published interviews with many of the most prominent filmmakers of our time, from Altman to Herzog, Carax, Aronofsky, Schnabel, Assayas, Wiseman, the Dardennes, and many others. In 2010 Hall was named one of Spring Board Media’s 20 under 40 in Film. A graduate of the University of Michigan (’94) with a degree in intellectual history, he resides in Brooklyn, NY with his wife and two sons. 

Kagan as Cassandra

This week on The King’s Necktie, I’m going to do something I’ve never done before in four and a half years of writing this blog: devote an entire essay to a single piece of journalism by another author.

I’m doing that because last week the conservative foreign policy thinker Robert Kagan published a juggernaut 6000 word op-ed in the Washington Post titled “Our Constitutional Crisis Is Already Here,” forcefully laying out the clear and present danger to our republic like no other piece of writing before it. It should be required reading for all Americans. 

Let’s dive in.


Kagan’s point is simple: that the GOP is in the process of installing Donald Trump for a second term in 2024, regardless of the results of the election, an act that would mark the de facto end of representative democracy in the United States and the arrival of an autocratic state. Further, he states that the Democratic Party, the respectable remnants of the Republican Party (all three of them, hiding in a basement in Orange County), and other forces opposed to Trump are not reacting to this crisis with the due urgency. 

I couldn’t agree more. 

The US, Kagan argues, is entering “its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War, with a reasonable chance over the next three to four years of incidents of mass violence, a breakdown of federal authority, and the division of the country into warring red and blue enclaves.” The steps he sees, and about which he thinks there is no debate, are as follows:

First, Donald Trump will be the Republican candidate for president in 2024. The hope and expectation that he would fade in visibility and influence have been delusional. He enjoys mammoth leads in the polls; he is building a massive campaign war chest; and at this moment the Democratic ticket looks vulnerable. Barring health problems, he is running.

I would add to the list of potential de-railers “legal problems” including felony indictments, but I’m not holding my breath. Even being on trial in federal court—or less likely, pumping iron in the yard of a federal prison—might not be a barrier to Trump running, or even winning, especially considering Kagan’s next point:

Second, Trump and his Republican allies are actively preparing to ensure his victory by whatever means necessary. 

Trump’s charges of fraud in the 2020 election are now primarily aimed at establishing the predicate to challenge future election results that do not go his way…..the amateurish “stop the steal” efforts of 2020 have given way to an organized nationwide campaign to ensure that Trump and his supporters will have the control over state and local election officials that they lacked in 2020. Those recalcitrant Republican state officials who effectively saved the country from calamity by refusing to falsely declare fraud or to “find” more votes for Trump are being systematically removed or hounded from office. Republican legislatures are giving themselves greater control over the election certification process. 

The reason for this effort is self-evident. Trump probably cannot win in a fair election, just as the broader party has found it all but impossible to win on policy at the national level, so the GOP needs to take control of the electoral process so that a) Democratic voters will be suppressed, and b) it can manipulate the results if they don’t go its way. Kagan notes the irony that Trump has said the Democrats cannot win in 2022 and 2024 without cheating, when in fact the math says that it is Republicans who are in that position. So cheat they will

And it might not be that difficult to pull off:

The fact that (Trump) failed to overturn the 2020 election has reassured many that the American system remains secure, though it easily could have gone the other way—if Biden had not been safely ahead in all four states where the vote was close; if Trump had been more competent and more in control of the decision-makers in his administration, Congress and the states. As it was, Trump came close to bringing off a coup earlier this year. All that prevented it was a handful of state officials with notable courage and integrity, and the reluctance of two attorneys general and a vice president to obey orders they deemed inappropriate.

It is this last point that is most alarming. If the GOP succeeds in its concerted, systemic effort to remove anyone whose x-rays show evidence of a spine and replace them with Trumpist lackeys, who will be left to stop him next time? Not a Republican-led Senate under Mitch McConnell. “As the two Trump impeachments showed, if members of Congress are willing to defend or ignore the president’s actions simply because he is their party leader, then conviction and removal become all but impossible. In such circumstances, the Framers left no other check against usurpation by the executive—except (small-r) republican virtue.” 

A party that will not remove a president who tried to mount a violent self-coup can hardly be counted on to play fair the next time that same guy runs for office. 


Anticipating GOP claims of victory in the next presidential race—or fraud, if they lose, irrespective of the actual numbers—Kagan then paints a portrait of nationwide chaos. “Today’s arguments over the filibuster will seem quaint in three years if the American political system enters a crisis for which the Constitution offers no remedy.” If Biden calls out the police and/or National Guard to maintain order, let alone invoke the Insurrection Act, Republicans will scream “Tyranny!” even as they were fine—even encouraging, in some cases—when Trump mused about doing that very thing. (IOKIYAR.) Democrats, conversely, will have trouble defending such actions, even if they are genuinely warranted, after hue and cry over hints of presidential despotism and martial law last time. 

Alarmism, you say? I refer you to the events of January 6, 2021—and the following February 13, when the aforementioned Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold Trump accountable. Yet still many of countrymen refuse to believe such political violence is plausible, even after seeing it happen once before. 

Most Americans—and all but a handful of politicians—have refused to take this possibility seriously enough to try to prevent it. As has so often been the case in other countries where fascist leaders arise, their would-be opponents are paralyzed in confusion and amazement….(following) the standard model of appeasement.

A strong candidate for Cliché of the Year is the maxim that a failed coup that meets with no punishment is just a dry run. But clichés usually earn that distinction because they are true. 

It would be foolish to imagine that the violence of Jan. 6 was an aberration that will not be repeated. Because Trump supporters see those events as a patriotic defense of the nation, there is every reason to expect more such episodes. Trump has returned to the explosive rhetoric of that day, insisting that he won in a “landslide,” that the “radical left Democrat communist party” stole the presidency in the “most corrupt, dishonest, and unfair election in the history of our country” and that they have to give it back. He has targeted for defeat those Republicans who voted for his impeachment—or criticized him for his role in the riot. Already, there have been threats to bomb polling sites, kidnap officials and attack state capitols. 

Kagan offers a review of how the chattering classes on both left and right have consistently underestimated Trump’s awfulness and his willingness to employ it, including “how far he was willing to go to retain power.” But by now we ought to realize that nothing is unimaginable or beyond the pale for the Trumpist GOP. 

The same people who said that Trump wouldn’t try to overturn the last election now say we have nothing to worry about with the next one. Republicans have been playing this game for five years, first pooh-poohing concerns about Trump’s intentions, or about the likelihood of their being realized, and then going silent, or worse, when what they insisted was improbable came to pass. These days, even the anti-Trump media constantly looks for signs that Trump’s influence might be fading and that drastic measures might not be necessary.

So let us be under no delusions about what the modern GOP is and its lone goal:

The Republican Party today is a zombie party. Its leaders go through the motions of governing in pursuit of traditional Republican goals, wrestling over infrastructure spending and foreign policy, even as real power in the party has leached away to Trump. From the uneasy and sometimes contentious partnership during Trump’s four years in office, the party’s main if not sole purpose today is as the willing enabler of Trump’s efforts to game the electoral system to ensure his return to power.

And if the GOP cannot regain power with electoral subversion, it will be happy to do it with bear spray, zipties, and AR-15s. 


So who is this prophet of doom foretelling such a grim future?

Robert Kagan is a co-founder of the now-defunct neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century. A veteran of the State Department with degrees in history and public policy from Yale and Harvard and a PhD in US history from American University, he was a speechwriter for Secretary of State George Shultz under Reagan, and a foreign policy advisor to Jack Kemp in the early ‘80s and for John McCain during his 2008 presidential run. Currently he is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Foreign Affairs Policy Board, and a contributing editor at The New Republic and The Weekly Standard

So, no slouch, and no bleeding heart liberal either. 

A lifelong Republican, Kagan left the GOP in 2016 over its nomination of Donald Trump and endorsed Hillary Clinton. 

I’m not on Team Kagan when it comes to foreign policy. Given that he was one of the chief cheerleaders who took us into Iraq, the bloody aftermath of the fall of Afghanistan is not a great time for Bob to pop up and give advice. But he is as right about the danger of Trump as he was wrong about the ease of taking out Saddam.

Kagan suggests that Trump is waging war on two fronts: one the “normal, legitimate political competition,” the other “outside the bounds of constitutional and democratic competition and into the realm of illegal or extralegal efforts to undermine the electoral process.” 

The two are intimately related, because the Republican Party has used its institutional power in the political sphere to shield Trump and his followers from the consequences of their illegal and extralegal activities in the lead-up to Jan. 6. Thus, Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Elise Stefanik, in their roles as party leaders, run interference for the Trump movement in the sphere of legitimate politics, while Republicans in lesser positions cheer on the Jan. 6 perpetrators, turning them into martyrs and heroes, and encouraging illegal acts in the future.

He cites the advantages of “this pincer assault,” principally, that it allows Republicans to pretend to be normal politicians acting in good faith while acting in horrendously bad faith. (Along the way, Republicans have also suddenly remembered their hawkish interventionalist foreign policy, and their deficit-fetishizing supply side economics, both of which were in a blind trust during the Trump years, unlike the Trump Organization.)

But as Kagan writes, “there is a fundamental disingenuousness to it all.” 

It is a dodge. Republicans focus on China and critical race theory and avoid any mention of Trump, even as the party works to fix the next election in his favor. The left hand professes to know nothing of what the right hand is doing.

Even Trump opponents play along. Republicans such as Sens. Mitt Romney and Ben Sasse have condemned the events of Jan. 6, criticized Trump and even voted for his impeachment, but in other respects they continue to act as good Republicans and conservatives. On issues such as the filibuster, Romney and others insist on preserving “regular order” and conducting political and legislative business as usual, even though they know that Trump’s lieutenants in their party are working to subvert the next presidential election.

The result is that even these anti-Trump Republicans are enabling the insurrection.


To that end, we all know by now just how vile and loathsome the top Republicans are: McConnell, Graham, McCarthy, Hawley, Cruz, DeSantis, Abbott, and the rest of democracy’s gravediggers. But one of the great public services Kagan provides is calling out the handful of “decent” Republicans like Romney who have been happy to collect praise for their mild pushback against Trump while refusing to take the necessary steps real resistance demands. 

Like the man said, ain’t nothing in the middle of the road but a big yellow streak. 

In distinguishing Trump from traditional (big-r) Republicanism, Kagan is trying to protect the legacy of the “Reagan Revolution” in which he believes, though I would argue that Reaganism was very much a waystation on that downward journey, and not a departure from it. He urges the left not to view the GOP as synonymous with Trumpism, as there are allies to be found among disaffected Republicans who still cling to some semblance of true conservative principles and shared American values. He also beseeches Democrats not to use this moment as a partisan opportunity to deal lethal damage to the GOP, though there I would again argue that the GOP has already done that to itself, and nothing the Democrats do one way or another will make it better or worse. (Kagan himself details the ugly history of Republican self-harm better and culpability for the rise of Trump than anyone. More on that in a moment.) 

It has become fashionable to write off any possibility that a handful of Republicans might rise up to save the day. This preemptive capitulation has certainly served well those Republicans who might otherwise be held to account for their cowardice. How nice for them that everyone has decided to focus fire on Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin.

Yet it is largely upon these Republicans that the fate of the republic rests.

Those who criticize Biden and the Democrats for not doing enough to prevent this disaster are not being fair. There is not much they can do without Republican cooperation, especially if they lose control of either chamber in 2022. 

But who are these supposed idealists who are ripe for rebellion? Only seven Republican senators voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment. “All have faced angry backlashes—Romney was booed and called a traitor at the Utah Republican convention; Burr and Cassidy were unanimously censured by their state parties.” But Kagan does not see this seven as particularly magnificent, and is harder on them than almost anyone on the left:

Yet as much credit as they deserve for taking this stand, it was almost entirely symbolic. When it comes to concrete action that might prevent a debacle in 2024, they have balked.

Specifically, they have refused to work with Democrats to pass legislation limiting state legislatures’ ability to overturn the results of future elections, to ensure that the federal government continues to have some say when states try to limit voting rights, to provide federal protection to state and local election workers who face threats, and in general to make clear to the nation that a bipartisan majority in the Senate opposes the subversion of the popular will. 

Kagan asks why they have been so timid. They have no “future in a Trump-dominated party,” and even if they did, do they really want to be mere lackeys in a neo-fascist regime? He urges Romney et al to “fashion themselves as Constitutional Republicans who, in the present emergency, are willing to form a national unity coalition in the Senate for the sole purpose of saving the republic,” meaning joining with Democrats in a “temporary governing consensus on a host of critical issues: government spending, defense, immigration and even the persistent covid-19 pandemic, effectively setting aside the usual battles to focus on the more vital and immediate need to preserve the United States.”

Ah yes, and after that they will flap their wings and fly to the moon. 

There is no sign that any such non-partisan bravery on the part of disaffected Republicans is in the offing. 

Kagan makes some other claims that also seem rather, uh, optimistic. He notes the urgency of passing new voting rights bills, and says that “Senate Democrats were wise to cut down their once-massive voting rights wish list and get behind the smaller compromise measure unveiled last week by Manchin and Sen. Amy Klobuchar.” Yet in the very next sentence he admits: “But they have yet to attract any votes from their Republican colleagues for the measure.” 

“Democrats need to give anti-Trump Republicans a chance to do the right thing,” he writes. Well, we have, and by Kagan’s own admission, the best we’ve gotten is Susan Collins running interference for Brett Kavanaugh because she was confident he was not out to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and then not even getting behind the House bill that codifies Roe, even after good ol’ Bart pulled the football out from under her, Lucy-and-Charlie Brown style.

Hoping a few Republicans will rise up and save the day does not strike me as a winning strategy. I think it is more than “fashionable” to write off that idea— it is prudent, to use a word conservatives once favored. 

Thus far the anti-Trump GOP resistance in elected office has shown less courage than my ten-year-old daughter did on her first night at sleepaway camp.


In the same way that Kagan calls out Republican cowardice in the present moment, he is also quite clear on who is responsible for the rise of Trump in the first place—not an academic question, as it bears on the current dilemma. The bookstores are already full of tomes on the subject, and that cottage industry looks to have a long future ahead. But Prof. Kagan minces no words: 

The (Republican) party gave birth to and nurtured this movement; it bears full responsibility for establishing the conditions in which Trump could capture the loyalty of 90 percent of Republican voters. Republican leaders were more than happy to ride Trump’s coattails if it meant getting paid off with hundreds of conservative court appointments, including three Supreme Court justices; tax cuts; immigration restrictions; and deep reductions in regulations on business.

This is not a new development. Kagan has long blamed the GOP for going down a path that led to this monster, notably in a 2016 piece for the WaPo, before Trump even officially secured the Republican nomination, titled “This Is How Fascism Comes to America.”

He notes that Trump either forced out or co-opted all the mandarins of the traditional GOP, many of whom foolishly thought they could restrain, manipulate, or out-maneuver him, just as Hindenburg & Co. did with a certain clownish mustachioed upstart in the ‘30s. But the normal rules of party politics cease to operate when dealing with a cult of personality.

More chilling still were those who were happy to bow down.

Trump’s grip on his supporters left no room for an alternative power center in the party…..The only real issue was Trump himself, and on that there could be no dissent. Those who disapproved of Trump could either keep silent or leave.

Conservative publications that once opposed him as unfit for the presidency had to reverse course or lose readership and funding. Pundits had to adjust to the demands of their pro-Trump audiences—and were rewarded handsomely when they did. Donors who had opposed Trump during the primaries fell into line, if only to preserve some influence on the issues that mattered to them. Advocacy organizations that had previously seen their role as holding the Republican Party to certain principles, and thus often dissented from the party leadership, either became advocates for Trump or lost clout.

He excoriates the conservative intellectuals who “not only came to Trump’s defense but fashioned political doctrines to justify his rule, filling in the wide gaps of his nonexistent ideology with an appeal to ‘conservative nationalism’ and conservative populism.Perhaps American conservatism was never comfortable with the American experiment in liberal democracy, but certainly since Trump took over their party, many conservatives have revealed a hostility to core American beliefs.”

That process continues even now, with once-vaguely credible organizations like the Claremont Institute, whose president Ryan Williams recently offered The Atlantic’s Emma Green an eyepopping argument why minority rule by conservatives is justified, even in defiance of the popular vote. (Part of an interview that was chockablock with racism, xenophobia, Christian supremacism. Have a look, if you have a strong stomach.) 

This is the inevitable next step in the conservative movement’s Orwellian rationalization for why it is duty-bound to destroy the very fundamentals of American democracy.

But it was one thing for working Republican politicians and pundits to become Trump’s lickspittles—despicable, but understandable. But what of those with nothing on the line who still kept quiet and stared at their shoes, those “Republican elder statesmen, former secretaries of state in their 80s or 90s who had no further ambitions for high office and seemingly nothing to lose by speaking out”?

Despite their known abhorrence of everything Trump stood for, these old lions refused to criticize him. They were unwilling to come out against a Republican Party to which they had devoted their professional lives, even when the party was led by someone they detested. Whatever they thought about Trump, moreover, Republican elders disliked Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrats more. 

Again, this is not so unusual. German conservatives accommodated Adolf Hitler in large part because they opposed the socialists more than they opposed the Nazis, who, after all, shared many of their basic prejudices. 

Such is the toxic influence of tribalism. For even as Kagan argues that Trumpism and the GOP are not synonymous, he inadvertently highlights the deeper reality: The Republican Party gave birth to this viper, and didn’t strangle him in the nest, precisely because ultimately its members are sympathetic to him and what he aimed to do (and still aims to do), at least when measured against the Democrats and their agenda.

Res ipsa loquitur. 


Without denying or excusing their underlying racial bigotry, Kagan notes the “normalcy” of the majority of Trump supporters, even those who took up arms in the Insurrection of January 6th. (Hannah Arendt, call your office.) 

That does not make them any less dangerous….indeed, it says something chilling about so-called “mainstream” America. “Although zealous in defense of their own rights and freedoms, they are less concerned about the rights and freedoms of those who are not like them,” he writes. What these folks don’t have “is what the Framers meant by ‘republican virtue,’” of which he spoke earlier, “a love of freedom not only for oneself but also as an abstract, universal good; a love of self-government as an ideal; a commitment to abide by the laws passed by legitimate democratic processes; and a healthy fear of and vigilance against tyranny of any kind.”

Al Gore and his supporters displayed republican virtue when they abided by the Supreme Court’s judgment in 2000 despite the partisan nature of the justices’ decision. (Whether the court itself displayed republican virtue is another question.)

The events of Jan. 6, on the other hand, proved that Trump and his most die-hard supporters are prepared to defy constitutional and democratic norms, just as revolutionary movements have in the past. While it might be shocking to learn that normal, decent Americans can support a violent assault on the Capitol, it shows that Americans as a people are not as exceptional as their founding principles and institutions. 

Kagan traces the long history of this “paranoid style” at the heart of Trumpism all the way back to the dawn of colonial America, with its “suspicion of and hostility toward” centralized authority, its racism, white supremacism, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, sectarian fear of modernity and secularism, economic anxiety, class tensions, and the rest. The cross-breeding of that reactionary impulse with a cult of personality and the power of modern media has proven to be terrifying.

(F)or millions of Americans, Trump himself is the response to their fears and resentments. (Trump supporters’) bond with Trump has little to do with economics or other material concerns. They believe the US government and society have been captured by socialists, minority groups and sexual deviants.

There was a time when political analysts wondered what would happen when Trump failed to “deliver” for his constituents. But the most important thing Trump delivers is himself. His egomania is part of his appeal. In his professed victimization by the media and the “elites,” his followers see their own victimization. That is why attacks on Trump by the elites only strengthen his bond with his followers. That is why millions of Trump supporters have even been willing to risk death as part of their show of solidarity: When Trump’s enemies cited his mishandling of the pandemic to discredit him, their answer was to reject the pandemic. 

Such a slavish, demigod-worshipping mindset is fundamentally at odds with a republican form of government. 

Liberal democracy requires acceptance of adverse electoral results, a willingness to countenance the temporary rule of those with whom we disagree. As historian Richard Hofstadter observed, it requires that people “endure error in the interest of social peace.” Part of that willingness stems from the belief that the democratic system makes it possible to work, even in opposition, to correct the ruling party’s errors and overreach. 

For a movement built around a cult of personality, these adjustments are not possible. For Trump supporters, the “error” is that Trump was cheated out of reelection by what he has told them is an oppressive, communist, Democrat regime. While the defeat of a sitting president normally leads to a struggle to claim the party’s mantle, so far no Republican has been able to challenge Trump’s grip on Republican voters: not Sen. Josh Hawley, not Sen. Tom Cotton, not Tucker Carlson, not Gov. Ron DeSantis. It is still all about Trump. The fact that he is not in office means that the United States is “a territory controlled by enemy tribes,” writes one conservative intellectual. 

That is a recipe for insurrection and civil war. Kagan again:

The world will look very different in 14 months if, as seems likely, the Republican zombie party wins control of the House. At that point, with the political winds clearly blowing in his favor, Trump is all but certain to announce his candidacy, and social media constraints on his speech are likely to be lifted, since Facebook and Twitter would have a hard time justifying censoring his campaign. With his megaphone back, Trump would once again dominate news coverage, as outlets prove unable to resist covering him around the clock if only for financial reasons.

But this time, Trump would have advantages that he lacked in 2016 and 2020, including more loyal officials in state and local governments; the Republicans in Congress; and the backing of GOP donors, think tanks and journals of opinion. And he will have the Trump movement, including many who are armed and ready to be activated, again. Who is going to stop him then? On its current trajectory, the 2024 Republican Party will make the 2020 Republican Party seem positively defiant.

So what would a return from Elba look like?

(Trump’s) exoneration from the charges leveled in his impeachment trials—the only official, legal response to his actions—practically ensures that he would wield power even more aggressively. 

His experience with unreliable subordinates in his first term is likely to guide personnel decisions in a second. Only total loyalists would serve at the head of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, National Security Agency and the Pentagon. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs will not be someone likely to place his or her own judgment above that of their civilian commander in chief. 

Nor would a Republican Senate fail to confirm Trump loyalists. In such a world, with Trump and his lieutenants in charge of all the levers of state power, including its growing capacity for surveillance, opposing Trump would become increasingly risky for Republicans and Democrats alike. 

A Trump victory is likely to mean at least the temporary suspension of American democracy as we have known it.


Kagan is far from alone in raising these fears, but he has been among the most blunt and eloquent. 

While being interviewed at The Atlantic Festival last week, Hillary Clinton was asked about his op-ed and replied that she “largely agree(d) with it, because I’m not sure that many people—and this includes obviously the public, but also the press—fully appreciate the determination, the relentless pursuit of power, the design of minority rule that we are currently watching happen.” 

We’re in a tough spot. And it is an existential crisis in lots of ways because there’s no doubt in my mind that the plan on the other side is to win the presidency again, whether or not they win the popular vote and the Electoral College. And the same will be true to take back the Senate, to take back the House. And anybody who thinks that’s not the most important issue facing our democracy is really not paying attention.

Kagan wraps up thusly:

We are already in a constitutional crisis. The destruction of democracy might not come until November 2024, but critical steps in that direction are happening now. In a little more than a year, it may become impossible to pass legislation to protect the electoral process in 2024. Now it is impossible only because anti-Trump Republicans, and even some Democrats, refuse to tinker with the filibuster. It is impossible because, despite all that has happened, some people still wish to be good Republicans even as they oppose Trump. These decisions will not wear well as the nation tumbles into full-blown crisis.

In common usage, the term “cassandra” is often used to mean a false prophet whose predictions prove untrue. But that usage is itself wrong. In Greek mythology, Cassandra was a prophet who was cursed to always tell the truth….but not be believed. 

Let’s hope Bob Kagan doesn’t go down in history fitting that description. 

That will be up to us. 

The Effort to Demonize Joe

As regular readers of this blog know, I occasionally dip into the right wing media, just to see what the other side thinks. Does that make me a masochist, or just someone who likes to be informed? Maybe some of both. I will ask my dominatrix.

In any event, on my occasional forays into the fever swamp that is the right wing mediasphere (wearing a hazmat suit and Dräger rebreathing apparatus), I have lately been struck by a new and worrying phenomenon. 


During the early phases of the 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden took a lot grief in progressive circles for being too moderate, too uninspiring, too boring, too old school—too old full stop—too white, too male, etc etc. There was some credence to those complaints.

But lucky for us, it turned out that that was exactly what the American electorate wanted after four years of a screeching, racist, pussy-grabbing, rabid weasel in the Oval Office, especially in the midst of a global pandemic that cried out for sane, reassuring leadership. Biden was human comfort food who fit in nicely with 44 of the previous 45 POTUSes on a schoolroom chart. He was non-threatening enough to appeal to centrist voters—even some disaffected, anti-Trump Republicans—while still retaining the Democratic base and its core of Black and women voters who are really the ones, lest we forget, who delivered his victory. Given the razor thin margins in some of the swing states, anything even a millimeter further left—let alone a Sanders or a Warren—might have been a disaster, much as some like myself would have welcomed that sort of leftward shakeup. 

During the campaign, Trump and the trolls who comprise the modern GOP tried mightily to demonize Joe they way they had demonized Hillary and Obama before him, but they just couldn’t do it. Biden’s own inherent decency and likability came palpably through and deflected the ad hominem attacks…..and without race and gender to fire up the bigots, the right wing effort fell flat. The Republicans just couldn’t make middle America see Joe Biden—whom we’d known and observed in the public eye for almost fifty years—as a foaming-at-the-mouth socialist radical. For once, finally, they had overstepped with their brazenness.  

That attempt at character assassination continued into the first months of the Biden presidency, and still found little purchase. Try as it might, the Republican Party could not erase the deeply ingrained image of Joe Biden as a happy warrior. Conservative voters might not agree with every one of his positions—or in the extreme, any of them—but they could not be convinced that he was AOC in drag, let alone Angela Davis, Emma Goldman, or Madame Defarge. (Feminization very much intended.) 

Biden appeared to be coated with Teflon, Reagan style, in a way that few Democratic politicians ever have been.


Based on a proprietary system I have developed known as the Highly Unscientific Not Confirmable Hypothesis™ (HUNCH), I think that still holds for a majority of Americans across the political spectrum.

But not all. 

Lately what I see in the right wing press and social media is a depiction of Biden as Satan incarnate. “Evil,” “traitor,” and “monstrous” are some of the words that are frequently employed. (Republicans are not known for their nuance.) That portrait still fails to obtain in the part of America with measurable brainwave activity—which is to say, about six out of ten households—but it is prevalent in the remaining three or four.

This is generally the description the right wing applies to the entire “Democrat Party,” as they like to call it, so it’s in some ways natural that, as the leader of that party, it should be applied to Joe too. His presidency is portrayed as a “catastrophe,” the country in chaos, America we know it in ruins, dogs and cats living together….you know, Ghostbusters-style armageddon. Should we be surprised? A death cult that believes its leader can re-route hurricanes with a Sharpie, and would rather drown while clutching anvils Wile E. Coyote-style than get onboard the SS Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson and sail to safety, is not a group of people who are going to treat the opposition with fairness and decency.

And as I say, this trope is prevalent in conservative America.

In the past year I’ve taken several trips through rural Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and upstate New York, which is to say, deep into the heart of MAGAland. It’s a bit like Bavaria in the ‘30s: beautiful, pastoral countryside rife with some of the most odious politics imaginable. I saw barns adorned with murals deifying Trump; homes festooned with signs reading “TRUMP 2024 -TAKE AMERICA BACK”; and most pointedly for the purposes of this essay, banners attacking Joe Biden as “Looney Toons” (with the old Warner Bros. cartoon logo) and as the “Biggest Idiot Democrats Ever Nominated.” (Get it?)

And yet it all flies in the face of Joe Biden’s inherent benignness, affability, and non-stick coating, which may be why it flounders outside of the base. Biden’s approval rating remained largely consistent through the first nine months of his presidency—as did Trump’s throughout his whole four years (which is to say, at a record-breaking low in the modern era). It has dipped a bit of late, after Afghanistan, and Fox Nation is keen to make maximum hay out of that, noting that it is now lower than most of his predecessors at this point in their presidencies. (Though Trump never once cracked the 50% mark.) But the whole stat is pretty meaningless. More than a barometer of Biden’s true popularity or unpopularity, it is largely a measurement of how calcified American tribalism has become.

So what precisely are the “evils” that Joe Biden is promoting? Stopping a pandemic? Repairing the social safety net for poor families and hungry children? Making rich people pay at least as much in taxes as their secretaries? Perish the thought!

Some of the right wing fearmongering relies on a reductio ad absurdum fallacy of extremes. In this argument, Biden’s New Deal vision of American government will inevitably lead to sloth, laziness, the destruction of American ideals, and eventually of course, the establishment of re-education camps which will force-feed its formerly Fox-watching inmates “Free To Be You and Me,” Ludovico-style. 

Such hysteria is not to be taken seriously.

Similarly, attacks on Biden over foreign policy—non-proliferation, China, counterterrorism, engagement versus isolationism (though that’s gotten very jumbled of late, partisan wise)—don’t bear explication here, as they reflect the age-old canards of American hawks. 

Reproductive rights is of course the area where conservatives feel most justified in staking out the moral high ground, as they define it, and indulging in the most histrionic invective. (“Stop killing babies!”) That is very much why opposition to abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, is a central tenet for many conservatives—precisely because it allows for such self-reassuring self-righteousness. It’s no coincidence that QAnon also hinges on “protecting children” in its batshit conspiracy theory about Satanism, pedophilia, ping pong, and pizza.

I do understand that there are reasonable conservatives (an endangered species) who take issue with Biden’s policies….but the adjective “reasonable” self-selects out those whose concerns rise to the level of viewing him as having horns and a tail. 


As many have written, we have passed far beyond the point where the opposition is viewed as loyal fellow Americans who simply hew to a different set of political beliefs within a communally agreed upon commitment to representative democracy. Now the other side are treasonous monsters who must be stopped at all costs. 

Such hyperbole is quite useful. Once the opposition has been branded in that matter, it becomes morally justifiable to use any means necessary to defeat them, to include not only abrogating “one-person, one vote” majority rule and other democratic norms, but even the use of political violence. Seeing the foe as Satan’s spawn and not just decent people who hold a different point of view makes it a lot easier to justify the use of the most extreme means to combat them. Like beating them to death with flagpoles

Where once we could have civil disagreements and respect the views of the other side and still consider them our countrymen, the partisan lines are now drawn more starkly and with higher stakes than at any time since Bull Run. Where once we operated within a communally agreed upon framework of ideals and norms and principles, now we are in a cold civil war.

This, of course, is exactly the Republican retort. “You’re complaining about the demonization of Biden? Look at what you liberals said about Trump! And you’re one of the worst, King’s Necktie—if that is your real name!”

Fair enough. But calling someone a racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacal dictator manqué isn’t out of order when they really are a racist, misogynistic, megalomaniacal dictator manqué.

I do not buy the fairy tale—useful to and therefore widely propagated by Republicans—that this hyperpolarization is the result of bad behavior by both sides. It is not.  

Part of the insidiousness of the right wing madness is a deceitful bothsideism, which is an old trick of anti-democratic forces. Behave in a brutal and indefensible manner, and accuse your enemies of the same crimes, then dismiss it as mere partisanship when they complain. But as I’ve written before, two people arguing about the shape of the planetare not automatically due equal credibility simply by virtue of staking out their claim. 

The American right really IS engaging in a concerted, terrifying, violence-prone, unprecedented-since-1865 campaign to rattle the very foundations of democracy and put the republic at severe risk. You can’t cancel that by a false equivalence to similar claims about Biden, Kamala, AOC, and the Squad, any more than you can refute Galileo’s assertion that the Earth revolves around the sun by saying, “Well, the Geocentrists strongly believe in their theory, too.” 

Now we have one functioning political party that believes in representative democracy, and one that has become a radical insurgency for which anything and everything is justified in the interest of raw power, even if it destroys the fundamental principles of this country which they claim to hold sacred. Since at least 1932 American conservatives have been on a mission to make the nation believe that “government is bad,” and have done everything humanly possible to make it so, and muck up the works, even at the expense of the good of country, then disingenuously point to the ensuing mess as if it is proof of their position, while pretending their grubby little fingerprints are not all over it. 

How bad is it? This bad: 

study by the University of Chicago found that nearly 20% of American adults—about 47 million people—think Biden is an illegitimate president. (Another survey reports that fully 53% of Republicans feel that way.) Almost one in ten—about 21 million people—believe that the “use of force is justified to restore Donald J. Trump to the presidency.”

So please spare me your bleating that both sides are to blame, or engaged in equally scorched earth politics. 


I don’t think all conservatives are evil. Some certainly are, teleologically speaking: Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, McConnell, Cruz, Hawley, Rand Paul, to name just a few, not to mention The Former Guy himself and various members of his grotesque clan. Below that there is an entire stratum of cowards, opportunists, and fellow travelers who might not merit the scarlet “E” but definitely aren’t getting an invite to my next bowling night. 

But I’m not willing to categorize some 75 million of my fellow Americans as “evil.”

Needless to say, the majority of people on the conservative side genuinely believe in the righteousness of their cause, and have their hearts in the correct location in their chest cavities, even some of those who subscribe to what I consider wantonly batshit political beliefs that are gravely dangerous to the republic. Some of these people are—or at least were—friends and acquaintances and erstwhile colleagues of mine, as I used to be a conservative myself, 30 years ago anyway. I think they are horribly misguided, and it saddens me greatly. (They surely feel the same way about me.) They all have their own reasons for going to the dark side; some of those reasons are defensible, others anything but. But I don’t think they belong in the ninth circle of hell, if you believe in that sort of thing, or even in one of the aforementioned re-education camps-to-be. (Which is what Jimmy Carter and Habitat for Humanity have been secretly building all these years….we all know that, right?)

One step less crazy than the Biden-Is-Evil cabal is an even larger group of conservative- leaning Americans who firmly believe that Biden, while not necessarily a monster, is in the grip of dementia and cognitive decline. 

This is a predictable and lazy line of attack on the oldest man ever elected president, at 78, beating the previous record holder—you guessed it—Donald Trump, who was 70. Few remember it today, but that was the standard knock on Reagan when he first won the office, at the age of 69, before he went on to beatification as a conservative saint

(We later learned that Reagan did indeed suffer from dementia in the latter years of his second term, which ended when he was not quite—you guessed it again—78.)

It’s only honest to say that Biden has undeniably lost a step from his Senatorial prime, and does occasionally invite comparisons to a doddering grandpa, making this a natural thing for his morally bankrupt enemies to seize upon. But don’t we all love our grandpas, and prefer them to serial sexual predators and lifelong tax cheats and grifters?

The right wing image of a drooling old age pensioner who is the puppet of Kamala Harris is absurd, and beneath contempt. Even accounting for the occasional senior moment, Biden remains sharp and vital, and indeed frequently displays the accumulated savvy and wisdom of the long political experience that he brings to the White House. He certainly runs a tighter ship than his predecessor. 

To that point, Republicans’ baseless allegation of cognitive decline is especially ironic in light of that predecessor and their own cult leader, the self-proclaimed “very stable genius,” whose multitude of mental deficiencies and psychiatric disorders would keep a team of world class neuroscientists busy for a lifetime. (Projection, as always, is the GOP’s default mode.) Look at video of Trump on the Letterman show from the ’80s; he’s not even recognizable as the same guy who sat on his fat ass in the Oval Office. He was already a narcissistic shitbag, sure, but he could at least speak intelligibly. The 21st century Trump, by contrast, could not form a coherent sentence: verbatim transcripts of the words that spewed forth from his piehole read like Williams Burroughs cutups, incomplete sentence fragments abandoned in midstream and spiraling off in random directions, desperately in search of connective tissue or a cogent point.

On top of that already sad state of neurological decline, he was also a textbook sociopath living in an alternate reality, consumed with paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and a persecution complex that made Nixon look like the Dalai Lama. So don’t talk to me about Biden’s Brain.  

“Whataboutism!” you say? Yes and no. It’s true that Trump’s mental deficiency wouldn’t negate Biden’s, were it so. But the irony of Republicans deploying this unfounded attack after ignoring Trump’s far more evident and far more dangerous mental state demands calling out.

As I wrote last week, am I merely spreading this fake news by trying to refute it? Maybe. But I am hopeful that what I am doing is turning the kitchen light on the cockroaches of right wing dishonesty and sending them scurrying. 


During the Obama years, Bill Clinton famously argued that he had been subjected to even more right wing vitriol than Barack. “Nobody’s accused him of murder yet, as far as I know,” Clinton quipped in 2014, referring to the Vince Foster conspiracy theory. And it’s true that Bill was impeached, which Barack never was. 

Still, I never bought it. Bill had certainly been demonized by the right and unfairly attacked in the extreme, but the racist element of the abuse directed at Obama put the attacks on him in a completely different league. (Nobody accused Obama of murder, but nobody said Clinton as a secret Muslim or demanded to see his birth certificate either.) Likewise the irrational, foaming-at-the-mouth, misogynistic hatred of Hillary—from the time she first emerged on the national stage in 1992 as merely a candidate’s wife, all the way through and beyond her own 2016 presidential run—was an order of magnitude greater than anything her husband ever experienced. 

But in retrospect, Bill did have a point. The ferocious vilification of Democratic standard bearers is now standard practice for the GOP. The attempt to turn avuncular, empathetic Joe Biden—a man widely beloved even by his Republican Senatorial colleagues—into the second coming of John Wayne Gacy shows it, and looking back, it clearly began with the Clinton era and the arrival of Newt Gingrich and his bloodsport approach to politics. 

And where do we stand today? A few examples—all from a single, not especially noteworthy week—ought to suffice. 

At Breitbart last week, its editor-at-large John Nolte claimed the “left” is tricking right wingers into dying of COVID, Br’er Rabbit style, by encouraging them to get vaccinated, knowing that right wingers would NEVER do anything progressives or liberals want them to do. Even if that were true—which it ain’t, remotely, not even in Bizarro World—it would amount to blaming the left for their own suicidal stubbornness.

Also last week Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) tweeted: “ALL House Democrats are evil and will kill unborn babies all the way up to birth and then celebrate”—her emphasis on ALL. (It’s true, I have several “baby-killing celebrations” in my Google Calendar for this week alone. I am bringing the potato salad.) Greene, of course, is also a prominent QAnon follower who in the past has physically stalked her colleagues, and called for the assassination of leading Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

But, you scoff, Greene is the lunatic fringe of the GOP, not its mainstream. 

Oh, is that so? Who got kicked out of the party leadership for being insufficiently pro-Trump and denying the Big Lie, Margie or Liz Cheney? MTG is the face of the contemporary Republican Party.

Finally, last week saw the exposure of a memo from John Eastman, a high-ranking member of the Federalist Society and advisor to the Trump White House, outlining exactly how Trump & Co. intended to overturn the 2020 election and illegally retain power. We’ve known the broad outlines of this effort since January, but with the revelation of each new piece of the puzzle—like this one—the shocking scope of what went on becomes more and more appalling. This was the exact thing that “reasonable” Republicans snorted contemptuously that Trump would NEVER dare try. And not only did he try it, but he damn near succeeded.

And what is the GOP response now? To excuse it, defend it, deny it, obstruct efforts to expose the truth about it, and even more alarming, to continue that effort by other means going forward. 

That sound you hear is glass breaking, because American democracy is in the midst of a five-alarm emergency. One that its perpetrators would love to distract us from with the idea that Joe Biden needs to be removed via the 25thAmendment.


It has not escaped my notice that over the past nine months, many of my blog posts wind up in the same area, belaboring a single, tiresome theme: the Republican Party’s ongoing attempt to undermine democracy in America and install itself as an unchallengeable autocratic power. 

I apologize for being monotonous, but it’s the issue of our time. One of the two political parties in our country—one with tens of millions of voters, that stands a good chance of regaining power—has, over the preceding five years (or is it fifty?) turned fundamentally anti-democratic. Tunnelvision is in order when you’re in a tunnel, and especially when the light at its end is an oncoming train.

In The Bulwark, Mona Charen recently wrote that she is now a “single issue voter,” saying, “I’ll vote against the party threatening the republic—simple as that.”

The Republican party….has become a conspiracy of liars. As such, it threatens the stability of the republic. 

It’s a cult dedicated to lying, rewarding liars, and punishing truth tellers. I won’t vote for it.

Writing in The Atlantic, Adam Serwer—who way back in 2018 coined the phrase, “The Cruelty Is the Point” in relation to the Trump administration—continues to demonstrate why he is one of the sharpest political observers around, most recently with a five-point summary of the ways Trump tried to overturn the election, much of it drawing on that Eastman memo. Serwer concludes with a pair of paragraphs that perfectly capture the state of the GOP and the crisis in which we find ourselves as a nation:

(To the Republican Party, winning majorities) is irrelevant to whether or not the party’s Trumpist faithful believe they are entitled to wield power. Win or lose, their claim to be the sole authentic inheritors of the American tradition means they are the only ones who can legitimately govern and are therefore justified in seizing power by any means. This is the modern incarnation of an old ideology, one that has justified excluding certain groups of Americans from the suffrage on the basis that their participation is an affront to the political process.

American traditions of unfreedom always represent themselves as democracy’s protectors, rather than its undertakers, and this one is no different. If Biden were allowed to take office, Eastman insisted in a longer version of his memo, “we will have ceased to be a self-governing people.” The catastrophe is not only that Trump tried to overthrow an election. It is that so many Americans were cheering him on.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Not even close, in fact. 

Funny thing about dipping into the right wing media to see how the other side thinks: it’s always a shock to come back and read sane, intelligent commentary in the non-right wing media. 


Photo: Nathan Congleton/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank/Getty Images

The Canard of the “Liberal Threat”

You’ve got to hand it to America’s right wingers. They try to overthrow the US government in a violent coup d’état, one fomented by the highest levels of their political leadership, an act that they continue to defend even now……and yet they would have us believe that pronouns are the greatest threat to the republic. 

For sheer chutzpah, that’s tough to beat. 

Of course, it’s not surprising, given the oft-demonstrated Republican capacity for shamelessness. The conservative media, from fancy pants magazines like The Economist down to sewer dwellers like InfoWars, are engaged in a concerted campaign to try to convince America that the most pressing danger we face are trans kids who want to be addressed as they/them/theirs, teachers who have the temerity to believe there’s racism in America, and public health officials who want to bludgeon us with this sketchy thing called “science.” 

Yes, it’s batshit. Yes, it’s beyond outrageous—stupefying in fact. But this is the Orwellian, up-is-down, freedom-is-slavery world in which contemporary Republicans live. And I got no problem with that; they can live in any old world they want. 

The problem is that they want the rest of us to live in it with them. 


Just so we’re all on the same page, here’s a reminder that the FBI and other Homeland Security experts continue to assess that white nationalist extremism is the greatest terrorist threat to the security of the United States. Not hybrid cars, Nikole Hannah-Jones or, pumpkin spice lattes.

But page one of the fascism handbook is to accuse your enemies of your own crimes. 

We need not debate whether the Trumpist GOP does in fact deserve the “f” word (short answer: it does) to understand that Republicans have seized on projection as their best and perhaps only form of self-defense. That is why they are desperate for us to believe that woke college students are going bring on the American apocalypse, not the people who, I repeat, literally tried to mount a violent coup d’état just last winter, and on the whole have not recanted or abandoned that cause, nor seen their leaders punished for it.  

Let’s begin our survey of this concerted propaganda campaign with what passes for credible, reason-based thinking in the modern conservative movement. 

The Economist recently had a cover story screaming, “The Threat from the Illiberal Left,” subtitled, “Don’t underestimate the danger of left-leaning identity politics.” (Referring to liberalism not in the partisan American sense of Republicans and Democrats, but of Enlightenment-based Western democracy as a whole.)

What its editors seem to have their panties in a bunch over is a mode of thought that (wait for it) “has recently spread from elite university departments.” 

As young graduates have taken jobs in the upmarket media and in politics, business and education, they have brought with them a horror of feeling “unsafe” and an agenda obsessed with a narrow vision of obtaining justice for oppressed identity groups. They have also brought along tactics to enforce ideological purity, by no-platforming their enemies and cancelling allies who have transgressed.

In other words, a bunch of old white guys don’t understand kids today.

In that same issue, the magazine laments,“Left-Wing Activists Are Using Old Tactics in a New Assault on Liberalism,” and  “How Did American ‘Wokeness’ Jump from Elite Schools to Everyday Life?” Ho-hum, grandpa. 

(But it could be worse. Two weeks before, that same magazine ran a piece by 98-year-old Henry Kissinger assessing the failure of the US campaign in Afghanistan….part of its periodic “What War Criminals Think” column.)

This is an absurd waste of ink—and pixels—not to mention brazen misdirection. Even the convocation of Statlers and Waldorfs at The Economist admit that “the most dangerous threat in liberalism’s spiritual home comes from the Trumpian right.”

Populists denigrate liberal edifices such as science and the rule of law as façades for a plot by the deep state against the people. They subordinate facts and reason to tribal emotion. The enduring falsehood that the presidential election in 2020 was stolen points to where such impulses lead. If people cannot settle their differences using debate and trusted institutions, they resort to force.

Yet they don’t put that on their cover, do they? After all, they’re trying to sell magazines. 

To elevate political correctness to the level of “threat to the republic” equivalent to people wearing balaclavas and carrying AR-15s is not only ridiculous and misleading but wantonly irresponsible. Yeah, PC-ness can go too far, but this is worrying about a freckle on you arm when you’ve got a grapefruit-sized goiter growing out of your neck….a goiter that believes the election was stolen, we didn’t land on the moon, and fluoridation is sapping our precious bodily fluids, and violent rebellion is in order in response.

The authors even have the gall to engage in shameless bothsidesism, claiming that “populists and progressives feed off each other pathologically. The hatred each camp feels for the other inflames its own supporters—to the benefit of both.” 

As if the people who wanted to lynch the Vice President and the ones who think Black people ought not be murdered by the police are on an equal moral plane. 


The longstanding conservative hue and cry over “political correctness” (recently re-branded as “wokeness”) boils to down to one very simple thing: powerful people—largely white, and mostly male—angry that they are being asked to behave in a decent and civilized manner toward others, instead of doing whatever the fuck they want, with impunity, a state of affairs to which they’ve been accustomed their whole goddam lives. And I know, because I’m a white male myself.

Accordingly, whenever I hear complaints about PC culture, or wokeness, I go into automatic snooze mode at this laziest and most dishonest of beefs. 

Nearly every development toward a more progressive society has been met with anger and ridicule at first, from the term Ms to Title IX to an end to “whites only” drinking fountains. But eventually these things all come to seem routine and normal and even inevitable in their manifest justness and common sense.

“But Stalin!” cries the right wing intelligentsia. (Oxymoron? You be the judge.) “It starts with the collegiate thought police and ends with the gulag!”


Yes, we all know there have been horrific totalitarian regimes under the mantle of “leftism”; whether or not they represent “the left” as we currently understand the term, or have circled all the way around to authoritarianism more characteristic of right wing regimes, is a book length topic in itself—library length, in fact. But in the context of our discussion, the terms “left” and “right” have less to do with Marxism and capitalism than with democracy and autocracy, regardless of ideological trappings. 

Even conceding that a left-wing regime—however you define it—has the potential to slip into autocracy, to suggest that liberals present the most pressing danger to Western democracy at present is beyond absurd: it can only be deliberate smoke  and mirrors. Violent, right wing populism (personally I reject the very term, for those of you scoring at home) has been on the rise for more than a decade, from the Philippines to Hungary to the US, characterized by hypernationalism, xenophobia, jingoism, and all the other textbook trappings of “f-word” states, whether we use that tag or not. 

I don’t think Rachel Maddow is an equal threat. 

Still, this faddish notion of an “illiberal left wing scourge” has found traction in the chattering classes. 

Two weeks ago I took issue with a hawkish article by The Atlantic’s Anne Applebaum that derided the idea that there is no military solution for the US in Afghanistan. It pained me, because as I stated at the time, I am a fan of Ms. Applebaum’s work. Now she has sent me rending my garments again with a piece for that magazine headlined “The New Puritans” (archived under the title “The Return of the Scarlet Letter”), a screed against what the right likes to call “cancel culture,” to which news outlets like MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” have devoted an eyepopping amount of airtime. (One thing the left does well is eat its young.) 

Oh, Anne: I was such a fan, but I’m just a simple man, and I don’t understand your plan, both on this and Afghanistan. It leaves me wan. 

While The Economist hyperventilates about the macro effects of wokeism, Applebaum’s focus is almost purely on academia. Largely she is bemoaning the lack of due process in what are not, after all, legal proceedings but social judgments, which are notoriously hard to police, as she herself concedes. She also takes admirable pains to distinguish her critique from the usual right wing blather about liberalism run amok in the academy.

Applebaum brings to the topic her considerable expertise on authoritarianism in Russia and Eastern Europe and elsewhere. But it’s ironic that the “whisperers” in academia that she decries as an extrajudicial mechanism for identifying transgressors—students especially, whom she compares to the revolutionary committees of Mao’s Cultural Revolution—are not unlike the citizens deputized by Texas to inform on women who seek abortions and anyone who helps them, or even thinks of helping them. 

The logic of who gets canceled can indeed be hard to parse. Recently I heard Michael Jackson on the radio—“Off the Wall” I think it was—and I thought, “Why is Michael Jackson not canceled but Al Franken is?” The scope of their crimes is not even remotely comparable. Maybe it’s because Michael is dead; no doubt that is part of it. But really it’s because people love his music so much that they aren’t willing to cast it into oblivion, no matter what horrors he committed, and taking into account the physical and psychological abuse he suffered as a child himself. (This is a whole different debate.)

I do have sympathy for people in the midst of this great pendulum-swing who are falsely accused, or culpable but over-punished with penalties that don’t fit the crime. What I object to is the elevation of this problem to an unjustifiable level of hysteria where it can be used by the neo-authoritarian right as both a shield against accountability for its own far more serious crimes, and as a cudgel to counterattack its enemies. 

It’s clear that we are still figuring out how to deal with new norms and mores regarding what is socially acceptable behavior, especially when it comes to race and gender, the workplace, and the rules of engagement for romantic interaction. There have been excesses, certainly, and injustices and inequities. There were a hell of a lot of all three, and far worse, in the opposite direction under the ancien regime as well.  

I’m fine with this being explored in The Chair. I just don’t need it put on a par with people who wanted to lynch Nancy Pelosi.


In less august right-leaning media, you can hear a cruder and even more extreme version of this argument, in which conservatives (especially white men) are the real victims of persecution, and the “Democrat Party” is an authoritarian cult bent on taking your guns, instituting sharia law, and turning the NFL into a flag football league with its Dr. Mengele-devised concussion protocol.  

This self-pity is deep in the right wing DNA. For a group of people who like to throw around the word “snowflake,” they sure are fucking fragile. 

The same Republicans who just passed a law that subjects women in Texas to vigilante enforcement of its Atwoodian anti-choice laws are now foaming at the mouth at the alleged “tyranny” and “oppression” of a vaccine mandate for federal workers and businesses with over 100 employees. I presume these same folks have issues with measles shots, seat belts, Health Department inspections of restaurants, and the mere existence of OSHA too.

Hewing to the directive “know your enemy,” I have been on a Trump mailing list since the 2016 campaign, just to see the things they are saying. I recently got an email solicitation from them stating, with No Discernible Irony: 

Joe Biden just announced a sweeping mandate that is designed to FORCE you and your family to undergo medical procedures whether you want to or not.

That is why the GOP is fighting back and planning to SUE the Biden administration for their un-American federal overreach, and we need your help.

Driving around the Jersey shore last weekend, where right wing talk radio is rife, I heard one of the many, many Christian channels (“Your station for faith, family, and freedom!”) telling its listeners that Dr. Anthony Fauci harvests the organs of live babies. Not long after I was in Bucks County, PA, north of Philadelphia, where my father lives, an area where strong progressivism co-exists cheek by jowl with some pretty extreme examples of what we call “Pennsyltucky.” In the latter camp: the guy with the sign on his rear window that reads “PLANDEMIC,” and the homeowner with the handpainted sign in his front yard reading, “Fake Pandemic, Real Tyranny.”

And this is a recurring pattern, fed both by the right’s innate predilection for Hofstadterian paranoia, and the opportunistic conservative elites who feed and exploit it. 

Even as those of us on the left feel like the right has a chokehold on our democracy (because, gee, I dunno, we control the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives and yet Mitch McConnell gets everything he wants), the right sees itself as perennially under assault, or at least its mandarins paint that picture to fire up the rubes and keep the donations flowing. 

As I say, that may be a function, at least partially, of the chronic paranoia that runs through American conservatism, but it’s also a strategy. Their advertising, their fundraising appeals, their nightly Fifty-Two Minutes Hate on Tucker Carlson are all organized around the notion that the liberals are coming, and Real America is up against the wall. Spurious online periodicals like City Journal, masquerading as mainstream journalism, specialize in horror stories about political correctness run amok in our schools, stories designed to scare the khakis off upper middle class center-right (and even center-left) parents who would not be so easily fooled by similar stories in Breitbart or Fox.

In the Washington Post, Greg Sargent seized on another standard Republican ploy, and a dirty and dishonest one it is: Sow doubt among conservative voters about Issue X, from the efficacy of the COVID vaccine to the legitimacy of Biden’s election, then cite that very doubt as justification for opposing common sense measures regarding the problem. 

“A lot of people are skeptical about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, and we need to respect their fears!” Yes they are skeptical—because you fed that skepticism. 

“A lot of people think there’s massive election fraud in America (except in elections I won), so we need to suppress the vote!” Yes they do think there’s fraud—because you told them there was fraud.  

This disingenuous plea for “understanding for all sides” and “respecting the choices of others” gives ammunition to anti-factual Know Nothings who reject empiricism and want to cast their selfish, reckless endangerment of our collective public health as “freedom of choice.”

Another of the right’s favorite new tricks is to make a specious argument on the grounds of “religious freedom,” seeking exemptions from the law that would allow them to, say, abrogate a woman’s right to control her own body, or discriminate against LBGTQ+ folks, or forgo routine immunizations and still want to avail themselves of public schools, or deny service to Black people in restaurants, or refuse to rent apartments to Jews. (Or Muslims. Or Unitarians.) And so on. 

The furor over “critical race theory” is another doozy. In this reboot of the brouhaha over evolution, white people who are terrified of losing power are apoplectic at the idea that their children, or any children, might be taught that there is such a thing as racism, and that it has played a seminal role in the history of this country and the journey to where we are today. 

Next up, outrage over teaching our children that water is wet, the sun is hot, and the Beatles are better than Nickelback.   


Here’s another example where there’s been a lot of linguistic confusion, if not deliberate up-is-down, day-is-night, disinformation. So let me set the record straight:

The insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6th to murder US government officials and try to overturn an election are NOT patriots, martyrs, or political prisoners, and certainly not heroes, even though the GOP has begun treating them that way. (See: the right wing rally in DC today in support of those being prosecuted.)

General Mark Milley who worked within his constitutional authority to forestall a coup and prevent the outbreak of “Wag the Dog” -style wars against Iran and/or China, IS a hero. Full stop, period dot, out here.

If you want to know what’s wrong with United States today in a nutshell, consider what it means that Mark Milley is under far more fire for his actions surrounding the events of January 6th and its aftermath than Donald Trump is. (It means that we are maxed out on disbelief at the depths to which Trump will sink, that his followers would find a way to excuse it—in fact, applaud it—even if he wiped his ass with the US flag, and that there is no God.)

My friend Erick Kelemen notes that “The uproar (over Milley) is largely manufactured by people wanting to obscure the fact that only days before, he had discovered that Trump was trying to go around everyone in his own national security offices to order the US out of Afghanistan.” And what was Milley’s response to that, and to Trump refusing to accept the results of the election? “To call everybody together to re-read the rules and make sure everybody followed them? To phone nervous adversaries and assure them that we would follow the rules and not be swayed by the whims of someone trying to cling to power in his last days? The outrage is ridiculous.”

Any conflict between civilian and military leaders is dangerous terrain, and questions remain around the context and details of General Milley’s actions. He has promised to answer those questions when he and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin—himself a retired four-star—testify before Congress at the end of the month, an event Republicans are sure to turn into a circus.

But whatever the answers, Milley can be forgiven for pressing up against the boundaries of his office considering the extraordinary circumstances he was in, with a dangerous and unhinged commander-in-chief desperately clinging to power and capable of doing almost anything. Famously, Mattis and Kelly—two more retired four-stars—had a “babysitting pact” throughout their tenure in the Trump presidency to keep him from setting the world on fire. Or recall August 1974, when SecDef James Schlesinger ordered the Pentagon not to obey any nuclear strike orders from a drunken and unstable Nixon in his final days without going through him or Kissinger first.

Could a rogue general take similar action to go around the President and try to start a war, rather than stop one? Of course; that is the nature of power. But the same demographic that is furious at Milley over this loved it when MacArthur defied Truman, and Singlaub defied Carter (both over Korea, as it just so happened). 

Some—including retired LTC Alexander Vindman, whom I greatly respect—have suggested that Milley should have resigned instead. But the whole point was that someone needed to stand in Trump’s way; would it have been better, in that critical time, to give Donald the opportunity to install a lackey as CJCS, as he had already done with numerous other key officials in the national security apparatus, the exact kind of indicators one would seize on in anticipation of a coup?

The Republican hypocrisy is, as usual, mindblowing. Their tyrant manqué puts American democracy in lethal jeopardy, then they howl bloody murder when anyone takes any steps, any steps at all, orthodox or not, to protect it and mitigate the damage, accusing that person of—you guessed it—undermining democracy. Quite a neat trick.

It’s rich to hear the right wing complain about the military being politicized, when no one in American history did more to politicize it than Donald Trump, with his talk of “my generals,” his demand for a May Day-style military parade in his honor, and his repeated use of the armed forces as props. Now that the embattled US military has been forced to use politics to push back, suddenly conservatives are clutching their pearls? I don’t recall them being worried about General Milley “playing politics” when he found himself accompanying Trump on that reprehensible photo op at Lafayette Square, an act that Milley was caught up in almost accidentally, and was so mortified by that he considered resigning over that, and subsequently issued a public mea culpa.

For Marco Rubio to accuse Milley of fomenting a coup—or Trump to cry “treason!”—is the height of irony. 


There was some good news last week, as reason prevailed in California and Gavin Newsom survived a recall attempt with a resounding 63% to 36% victory. Whatever one thinks of Newsom, as a referendum on science and reason versus the paranoid style, it was at the very least a reassuring sign that the majority of Californians are not in fact insane (and perhaps a blueprint for Democratic strategy in the midterms).

After losing, the leading Republican candidate Larry Elder told his supporters to be “gracious in defeat.” That is remarkable at a time when falsely screaming “fraud!” in a crowded movie theater has become de rigueur for Republicans, and doing otherwise risks excommunication from the party because it undercuts the Maximum Leader’s own specious claims of having been robbed. 

Writing in The Week, Damon Linker notes, “A recent CNN poll reveals that fully 59 percent of Republicans consider it ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ important for members of the party to affirm that Trump won the 2020 election.” The pressure that puts on GOP candidates at all levels to toe the party line is immense, and is pushing that party even further into Cloud Cuckooland.

But this is how far the bar has been lowered. Conceding defeat used to be the norm, of course, and is in fact essential for democracy. As Heather Cox Richardson writes: “If losers in a democracy refuse to accept the legitimacy of elections, the system falls apart.” Which is fine with the GOP, which has been flogging the mantra that “government is bad“ for decades, and doing everything it can to make it so.

Elder’s welcome comments are all the more remarkable because they come after he had sown doubt about the legitimacy of the vote ahead of election day—also de rigueur for Republicans these days, thanks to The Former Guy. 

So two cheers for Larry, and let’s be grateful that the voters of California had the good sense not to put him in office.

In that same piece, Linker called these Republican lies about election fraud “a ticking time bomb,” asking pointedly, “How do they think this will end?” 

This is hands down the most dangerous political development in recent American history—a civic time bomb placed smack dab at the center of American democracy. It’s more dangerous than a reality-show demagogue ascending to the presidency. Or partisan gridlock in Congress making governing and passing legislation extremely difficult. Or constitutional disagreement about the scope of women’s reproductive rights. Or conflicts surrounding masking and vaccine mandates. 

All of those issues are important, and some of them contribute to the degradation of American democracy. But none of them degrade it more than spreading the lie that elections in the United States are systematically untrustworthy and rigged against one of the country’s two parties. That’s the kind of claim that could ultimately make American self-government impossible.

That’s because this is a battle over the rules of the political game—the rules that enable the US to function as a democracy that is deemed fair by everyone, the winners as well as losers, in any given electoral contest. Once faith in that fairness has been undermined and obliterated, the peaceful transfer of power is bound to break down entirely. Where will it end? Nowhere good.

When it comes to threats to our democracy, seems like the wholesale delegitimization of the integrity of the vote in the eyes of tens of millions of Americans might be something genuinely worth worrying about. 

Unless you’re on the team promoting it.

The increasingly radicalized, Trumpist GOP is precisely such an organization as Linker describes, no longer recognizable as a conventional political party at all, but only as a death cult-cum-neo-fascist insurgency. And people are noticing.  

On the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last weekend, George W. Bush gave a speech that compared the 1/6 Insurrectionists to the 9/11 hijackers. Good on him. I will never forgive Bush for Iraq, but of late he has not only looked good compared to Trump (NB: so does a rotting tree stump) but actually walked the walk, a little. 

And that wasn’t the only head-spinning turn in Old Republican World. 

The new book by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, Peril, the same one that got Milley in such hot water, also revealed the role Bush the elder’s vice president Dan Quayle played in dissuading Mike Pence from going along with Trump’s plan to reject the results of the Electoral College. If you told me 30 years ago that I’d be praising Dan Quayle for anything, I’d have turned off my C+C Music Factory cassette and laughed in your face. But, believe it or not, as some wit wrote on the Internet, “Dan Quayle stopped a coupe.”

Meanwhile Trump himself used the occasion of the 20th anniversary of 9/11 to make a speech attacking Biden on Afghanistan, and to collect a paycheck doing commentary on a pay-per-view fight between a 58-year-old Evander Holyfield and former UFC champ Jordan Belfort. 

All class, that fella.

For an encore, two days before this new MAGA rally in front of the Capitol, Trump issued a statement siding with those terrorists, a statement that began: “Our hearts and minds are with the people being persecuted so unfairly relating to the January 6th protest concerning the Rigged Presidential Election.” (File under: “Florida retiree pours gasoline on the fire.”)

And why shouldn’t Trump feel entitled to do so? He’s never suffered any meaningful consequences for any of his actions throughout his entire life. (Losing reelection doesn’t count.) As many wise people said from the very beginning, if there are not repercussions for the people who incited this insurrection—not just the cosplaying Q believers who did the actual insurrecting, but the muckity mucks who sent them down Pennsylvania Avenue—we will surely see it happen again. 

That process is already underway…..and it worries me a lot more than the Washington Football Team having to change its nickname.


The experts tell us that one of the most difficult and maddening things about trying to combat fake news is that repeating it at all, even to debunk it, only spreads it further. So in calling out this right wing disinformation, am I only abetting it?

Maybe. But how else to fight it? Besides, I trust my readership—tiny as it is, but intelligent—to be able to think critically. We are not afraid of the other guy’s ideas, and can readily dismember them. No misdirection, disinformation, or sleight of hand required. 

Meanwhile the right wing gaslighting festival rolls merrily along and shows no sign of being shut down any time soon. There’s too much money to be had for the grifters, too many eager marks out there to be had, and too much at stake for whitey and the plutocrats (my favorite Southern rock band) as they try to make us think we’re the evil and crazy ones, not them.

Yeah, well,  I was born at night….but it wasn’t last night. 

Autocracy on the March: The Texan Front

Let us begin with the obligatory—but still sadly necessary—blast at Texas’s devious and sickening new law that for all practical purposes outlaws abortion in that state, in violation of what the US Supreme Court has previously ruled, and deputizes vigilantes to enforce it. 

The same GOP that believes in “my-body-my-choice!” when it comes to anti-vaxxers refusing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 will now force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, even in cases of rape or incest. That same party will mandate that a 12-year-old girl raped by her stepfather must go through with the pregnancy, but not that that girl must wear a mask in school, because that’s “governmental overreach.” The same Republicans who are terrified of fictional “vaccination squads” directed by Oberführer Fauci going door-to-door somehow managed to pass the most intrusive kind of governmental policy imaginable, one which incentivizes Texans to spy and inform on their neighbors for cash. 

No one will be shocked to learn that the Texas law says absolutely nothing about the men who impregnate these women, not even rapists, all of whom are completely absolved of any responsibility or legal repercussions. 

I write screenplays for a living, and they would throw me out of the Writers Guild if I pitched this as a movie idea. That’s the realm of Atwoodian science fiction, amirite? 

Texas is a state that hobbled its own infrastructure to the point where over 200 people died when it couldn’t provide heat and power during an ice storm last winter (while its junior Senator fled to vacation in Cancun), and four months later had to beg its citizens not to run their air conditioners when a heatwave overwhelmed that same power grid. It’s a state where nearly 1 in 5 children live in poverty; a state that ranks 51st (including DC) in children’s health care; a state whose allegedly “pro-life” legislators have consistently opposed funding for child care, education, help for needy families, and even tried to abolish the state’s Child Protective Services agency.

That’s how you know that this new law has nothing to do with “protecting the unborn,” much less the born, and everything to do with demonstrating and maintaining male control over the female of the species. That’s how you know it’s part of a war on women, one that’s deeply baked into the conservative movement, even including the (mostly white) conservative women who are part of it.

Texas is also a state where it’s now legal to carry an unlicensed firearm; a state whose governor recently issued an executive order directing state troopers to stop and frisk anyone they suspect of being an undocumented migrant; a state consistently on the forefront of efforts to restrict the teaching of things its conservative mandarins don’t like, such as evolution, or the history of civil right movement; a state that recently passed some of the most restrictive voter suppression laws in the country, designed to keep Democratic constituencies (including people of color, working women, the poor, young people, and the handicapped) from voting.

As the Internet wags say, the lone star on Texas’s state flag must be its Yelp review. 


So what exactly is in this new Texas law? 

In effect, it outlaws abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, well before most women even know they’re pregnant. It offers a $10,000 reward to citizens who snitch on anyone “aiding or abetting” such a procedure, such as the provider, a doctor who makes a referral to a clinic, or even a friend who gives the woman a ride (payable by that person, plus legal fees). Even a person who contemplates rendering such aid, but doesn’t, can be sued.

The $10K is a minimum, by the way; “There is no cap on the amount of damages a court can award to a citizen who sues to enforce the law.”

As Jezebel’s Laura Bassett describes it, writing in The Atlantic, this is “the most extreme abortion ban the United States has seen in half a century.” It is a thorough, effective, de facto reversal of Roe v. Wade—the very thing the GOP has dishonestly been claiming it is not pursuing (wink wink), and deviously designed to pass legal muster by outsourcing enforcement to private citizens rather than the state. 

But make no mistake: we all know what it is. 

In her dissent, a furious Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:

In effect, the Texas Legislature has deputized the State’s citizens as bounty hunters, offering them cash prizes for civilly prosecuting their neighbors’ medical procedures. 

Or as a Twitter user called John Slayer writes, “A state is now putting a bounty out for women who don’t comply with a religious belief. Let that sink in.” 

That use of vigilantes is perhaps the most despicable part of the law, even as it is the part that anti-abortion zealots praise for its “cleverness.” But as The Week’s Jill Filipovic writes, “Whatever you think about abortion rights, deputizing any person in the United States to be their own little secret police is an incredibly dangerous approach, less ‘pro-life’ than ‘American Stasi.’” That is especially appalling when you consider that, as Filipovic says, “The right has been on a tear about what they say is the massive threat of liberal totalitarianism, from the classroom to the boardroom to the federal government.” 

Justice Breyer was unimpressed with this too-clever-by-half trickery, writing in his dissent that American women have “a federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion during that first stage” of pregnancy, and that Texas’s delegation of the power to prevent it to private individuals does not offer a way for the state to abrogate that right. Citing a previous opinion, he wrote: 

….we have made clear that ‘since the State cannot regulate or proscribe abortion during the first stage… the State cannot delegate authority to any particular person… to prevent abortion during that same period.’ Texas’s law does precisely that.

The US Supreme Court was not asked to rule on the law’s constitutionality—yet. But in a shadow docket ruling that shocked most observers, it has let the Texas law stand while that process unfolds. Of that refusal to step in, Justice Sotomayor wrote:

The Court’s order is stunning. Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand.

Ironically, in the same week, the Supreme Court of Mexico, a staunchly Roman Catholic country, ruled that it is unconstitutional to punish abortion as a crime, putting it one up on Texas when it comes to being a civilized society. I suspect we will soon see desperate Texans fleeing in through the out door over Trump’s partially built border wall, seeking help in our more forward-thinking southern neighbor. (On the holy rollers’ side, God did punish Mexico with a 7.1 earthquake since then.)

The United States is now on the road to having abortion laws far more restrictive than Ireland, another deeply Catholic country, which in May 2018 held a referendum in which the Irish people overwhelmingly voted to end their longtime ban on the practice, reversing centuries of repressive tradition

Think about that for a moment. The US and the rest of the developed world are headed in opposite directions. 

And as Heather Cox Richardson writes, the implications of this flagrantly unconstitutional law, and the Supreme Court’s cowardly, dead-of-night 5-4 refusal to stop it from going into effect, go far beyond just reproductive rights and the war on women, terrible as both of those are. 

The new anti-abortion law in Texas is not just about abortion; it is about undermining civil rights decisions made by the Supreme Court during the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. 

A state has undermined the power of the federal government to protect civil rights. It has given individuals who disagree with one particular right the power to take it away from their neighbors. But make no mistake: there is no reason that this mechanism couldn’t be used to undermine much of the civil rights legislation of the post–World War II years.

What’s to stop Texas—or Georgia, or Mississippi, or any other fellow traveling Republican-controlled states—from enacting legislation that, say, denies constitutional rights to people of color, or LGBTQ folks, or hell, Democrats? From allowing business to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or country of origin, hung on the specious, ass-backwards claim of “religious freedom”? From opting out of 80 years of New Deal protections, union rules, or child labor laws?

Merrick Garland’s DOJ has vowed to intervene in Texas. So, Eisenhower-era like, are we about to see federal troops or US Marshals accompanying women into Planned Parenthood clinics and other providers, the way they did for Black schoolchildren integrating Southern schools in the Fifties and Sixties in defiance of segregationist efforts to stop them? That’s what it took the last time a bunch of regressive states decided that an entire class of American citizens didn’t deserve their constitutional rights. 

The Texas law, then, is not just an attack on reproductive freedom, or even on women full stop, though it is both of those things. It is part of a broader, retrograde attack on New Deal /  civil rights era progressivism in favor of the white nationalist theocracy that the American right craves. 

And these folks are just getting started. 


There are seven Catholics on the Supreme Court, six of them conservatives appointed by Republican presidents. (See here for the nuances of Gorsuch.) Five of them formed the core of the decision to let the Texas law stand. 

Three years ago, almost to the week. I published an essay in these pages that touched on that fact, called “Blessed Be the Fruit”—Patriarchy, Tyranny, and the Supreme Court.” Sadly, it is absolutely pertinent still.

These guys will have the power to decide the future of reproductive rights in this country and to dictate what an American woman can or cannot do with her own body, to include the authority to make abortion illegal if they so wish. And those five men very likely will do exactly that, even though roughly 70% of Americans oppose the idea.

To that end, the Court’s Catholic majority won’t criminalize abortion by blatantly overturning Roe; in this day and age that’s too obvious, even for them. What they will do is cut the heart of that ruling without even having the courage to admit what they’re up to. 

In that regard, we might say that evangelicals made a winning devil’s bargain in 2016 by backing Donald Trump, who put three of the five justices on the Supreme Court who formed the core of this non-decision. We might say that, except that it was no devil’s bargain at all. Evangelicals didn’t hold their nose over Trump’s racism, misogyny, lack of piety, cruelty toward children, and myriad other ills just in order to get Supreme Court justices: they loved it all.

In Slate, veteran SCOTUS watcher Mark Joseph Stern wrote:

Perhaps it was inevitable that this Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade, not with a momentous majority opinion, but by doing nothing. That’s all it took for the Supreme Court to let Texas’ six-week abortion ban take effect on Sept. 1: silence.

At a bare minimum, the monumental conflict over reproductive autonomy deserved a full and fair hearing in open court. Instead, the Supreme Court has let an established constitutional right die in the shadows.

Singling out Kavanaugh and Barrett in particular, he cited their comfort with “manipulating the court’s procedures to reach radical results,” and proficiency  in overruling precedent without acknowledging it

SCOTUS has already taken a case that will probably gut abortion rights by June 2022. But with its new law, Texas handed Kavanaugh and Barrett a gift: They could eviscerate Roe months earlier without writing a single word. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did the dirty work for SCOTUS by preventing a federal judge from blocking the ban or even holding a hearing on its constitutionality. All the justices had to do was nothing.

Stern notes that “the court’s inaction is especially galling in light of its aggressive intervention in cases it deems important,” including emergency rulings to challenge blue states’ COVID restrictions, end the CDC’s eviction moratorium, and reverse lower court decisions blocking Trump’s assault on legal immigration. But abortion? Nah. 

By refusing to lift a finger, the Supreme Court has telegraphed to the states that it does not view an illegal assault on abortion rights as a pressing matter requiring immediate attention. It gave the green light to impatient red states that won’t wait for SCOTUS to reverse precedent. These states can pass blatantly unconstitutional laws, persuade far-right judges not to block them, and count on the Supreme Court to stay out of it.


A number of pundits have suggested that with this Texas law—being copycatted as we speak in other Republican-controlled states, such as Florida, South Carolina, Arizona, and Ohio, with others likely to follow—the GOP has become the proverbial dog that caught that car. For four decades the party has been able to gyrate its base over abortion without having to deliver much in the way of results. Now that promise is gone—fulfilled you might say, but no longer available as a GOTV strategy, especially for anti-abortion fanatics who are one-issue voters. 

In The Atlantic, David Frum writes that “Pre-Texas, opposition to abortion offered Republican politicians a lucrative, no-risk political option,” in which “they could use pro-life rhetoric to win support” at low political cost.  

Pre-Texas, Republican politicians worried a lot about losing a primary to a more pro-life opponent, but little about a backlash if they won the primary by promising to criminalize millions of American women. That one-way option has just come to an end. 

Now Republicans may have simultaneously forfeited a core right wing voting bloc while energizing a left wing one. Frum speculates that it’s possible that “anti-abortion-rights politicians are about to feel the shock of their political lives. For the first time since the 1970s, they will have to reckon with mobilized opposition that also regards abortion as issue No. 1 in state and local politics.”

Instead of narrowly failing again and again, feeding the rage of their supporters against shadowy and far-away cultural enemies, abortion restricters have finally, actually, and radically got their way. They have all but outlawed abortion in the nation’s second-largest state, and voted to subject women to an intrusive and intimate regime of supervision and control not imposed on men. 

The GOP’s uncharacteristic absence of gloating in the wake of the SCOTUS ruling suggests that they know the spot they’re in, as did the stealthful means by which the Court’s conservatives pulled the plug on Roe, which was already on life support. 

Stern again:

Initially, the New York Times and the Washington Post treated the court’s inaction as a below-the-fold story. It took several hours on Wednesday morning for much of the media to catch up with the fact that SCOTUS allowed a state to ban abortion. And this, we can assume, is exactly how the conservative justices wanted to end Roe: not with a bang, or even a whimper, but with silence, confusion, and queasy uncertainty.

So might this backfire on the GOP, electorally speaking? Maybe. Maybe it will indeed be the end of driving evangelicals to the polls without provoking an equally passionate turnout from the pro-choice side. (Yes, I know there are plenty of women who are rabidly anti-choice, but it’s not an issue divided strictly along gender lines.) But others have argued that it’s much more complicated, and that this notion of a silver lining is deluded wishful thinking by Democrats. We shall see.

In any case, Texas Republicans, and Republicans in general, aren’t taking any chances. They clearly know how unpopular this policy will be with tens of millions of Americans, not unlike lots of other GOP policies (more tax cuts for the rich, anyone?) which is why they have twinned it with a relentless campaign of voter suppression and electoral subversion. That campaign is especially crucial in a state like Texas that almost turned blue last time and whose demographics are continuing to trend in that direction.

Frum again: 

(T)here’s already compelling evidence that Texas Republicans understand how detested their new abortion law will soon be—not only in New York City and Los Angeles, but also in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin, and Fort Worth. They took the precaution of preceding the nation’s most restrictive abortion law with one of the nation’s most suppressive voting laws. It’s as if they could foresee what Texas would do to them if all qualified Texans could vote. 

The question now will be whether the angry passion among Democratic voters ignited by this draconian new law and others like it will be enough to overcome the outrageous anti-democratic battlements that the GOP has put up around them. 

Frum argues that the oppressive new Texas voting law “only impedes voting; it does not prevent it. The 2020 election showed that voter suppression can only do so much to protect a sufficiently unpopular incumbent.” True, but the law we are talking about was enacted post-2020, and places far more severe restrictions on voting than were in place to help Trump. Indeed, his loss is the precise reason why the GOP felt the need to enact such laws.

If pro-choice passion is not sufficient to put Democrats in power, or if Republican rigging of the system prevails enough to prevent it, Frum suggests that we might be heading into a situation on abortion comparable to Prohibition, wherein “for a dozen years, metropolitan America lived under rules imposed by non-metropolitan America. Then the whole experiment utterly collapsed. Alcohol prohibition failed so dismally, both in practice and in politics, that even the prohibitionists had to surrender. Only then could the United States move to a stable equilibrium of national legality bounded by locally acceptable regulations.”

Perhaps the same will happen after Americans have to live for a few years under a religiously-driven medieval foreclosure of reproductive rights. Cold comfort to the women with unwanted pregnancies during that interim, however. 


Whether they pay a price at the polls or not, one thing is clear: Republicans will no longer be able to pretend that they are not out to end Roe v. Wade once and for all. Ironically for a bunch of people who have made a fetish of their opposition to masks, the mask is now off Republican hypocrisy over reproductive rights, and they stand bare-faced with their monstrous misogyny. (Ooh, I do love a good metaphor. Also a bad one.)

Laura Bassett writes in The Atlantic of how the Texas law means the jig is up on this longstanding Republican charade:

For half a decade, Republicans—especially self-described moderate members of the party—have been gaslighting America on the issue of abortion rights, pretending they didn’t know that Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks were always planning to overturn Roe. A central goal of the conservative judicial movement that these justices came out of is overturning Roe. The Federalist Society handpicked them for that reason. It’s a transparently phony act, one that’s now been exposed as such.

Sitting before the Senate during his 2018 confirmation hearings—before he broke out in a tear-stained hissy fit over how unfairly he was being treated—Brett “I Like Beer” Kavanaugh, in full Eddie Haskell mode, insisted Roe was “settled law.” Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska called women “hysterical” for fearing that the federally protected right to control their own  bodies was in danger. (Phrasing, Ben, phrasing.) 

In that aforementioned 2018 essay for the blog, I wrote this ahead of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings:

Kavanaugh will surely put on a ferocious Apache dance in claiming how he can’t possibly speculate about how he might rule in some hypothetical future case such as, oh I don’t know, abortion. He will also go full Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in implying that he has the utmost reverence for legal precedent and is anything but an activist judge looking to overturn Roe v. Wade. Perish the thought! In fact, he already began that charm offensive with his remarks at his nomination, stressing his allegedly female-friendly bonafides. (He coached his daughters’ basketball teams! Rest easy, feminists!) All of this will be carefully calculated to reassure middle-of-the road voters and centrist(ish) GOP senators like Collins and Murkowski that he is not going to gut that landmark ruling.

Then, once on the bench, he will do precisely that.

A year before that, way back in 2017, Mark Joseph Stern wrote in Slate:

(T)here is little doubt that Kavanaugh will gut Roe at the first opportunity. Indeed, he has already provided a road map that shows precisely how he’ll do it….

A conservative state will pass a draconian anti-abortion restriction—one that shutters all abortion clinics, perhaps, or outlaws abortion after a fetal “heartbeat” is detected. With Kavanaugh providing the decisive fifth vote, the court will rule that the state law does not pose an “undue burden” to abortion access; after all, the government has an interest in “favoring fetal life,” and women who truly want an abortion can go to another state. The majority may not admit what it is doing. But in practice, it will be overturning Roe.

Kavanaugh is the ideal candidate to cast that fifth vote and even write the opinion. He has already proved that he can pretend to adhere to Roe while hollowing out its core holding. He has revealed a striking aptitude for intellectual dishonesty, pretending to follow precedent while enshrining anti-abortion dogma into law. His disingenuousness will be an asset on the Supreme Court. And within a few years, the United States will be a country of Jane Does.”       


And so, with the Texas abortion law, the forces of right wing autocracy in America march steadily on. Control of the courts is just another front in that war, along with voter suppression and subversion, all of them battlegrounds on which the American right has been waging a slow-burning but relentless insurgency for decades while Democrats slumbered, naively putting their faith in the strength of our institutions and the goodwill of their opponents.  

That may well be democracy’s epitaph.

It’s one thing to enact laws like the one in Texas; it’s another to enact them in defiance of the will of the majority. That’s what the GOP is doing, and not just on this topic. Nationally, Americans support maintaining Roe 58% to 32 %. More broadly, 80% of Americans believe abortion should be legal under some circumstances (including 32% of who believe it should be legal in all circumstances), while only 19% say it should be illegal no matter what. 

In Texas, the issue splits the citizenry pretty evenly, but the new law’s failure to make exceptions in cases of rape and incest go too far even for most pro-life Texans.

But you might have noticed that Republicans’ whole megillah these days is countermajoritarian rule, given that they can’t win national elections outright, a reign to be established and maintained through the aforementioned electoral suppression, gerrymandering, disinformation, legislative obstructionism, and other skullduggery. 

Filipovic again:

This is the strategy for a party that increasingly cannot win fair and square: Rig the game. Make it harder for people to vote so that an ideological minority can maintain its grip on political power. Claim political opposition is the real authoritarianism, while using the courts and legislatures to enact authoritarian laws that serve your aims. Keep women and those who love and support them scared, ostracized, and under the very real threat of having their lives ruined—and in refusing women abortions, keep them poorer, more tethered to abusers, and less able to pursue their dreams and aspirations.

Let’s play out just how cutthroat this will be, and the stakes in play. 

If Republicans re-take the House in the midterms, they will immediately move to impeach Biden, because of course. They were set to do so regardless but now will use Afghanistan to dress the effort up in the mufti of legitimacy. (Never mind their own culpability for that debacle, and never mind that this same party did not think that a president accepting covert aid from a hostile foreign power, or blackmailing an ally for personal gain, or fomenting a violent insurrection to remain in office, merited even a polite throat-clearing by way of complaint.)

I don’t imagine for a moment that the GOP will get 66 votes to convict in the Senate, but it won’t matter. They will succeed in gumming up the works for the next year or more heading into the 2024 presidential race, furthering the paralysis of our democracy—exactly the outcome that the “government is bad” con men of the Republican Party have been peddling since 1932. And they will have engineered it to be so.

In our hyperpartisan climate, will impeachment then become the new normal? It might, but the very question reeks of bothsidesism. The two impeachments of Donald Trump could not have been more in order if they had been hypothetical examples laid out by the Founding Fathers themselves in “The Constitution: An Owner’s Manual.” (If an autogolpe isn’t impeachable, what is?) He could have been impeached for a couple more things as well. An impeachment of Joe Biden, by contrast, would be a partisan farce, unless he tries to sell Alaska back to Russia between now and then.

No, this would not be the fault of some mythical “divided America” in which both parties are equally vile; it would be the fault of Republican scorched earthism going back at least to the early Nineties. (Thanks Newt Gingrich, gravedigger of democracy!)

A Republican-controlled House might also well make Trump Speaker (who, constitutionally, doesn’t have to be an elected member of that body). Not that Trump has the cognitive skills or attention span to handle the managerial demands of the job, but he would be a troublesome figurehead, foisted back into the public eye to rouse the MAGA base. (And his installation would be just another humiliation that the invertebrate Kevin McCarthy will eagerly accept. I guess Kevin must like the taste of Trump’s shoe polish on his tongue.)

The California gubernatorial recall is another example of the current dysfunction, and one that presents dangers at the national level as well. If Gavin Newsom is recalled, and the frail 88-year-old Diane Feinstein dies in the next 17 months before California’s next election, the state’s new interim governor—likely Republican talk show host Larry Elder—will be able to hand control of the US Senate back to the GOP even before the midterms. 

Polls currently tip Newsom to hang on by the skin of his very straight white teeth, but should he lose, Feinstein ought to retire and allow him to appoint a younger Democratic replacement in his lame duck period. Would Republicans scream like their testicles were caught in a beartrap? You bet. Boo hoo. Were the tables turned, they’d do the same, gleefully, and sneer at Democrats for daring to voice objection. 


I have long feared that Biden’s win and these first two years of his term while his party controls Congress (not that it feels like it) will prove to be but the eye of the storm, a brief respite before neo-fascism comes roaring back with a vengeance. We already see the Republican sorcerers trying to conjure that outcome. The midterms will be the first test, and the presidential race of 2024 the next. 

Afghanistan is tailor-made for the GOP to campaign on, allowing them to unjustly reclaim their mantle as the macho party of national security, even though they bear far more blame for that debacle than Biden or the Democrats. They will also pummel Joe for not getting COVID under control, even though it’s their own anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers—egged on by malignant Fox News propaganda—that are hindering the valiant effort of public health officials and responsible Americans. They will savage him for not getting more done, on infrastructure and everything else, even though they themselves blocked that legislation, or if he does succeed, blame him for not being sufficiently bipartisan, when they all voted against it and tried to sabotage it in every way.

We all know the playbook.

And Donald is poised to either run again, or play kingmaker, which might be even worse. 

In 2020 Trump was the incumbent—a liability for him, given his shambolic mismanagement style and ghastly record, including hundreds of thousands dead in the pandemic. But in 2024 it will be Biden defending his performance to a fickle public cursed with the memory of a goldfish, while Trump will be back in his natural role as loudmouthed, bombthrowing outsider promising the moon like the con man he is. 

It’s madness, of course, to think that the American people might return this cretin to office only four years after chucking him out on a Mavericks-sized wave of blood, but it could happen. He remains toxically unpopular, it’s true: indeed, for the GOP, a Trump run might be the same kind of unforced, self-inflicted wound as the Texas abortion bill, in terms of harming Republican prospects at the polls. But don’t rule it out. In addition to our short memories, we Americans are highly susceptible to the grifter’s pitch that “I alone can fix it,” even after recently watching him bollocks it all up in the first place. 

Trump of course need not be on the ticket for Republican horror show to be sufficiently nightmarish in ’24. Even without him, the GOP has so thoroughly—and willingly—remade itself in his pustulent image that a DeSantis or Abbott or Cotton or Haley candidacy would be just as bad. In fact, a Trumpist candidate without hideous scarlet “T” of actually being Trump might be far more dangerous, by which I mean, electable. 

And given the GOP-engineered distortion of the vote, that Republican standard bearer may well win….and if he or she doesn’t, Republican loyalists (via their structural gaming of the system) may by then be in place to hand the race to him or her anyway, or at the very least create chaos by insisting—again—that the election was stolen. More dramatically, after four years of being fed that lie about the 2020 election, and having tried and failed to mount a coup without suffering any negative repercussions, they will be emboldened to resort to mob violence again, or worse, to get what they want. 


Texas offers a preview of what an America under unchallengeable Republican rule would look like. There are lots of hideous angles to it, from guns to institutionalized white supremacy to a venal and unfettered kleptocracy, but one trademark aspect is sure to be the resurgence of the patriarchy.

It would be journalistic malpractice, or at least a violation of the bylaws of the Cliché Slingers’ Guild, not to note hereFlorynce Kennedy’s quote, often misattributed to Gloria Steinem, that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. (Steinem and Kennedy say they first heard it from a salty female cab driver in Boston.) In that regard, the GOP has shown its hand in the ugliest possible way. It’s up to us make them feel the punishment, even if it means scaling the walls of outrageous voter suppression that Republicans have erected.

The alternative, come 2022 and 2024, is a whole country that looks a lot like Texas.


Photo: “Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders Unveiling New Uniforms.” Satire by Paul Leigh. Enough people were taken in that Snopes had to clear the air….because satire is dead when things happen like what happened in Texas last week.

Anniversaries Are for Remembering

It is framed by airplanes.

On September 11, 2001, I stood with a bunch of other New Yorkers on a street corner on the Lower East Side, gazing up at the surreal sight of smoke billowing out of a gaping hole in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and a cloud of what looked like glitter—shattered glass—floating in the sky around it. No one knew exactly what had happened, but talk was that a plane had hit the building. A small private plane, we assumed. An accident. Nothing else was conceivable, or crossed our minds. 

Soon after, as we watched, a fireball erupted as a second plane crashed into the South Tower. Not a small private one, and not an accident either. Neither was the first, it turned out.

This week it was another airplane that dominated the news, the last US Air Force transport to fly out of Afghanistan as our bungled twenty-year war there came to an ignominious but necessary end. It was fitting, as our Afghan misadventure had of course been kicked off by that terrorist attack on New York and Washington twenty years ago. 

When the Biden administration chose the symbolic date of September 11, 2021 for the end of US involvement in Afghanistan, I’m sure it did not have this sort of symmetry in mind. 

Already we are witnessing the establishment of a counterfactual narrative about Afghanistan, much like the one told about Vietnam: the risible claim that we “could have won the war,” or at least departed it more gracefully, if only we had bombed the country more, sent in more troops, been more psychic, yada yada yada. And this hypocritical rush to condemn Biden comes not only from the predictable troglodytes and shameless opportunists on the right, some of whose own hands are red with blood over the matter, but also from various naïfs on the center-left. 

When they gaze upon its anarchic twilight, these critics are furious that, in their view, Joe Biden “lost” the war because he didn’t do these things. But what they are really mourning, without knowing it, is the imperialist delusion that the US can readily impose its will on countries around the world by force, a persistent fantasy that three times in my lifetime has led us into bloody quagmires of precisely this kind. 

What is it that Pete Seeger sang? Oh yeah:

“When will we ever learn?”


The iconoclastic conservative Andrew Sullivan seized on a similar, even more macabre parallel in a recent Substack piece called “Two Men Falling.” In it, he noted the infamous image of what became known as The Falling Man, widely believed to an employee of the Windows on the World restaurant, who was among those desperate people who leapt to their deaths from the top of that burning skyscraper on 9/11. (The identity of the exact individual is in question.) Sullivan twinned it with the image of a desperate Afghan refugee—also one of several—who was photographed falling thousands of feet from the exterior of a massive USAF C-17 to which he was clinging as it flew out of Hamid Karzai Airport in Kabul last week. 

In some ways, Sullivan is a kind of Christopher Hitchens in reverse—a conservative turned quasi-liberal by war—and he writes eloquently about the  “the Potemkin emptiness of the entire project” in Afghanistan:

Leaving Afghanistan…is not the blow to American power and prestige these pundits are claiming. Staying in Afghanistan is.”

Everyone who has ever tried this Sisyphean task has failed. We lost the war long ago, and had conceded defeat already. Despite extraordinary sacrifices by Americans and Afghans and Brits and others, a viable, stable, less-awful alternative to Taliban rule existed only so long as it was kept on life support by the West—and not a day longer.

It was not long ago that many on the American right agreed…..until Joe Biden actually pulled us out. Now Biden is being assailed by the full range of critics, including America Firsters who enthusiastically cheered the idea of withdrawal when Trump initiated it; the neo-cons who led us into this debacle, then bungled it (with the distraction of the pointless invasion of Iraq in particular), and now shamelessly blame Joe for their mess; and a whole range of others who didn’t give Afghanistan a thought until this week. 

(Here again we see the difference between the two ends of the American political spectrum. The right defends their guy even when he tries to murder them and overthrow the government, while the left feels free to attack their leader even when he’s doing the right thing.) 


(T)here is something about the unreal huffing and puffing this week from the left-media, the neocon holdouts and the opportunistic Republicans that seems far too cheap and easy. It’s as if they have learned nothing—nothing—from the 21st Century. They are acting now as if we are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, rather than finally ending the dumbest, longest war this country has ever fought.

They say they’re just decrying the way we left; but of course, this is the motte, not the bailey. Read any of their screeds, and you’ll see they still want us to stay. They still think they are right and that the American people are wrong, still believe they have the moral high ground, even as their morality has led to strategic blunders, and hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths. 

Sullivan concludes, “We are not a very grown-up country these days. Mercifully, we have a president who is. Who did the right thing, when others refused to. And who is mercifully not backing down.”

In a piece called “The Bloodlust of Joe Biden’s Afghanistan Critics,” The Week’s Ryan Cooper praised Biden for “continuing to hold stubbornly to what is very obviously the only realistic course of action, despite a mindless frenzy of condemnation from the media and the GOP, and little support from his own party,” calling it “the strongest act of political courage I have seen from a president in my life.”

(T)hese blood-crazed critics have no arguments or even suggestions that do not involve getting more American soldiers killed, except genocidal slaughter of Afghan civilians. 

Not a single one of these cretins has even bothered to outline a medium-term plan.

These armchair generals don’t care about any of that. They don’t care about working out a viable plan to do anything in particular, or defending any conception of American interests, or respecting the sacrifice of Our Troops. They want to leverage the shock, horror, and pain of American soldiers getting killed to whip up a good old war frenzy, just like they did after 9/11, and get hundreds or thousands more troops injured and killed in the process of yet another madcap imperialist crusade. The American military is a plaything for these people in their crusade to seize domestic power by driving the citizenry into a frothing desire for vengeance.

In an op-ed for USA Today, the foreign policy thinker David Rothkopf wrote that “the intellectual dishonesty in critiques of how President Joe Biden is handling the US departure from Afghanistan has been off the charts.” (He then tidily decimated the full menu of complaints.) Continuing his argument in The Atlantic, Rothkopf wrote of how the haters have been “incandescently self-righteous in their invective against the Biden administration,” saving his most scalding contempt for the oft-heard conventional wisdom, bandied by both sides, that “Biden owns this.”   

America’s longest war has been by any measure a costly failure, and the errors in managing the conflict deserve scrutiny in the years to come. But Joe Biden doesn’t “own” the mayhem on the ground right now. What we’re seeing is the culmination of 20 years of bad decisions by US political and military leaders. If anything, Americans should feel proud of what the US government and military have accomplished in these past two weeks. President Biden deserves credit, not blame. 

Unlike his three immediate predecessors in the Oval Office, all of whom also came to see the futility of the Afghan operation, Biden alone had the political courage to fully end America’s involvement. 

On that point, many of the people who are screaming the loudest about the loss of Afghanistan are the same ones who assured us that the war was won back in November 2001, and who blithely took us into Iraq under false pretenses (sometimes called “lies”), dooming what slim chance we ever had to hold our gains in that first war. It astonishes me that in the gnashing of teeth over Afghanistan, the role of Iraq is not more frequently or prominently mentioned. Even now these Republicans would have us believe that we could still “win” this misbegotten crusade—like Iraq before it, and Vietnam before that—if we would just stick to an obstinate non-strategy that hasn’t yet worked despite two decades of violent, financially exorbitant effort. 

I’m beginning to question their judgment. 

Bush and Cheney must be laughing their asses off that the national debate is over who’s to blame, Biden or Trump. (For that matter, the US is responsible for creating the Taliban in the first place, as a proxy force to fight the Soviets after their 1979 invasion. See Kai Bird’s terrific new biography on Jimmy Carter, The Outlier.)

Or as former Under Secretary of State Richard Stengel put it on Twitter: “Blaming Biden for Afghanistan is like saying the last batter in a 9-inning 10-to-nothing rout was responsible for the loss.”


I am generally a fan of the writer Anne Applebaum, but in a recent piece she derided the notion that “there is no military solution in Afghanistan” as the laziest of cliches. Like Rothkopf’s article, it ran in The Atlantic, but it read like the sort of right wing sneering you’d find in National Review. 

She then went on at length about the usefulness of military power, and the times when it is the only possible recourse.

Was that up for debate? 

To say “there is no military solution in Afghanistan” is not to say there is never a situation where military force should be applied, and I’m not aware of anyone but the Quakers making that claim. Ms. Applebaum sets that up as a false equivalence allegedly made by those she criticizes, then spends a lot of time making a bad faith argument against it. 

When we talk about the limits of military power in Afghanistan, what we mean is that we could not impose democracy there by force alone, particularly with an ill-conceived strategy that failed to take into account the people, history, and conditions in question. (Our enemy, however, very much could impose tyranny that way. How long they will be able to maintain it is a separate issue, as ISIS-K will attest.) Moreover, I am not sure what Applebaum would have us do in Afghanistan, either now or over the preceding twenty years, because she never lays that out. 

Are there situations that demand military force? Of course. But the problem is not usually our reluctance to use it, but rather, our tendency to think it’s a literal magic bullet.

The opposite tack is taken in a recent New Yorker piece by Robin Wright headlined “US Retaliation for the Kabul Bombing Won’t Stop ISIS or End Terrorism.” One might say that title is laughably obvious, almost Onion-worthy….except that we as Americans continually fail to learn it.  Wright:

(T)he central flaw in US strategy is the belief that military force can eradicate extremist groups or radical ideologies. On Friday evening, a senior Biden Administration official acknowledged that the United States “can’t physically eliminate an ideology. What you can do is deal, hopefully effectively, with any threat that it poses.”

“The bottom line is that kinetic action by itself cannot significantly counter terrorist organizations,” Seth Jones, a former adviser to US Special Operations forces in Afghanistan, told me. “It is very limited in what it can do. It can disrupt operationally and take people out. But tactical and operational impact is very short-term.”

Airpower, like the recent drone strike on ISIS-K in retaliation for its suicide bombing at the Kabul, is particularly feckless in this regard, since our enemy in Southwest Asia—not unlike the Viet Cong—is geared for asymmetrical warfare and by design uniquely resistant to those kind of high tech attacks. Indeed, Wright goes on to note that airstrikes like that one, while doing relatively little operational damage, can actually serve the enemy’s needs—particularly a heretofore marginal insurgent group like ISIS-K—by raising its profile and street cred. 

That is the sort of thing that has made it rather challenging for the US to win hearts and minds throughout this whole fucking crusade. The “quick and easy” surgical strikes that many Americans imagine are within our power are rarely either. 

Especially when we kill innocent civilians including children in the process. 

Ironically, Afghanistan’s new Taliban rulers now find themselves in the Russian / American position of fighting a counterinsurgency, against the smaller, even more ruthless Islamic State-Khorasan, which it brands as a “terrorist group.” And they may find that they cannot defeat ISIS-K by force alone either, only by destroying its appeal to any appreciable number of Afghans. 


One popular right wing fairy tale is that there really was no more shooting war in Afghanistan, and that we could have held off the Taliban with just a small military presence that would suffer an “acceptable” level of “minimal” casualties, presumably ad infinitum. Among those advancing this view were former US Ambassador Ryan Crocker and the New York Times’ designated conservative columnist Bret Stephens. 

But in The Week, Joel Mathis wrote witheringly of this view:

There is something disturbing about the casual disregard for American lives underlying those statements: ‘Minimal’ casualties means only a few soldiers killed or maimed, only a few families back home devastated by the loss of their loved ones. Even if you accept that idea, Crocker and Stephens and the other hawks aren’t really arguing that the sacrifice is worth it, but rather that there won’t be any real sacrifice at all.

To be fair, I do understand the impulse here. In two previous blogs about Afghanistan (“Banging On a Window That Long Since Closed,” back in April, and “Now Ain’t the Time For Your Tears,” two weeks ago), I’ve mentioned what might be called “the Berlin option,” stating that I had favored it, with caveats. In short, this was the idea—popular in the military and intelligence communities, and advanced by people like the much-respected former NATO Supreme Commander Admiral (Ret.) James Stavridis—that a small cadre of US combat troops garrisoned in Kabul could stave off a total Taliban conquest by acting as a kind of tripwire, like the US Army’s old Berlin Brigade.

I want to be clear that I believe this approach might have eased our exit from Afghanistan, but could never have been a long term solution. After all, the Berlin Brigade analogy is not quite right. The Soviet army wasn’t closing in on the Kurfurstedamm in active combat over 45 years; it was holding fast in a permanent stalemate. 

By contrast, the status quo in Afghanistan was not tenable. The low level of active combat was due not to military success on our part, but to a deal with the Taliban to hold its fire on the promise that we would soon be gone. They surely would have ramped the bloodshed up dramatically if we’d changed our minds and decided to stay. (Even the Never Trump conservative Max Boot, who is otherwise supportive of Biden, reverted to his hawkish neo-conservatism and bought into the idea that all was well in Afghanistan until last week, fooled by the Taliban’s strategic pause while awaiting the US withdrawal.) In that scenario, a US combat brigade hunkered down in a Green Zone while Islamist insurgents slowly took over the rest of the country would not constitute victory, or even a draw, and could not be maintained indefinitely. 

In other words, there might have been marginally better ways to have gotten out of Afghanistan, but all of them were going to be ugly; the only question was one of degree. As the Carnegie Senior Fellow Stephen Wertheim says, “You don’t get to lose a war and expect the result to look like you’ve won it.”

And MAGA Nation was always going to blame Biden no matter what.  


To that end, tribalism is naturally at the core of much of this criticism of Biden.

As the Internet wit Jeff Tiedrich tweeted: “If you sat silent when Trump abandoned Syria and evacuated exactly zero of our Kurdish allies and handed over our military bases to Russia, kindly sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up and spare us your fake outrage over Afghanistan.” 

Even as the MAGA minions are shrieking that “this tragedy would never have happened under Trump!” it’s risible to think that the former guy would have done better in managing the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which is an article of faith in conservative America. You will be shocked to learn that, in order to traffic in this delusion, Trump’s pinwheel-eyed disciples are willfully ignoring a few pertinent facts. (So unlike them.) To wit:

Trump is the one who made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan so hastily, and has continually taken “credit’ for it, bragging as recently as June that Biden couldn’t reverse the decision if he wanted to. Trump made a deal with the Taliban last year to keep hostilities low while he ran for re-election, and gave them everything they wanted in exchange, including the release of more than 5000 Taliban fighters from prison. The Trump administration arranged the release from prison of the new Taliban leader, Abdul Ghani Baradar, even as Trump further inflamed the Islamic world—and thrilled his white nationalist followers—with his racist, xenophobic, and sectarian rhetoric and policies. Trump failed to reckon with the rise of other insurgent groups, like ISIS-K, reduced US troops levels incountry which allowed the Taliban to accelerate its gains, and slowed the screening process to bring Afghan refugees into the US, part of Stephen Miller’s racist campaign against any kind of immigration whatsoever. So much for the sanctimony about abandoning our allies. 

Indeed, Trump put this endgame in motion, arguably speeding the very collapse of the Afghan government that took almost everyone by surprise. Doug Lute, a former ambassador to NATO who led Afghanistan policy in the Bush and Obama administrations, told The New Yorker’s Robin Wright that after “Trump took office and vowed to leave Afghanistan, the Taliban told tribal leaders and local governments to make a choice—ally with them or stick with a corrupt central government that would soon no longer have US protection.” A slew of cease-fire arrangements-in-waiting commenced, paving the way for the Taliban to take Kabul months faster than US intelligence predicted. 

Arching over all of this, of course, Trump howled for four years about putting “America First” and ending wars exactly like this one—including this one by name, in fact—while the same supporters who are now eviscerating Joe Biden rubbed their hands raw applauding. 

Despite all that, Republicans would have us believe that somehow Trump would have carried out an efficient and effortless end to US involvement. To no one’s surprise, Trump himself feels no shame in making that same claim in between rounds of golf and cheeseburgers at Elba-Lago.

Back here on Planet Earth, however, there’s no evidence he could successfully manage a lemonade stand, let alone a strategic withdrawal under pressure. I refer you to his performance presiding over the deaths of some 400,000 Americans—more than we lost in all of World War II—through his jawdropping mismanagement of the novel coronavirus pandemic, the most horrendous display of criminal incompetence in US presidential history. 

But on the bright side, he did try to stage a violent coup d’etat here at home. So there’s that.


The dishonest, hypocritical, and vastly unwarranted criticisms of Biden over Afghanistan do not excuse the valid ones. 

Biden made some crucial errors in failing to anticipate the speed of the Afghan collapse (so did I, but I’m not president), the early stages of the pullout were terribly chaotic, and the delay in beginning the evacuation of US citizens and Afghan allies was a black mark on America’s honor that we will not soon live down (notwithstanding individual acts of great valor). If that smacks of cheap and unearned hindsight, on my part this time, I am only judging by the tales of credible figures on the ground—senior military personnel, State Department and other governmental officials, journalists, NGO personnel, and others—and the consensus they are reporting. 

In the New Yorker, David Rohde—who in 2009 spent seven months as a prisoner of the Taliban—wrote movingly of the anarchy of the US withdrawal, and above all the lack of a coherent system for trying to rescue the tens of thousands of Afghan civilians who had worked and fought alongside US. (The Taliban leader who headed the faction which abducted Rohde is now the security chief for all of Kabul.) That is perhaps the principal, indelible stain that Biden will have to bear, far more than delusions that there were things he could have done to “win” the war. 

But as I’ve written before, this is the difference between Biden supporters—and other sane Americans—and the Trump cult. We don’t believe our man is infallible. We don’t fly giant BIDEN flags from our vehicles as we blast down the highway (especially months after the election), or believe him when he says to trust him rather than our own eyes, or think he can redirect the path of a hurricane with a Sharpie. If I err on the side of defending him, it’s because he remains infinitely preferable to his opponents, who have shown us that they will consistently do all the wrong things in every possible way, and gleefully. 

While there is now Monday morning quarterbacking aplenty from the safety of home, even some of the people on the ground have had a hard time envisioning the details of a smoother exit. In another New Yorker piece, Robin Wright quoted a US official in Kabul as saying that “in the end, there was a consensus among the exhausted American military personnel and envoys that they just wanted out, even as they questioned the frantic chaos of how it was done.”

Among people who risked their lives to fulfill the ever-evolving directives, there was a final sorrow that the US campaign in Afghanistan would never have worked, whatever the commitment by one of the largest military coalitions ever assembled. “How were we going to fix it?” the official said. “It was time to cut our losses. People out there said, ‘We need to go—but not like this.’ The problem,” he added, “was that no one knew what better looked like.”

It is, of course, quite possible to accept that Biden has done a courageous and pragmatic thing in carrying out the US withdrawal from an unwinnable and unwise war, and at the same time believe that he botched his moral duty to stand up a working system to get out as many of those who helped us as possible. Life being a complex and non-Manichean thing, he may go down in history both for his remarkable political bravery and for the mismanagement that led to so many valiant people being left behind. 

Even so, he gets the benefit of the doubt, if only by virtue of the moral bankruptcy of those who oppose and excoriate him. 

Sullivan again:

Between these think-tank critics who helped create this nightmare in the first place, and Biden who fucked it up but actually did it, I’m with the president. 

(V)iolent regime collapse is always chaotic….There was never going to be a smooth or orderly transition; or any result that didn’t bring the religious fanatics back to power. Never. If the last few days do not persuade the pious think-tankers and Blob stenographers of that, they are a lost cause. The least they can do as we witness the end of their delusional disaster of two decades is to shut up.

I mean: how many of us were closely following developments in Afghanistan this spring? How many read any stories about the place? How many segments did CNN devote to Afghanistan in June and July? And how many of us who cheered the original invasion have been able to acknowledge candidly how deeply wrong we were since, and retain a modicum of humility and shame as we watch the inevitable end of our own hubristic dreams? 

Speaking of courage, the Washington Post recently carried a gutting story of Biden meeting with the families of the final thirteen American servicemembers to die in Afghanistan, as their remains were returned to Dover AFB in his native Delaware. 

Many of these family members were not Biden voters, and were understandably furious with him. Some of the angriest ones nevertheless came away with some grudging respect amid their pain. Others did not. Biden just had to stand there and take it. That is the burden of leadership, though some shirk it. (Trump never met in person with any Gold Star families, and spoke by phone or mail with only a few, though he did make a habit of insulting them.) 

The searing grief of these American family members is heartbreaking. But as commander in chief, Joe Biden has clearly asked himself whether he can in good conscience carry on with a futile war that will send still more silver coffins back to Dover for years to come. One might accept that—as even some of these grieving family members did—and yet still say that Biden partially mishandled the endgame. I am sure that people who were on the inside will, in the coming years, tell us the details that will allow history to judge.  


Perhaps the only good thing that can be said about the fall of Afghanistan is that its timing forces us to reckon with 9/11 in a more somber way, and not in what might otherwise have been an orgy of nationalistic self-pity on its 20th anniversary. 

Normally on this anniversary, I repost a piece I originally published in this blog in September 2017 called “The Voice of the Prophet,” about Rick Rescorla, a US Army officer who fought in Vietnam alongside my father, and three decades later, as head of security for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, saved the lives of some 3000 people in the World Trade Center before sacrificing his own life by going back into the building to look for stragglers shortly before it collapsed. I invite you to read it in honor of Rick and the other anonymous heroes of that terrible day. 

But the timing of the Afghan collapse compels me to focus more narrowly on some of the things Rick said in that 1998 interview I filmed with him on the 44th floor of the South Tower, three years before he gave his life there. (I cut that interview into a documentary short, also called The Voice of the Prophet, which was shown at Sundance 2002, and which can be seen online here.)

Rick began our interview with a scalding critique of the wrongheadedness of the Vietnam war in which he fought. (An Englishman by birth, he had fought in Cyprus and Rhodesia before emigrating to the US.) Turning to what was then the present, he went on to describe the context in which terrorism would arise in the 21st century, indicted the Gulf war and its oil-soaked motive, and condemned US involvement in Nicaragua and other places where we were “backing the wrong people” and propping up dictators for the benefit of corporate interests. He argued that if the US instead lived up to its professed values, the rest of the world would applaud and follow suit, eliminating much of the anti-Americanism that motivated problematic US military interventions in the first place.

He concluded with these words:

Military power is completely secondary to national will and national morality…. 

We in America have been very fortunate. We’ve been blessed with a wonderful country and everything, and wonderful resources, but don’t let us think that we can be the world’s top cop. (We are now) first in the front line troops fighting wars that we don’t understand, in places that the people in the United States have never heard of and can’t pronounce, let alone know why we’re there. And American blood is being spilled. 

Finally I would say that the residue of hatred this is creating in these foreign countries, where we’re going these things and we don’t think there are any repercussions—those people should think about the (1993) World Trade Center bombing and things of this nature. Things will come home to roost—and they may be twenty years later—of cavalier actions that we’re taking now out there…

We think we can go out there and be the world’s top cop? It’s impossible.

In closing, amid the politics surrounding the US exit from Afghanistan, let’s pause to note the incredible bravery and dedication of the members of the US Air Force’s Air Mobility Command—and the members of the other armed services and civilian US personnel assisting them—in carrying out one of the largest, most dangerous, and most remarkable airlifts in human history. Pictures emerged of C-17s loaded with as many as 800 passengers, challenging the laws of aerodynamics, and attesting to the skill and bravery of the American aircrews. (For perspective, the C-17 is designed to carry a total of combat-loaded 102 paratroopers. Even if you count each paratrooper and gear as two empty-handed people, that plane was still at quadruple capacity.)

Such is the individual heroism that attends even the most fucked up foreign policy shitshow.

We were right to go into Afghanistan in late 2001 to seek out the people who had attacked us, and those who gave them sanctuary. We were wrong to think we could occupy that country afterward and remake it in our image, largely for—let’s be honest—our own purposes. Unfortunately, that nationbuilding phase was integral to securing a lasting military victory, which speaks to the limits of military power alone.

A conundrum for sure.

Some of the US Marines killed in the recent ISIS-K suicide attack were infants when Al Qaeda attacked the US on September 11th. For some nations, twenty years of war is not unusual; in the US, however, we prefer quick victories, ideally with a minimum of American sacrifice. That may be in part because the foreign wars we fight are not usually against existential threats, let alone on our own soil. Our enemies, whether they are the Vietnamese or the Iraqis or the Afghans, often have more motivation to stand and fight. 

But in the end, no superpower—not the US nor any other—can simply impose its will by brute force alone if that brute force is not part of a broader, multi-pronged strategy of the kind we were never able to develop in Southwest Asia. (Nor Southeast Asia before it.)  When the US went into Afghanistan after 9/11, it was with a sense of national unity and a righteousness of purpose that I’ve rarely seen in my lifetime, at least not for genuinely honorable reasons. That we let that mission devolve into debacle while distracted with a separate, venal, and wholly unnecessary war next door was a crucial mistake, but sadly not the only one, or the last. 

The grim results were on display this week, made even worse by the shameless partisanship of American reactionaries. 

Twenty years is a long time to come away having learned less than nothing.  


Photo: A US Air Force C-17 flying out of Kabul in the final days of the US occupation, late August 2021

Now Ain’t the Time for Your Tears

In April, when Joe Biden announced that he would follow through with Donald Trump’s impulsive decision to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan, I wrote a blog about that decision called “Banging On a Window That Long Since Closed.” The gist of that piece was that the window for any kind of American “peace with honor” in Afghanistan, or even anything that could be lipsticked-onto-a pig to pass as such (if you squint), had long since slammed shut. As I wrote back then:

Victory in warfare is like art or pornography: it’s hard to define, but you know it when you see it. What we have in Afghanistan is not victory by any definition, though it’s pornographic in that plenty of people got fucked. 

So as we watch the sudden, unexpectedly rapid end of a failed military campaign that sprawled over twenty brutal years, here’s what I got right and what I got wrong back in April.

Right first, because everybody gets a trophy. 

I was correct that our cause in Afghanistan was lost and that the Taliban would regain power. That did not require the talents of Nostradamus, Kreskin, or even Madame Kavorca who reads palms in a storefront in between the vape shop and Ray’s Pizza on my street. I was correct that reaction to that collapse would cut across the usual ideological lines, and that the right wing would blame Biden no matter what, willfully ignoring Trump’s fingerprints on the mess. 

I will also take credit for identifying what remains the fundamental lesson at the core of this whole two-decade-long debacle: “The real lesson that the literal no-win situation in Afghanistan ought to teach us—again—is the limits of military power.”

Is that super duper obvious and not worth bragging about? Maybe so, but it’s a lesson the United States seems to have a lot of trouble learning. And by “United States” I mean not just our government but the American people as well.

Now here’s what I got wrong: 

I vastly underestimated how quickly Afghanistan would fall. In that I am in good company, along with the White House, the CIA, State Department, Pentagon, and the US press. (Reliable sources now report that the speed of that collapse is largely due to a slew of cease fire pacts—surrenders, if you will—pre-negotiated between the Taliban and government forces in various regions.)

I was also overly optimistic in terms of how much Biden would avoid the blowback, and how much he could piggyback on Trump’s decision as a means to get us out of an unwinnable and unpopular war without shouldering too much of the blame himself. I wrote: “Biden’s choice to withdraw under cover of Trump’s folly, even with all its drawbacks, may prove to be the most prudent available course.” 

So Madame Kavorca I’m not. More on that in a bit. 

What is most interesting now is the way that this tragedy should come as no great surprise, and what it says about us that it somehow still does. (To that end, I’m going to recycle some parts of that piece from April—the correct ones, updated where necessary—because they bear repeating.)


Many column inches are being devoted to what the US did wrong in Afghanistan over the course of twenty years, and what we could have done differently. It’s the same post-mortem that followed Vietnam. I can only touch here very briefly on some lowlights, but the silver lining of that long, terrible misadventure was supposed to be that we had learned our geopolitical lesson—that there would be “no more Vietnams.” But it’s clear that we did not learn that, because there have been.  

The veteran war correspondent Jon Lee Anderson, who covered the US invasion back in 2001, writes in The New Yorker that in Afghanistan “the Americans did not merely not learn from the mistakes of others; they did not learn from their own mistakes, committed a generation earlier, in Vietnam.”

The main errors were, first, to underestimate the adversaries and to presume that American technological superiority necessarily translated into mastery of the battlefield, and, second, to be culturally disdainful, rarely learning the languages or the customs of the local people. 

By the end of the first American decade in Afghanistan, it seemed evident that the Western counterinsurgency enterprise was doomed to fail, and not only because of the return of the Taliban in many rural parts of the country: the Americans and their NATO allies closed themselves off from Afghans in large regional bases, from which they operated in smaller units out of combat outposts, and distrust reigned between them and their putative Afghan comrades. 

Incredibly, as in Vietnam, we again rotated personnel so frequently that no institutional knowledge could be accrued; hence the famous axiom that we didn’t fight a twenty-year war, but a one-year war twenty times. 

We tried to build an Afghan military that looked like our own, ignoring the specifics of the situation, and equipped our partner forces with high tech Western weaponry that required a foreign infrastructure to maintain. 

While the Afghan air force and special forces were reportedly solid, the rank-and-file was never a force that could stand on its own, even after twenty years of military assistance. In part that is because it’s much harder to build a standing army than a small air force and an SOF capability, and in part because that was the warfighting paradigm the US favored, going all the way back to the Rumsfeld-championed “Revolution in Military Affairs” in that original 2001 invasion—unironically titled Operation Enduring Freedom. (America’s history of seeing airpower as a magic bullet is long and ugly, but has never resulted, on its own, in what is recognizable as victory.)

Above all, from the very beginning the US pursued a shortsighted vision in Afghanistan that was also reminiscent of Vietnam in that operational success was the metric of choice, untethered to its political ramifications. 

Here’s Professor Jason Dempsey of the Center for a New American Security, who served as a US Army infantry officer both in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as a civilian adviser to the Afghans, writing in the military affairs website War on the Rocks in 2019:

In the eyes of America’s uniformed leadership the United States was “winning militarily” in Afghanistan for the entirety of the conflict. For nearly 18 years, American military commanders declared solid progress as they rotated through Afghanistan. These positive assessments became so standard, and seemingly so out of line with reality, that in 2018 even the normally staid wrote (an article about) Gen. Mick Nicholson’s farewell remarks….titled “Outgoing US Commander Continues Tradition of Hailing Progress in Afghanistan.”

A headline worthy of The Onion.

Ultimately, again as in South Vietnam, the fundamental flaw in Afghanistan was that there was never a substantive, sustainable democratic government that could lead the country. As with Nixon-era “Vietnamization,” the Pentagon had been focused on standing up a national army capable of defeating the enemy on the battlefield without recognizing that that is but one part of a functioning, viable state: necessary but not sufficient. 

In Dempsey’s words, we were “building a military for a nation that did not exist.” Or as Anand Gopal, author of No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes, writes: “The US designed the Afghan state to meet Washington’s counterterrorism interests, not the interests of Afghans, and what we see today is the result.” 

Per Clausewitz’s most famous aphorism, war is the extension of politics by other means. In that regard, force alone is highly limited in what it can achieve in the interest of national objectives. Simply put, we could not bomb and shoot our way to democracy in Afghanistan, much as we tried.  

It also didn’t help that we were fighting a second war at the same time.


You want to blame someone for the fall of Afghanistan? Don’t blame Joe Biden. Don’t even blame Donald Trump.

Blame George W. Bush.

Way back in September 2001, the idea presented to the American people was that the Taliban was a ghastly, totalitarian junta with no appreciable public support, savagely oppressing the majority of Afghans, and that its forcible removal by the United States would allow democracy to flower in that country, with the help of postwar nationbuilding. (The United States’ culpability in creating the Taliban in the first place, during the 1979-89 Soviet war, is a separate story.)

The problem is that we didn’t carry through on the second half of the equation. After evicting the Taliban with shocking speed and relative ease in late 2001, we patted ourselves on the collective back and shifted our attention to invading Iraq for no apparent reason, at a time when we should have been pouring our energies into ensuring security, stability, and the painstaking establishment of nascent democracy in a place where the odds were stacked against all three. That postwar phase of the Afghan invasion was, in fact, the far more difficult and time-consuming part of the job—never the United States’ strong suit. By bollocksing it up as we did, we ceded whatever victory we had won, and gave the lie to notion that we were in the “postwar” phase at all. (In fact, subsequent events tarnished even the pride we took in the quick military victory in the first place. Some would say that the Taliban merely beat a strategic retreat, knowing that they could wait us out. And they did.)

In his speech Monday, President Biden made the argument that our mission in Afghanistan was complete ten years ago, when Al Qaeda was rendered combat-ineffective and Bin Laden was killed. “Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nationbuilding. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy. Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on American homeland.”

But it’s semantics. “Nationbuilding”— “pacification,” as they called it in Vietnam—was the necessary process of creating a state in Afghanistan formidable enough to prevent the Taliban or someone like them from regaining power, and the region from again becoming a haven for terrorism. That proved a lot harder than taking down the country in the first place. 

We had a very small window to secure our military foothold in Afghanistan and begin that difficult process. That window closed with a definitive slam when we irrationally invaded Iraq. Distracted with a separate, pointless, and totally avoidable quagmire, in Afghanistan we found ourselves allied with some of the most corrupt and incompetent elements available, while fighting a slow, grueling war of attrition against a very very patient and experienced enemy, and without the resources or bandwidth to win it. 

Over the centuries, Afghanistan has successfully resisted invasion by Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the Persians, the British, the Soviets, and now us. Not for nothing is it known as “the graveyard of empires.” It would have been plenty difficult to pacify Afghanistan even if it had had all our attention. While waging a second, disastrous war in another country, it was impossible.


As I wrote in April: 

An argument over whether we are prematurely pulling out of Afghanistan elides the bigger question of whether our current strategy there would ever work, no matter how long we stay, or if indeed any workable strategy even exists. If we had a such an approach, matters would be very different, but over twenty years of fighting we’ve never been able to develop one, suggesting that something is deeply wrong with the DNA of the entire endeavor.

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the US is propping up an unreliable regional partner that can’t stand on its own, while making no appreciable progress toward building a stable democracy that can. On balance, that argues for an end to the pursuit of a lost cause, even if it is only the lesser of two evils. 

Of course, when the Taliban regain power, which they almost inevitably will, there will be blame aplenty to go around, and it may be President Kamala Harris (or still Joe Biden, or maybe the odious Tom Cotton) who will have to deal with it. Then the fingerpointing and “who-shot-john” will really begin….what we in the Army used to call the desperate search for the low man on the chain of blame. 

But ugly as that will be, in and of itself, that fact does not justify staying a losing course.

In his speech Monday, President Biden affirmed this belief that the fundamental nature of our involvement in Afghanistan, at least as it stands circa 2021, is untenable: 

The events we’re seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, secure Afghanistan….What’s happening now could just as easily happen five years ago or 15 years in the future.

“If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending US military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision,” Biden argued, echoing former Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and others who have cited the speed with which the Afghan government collapsed as evidence of just how hollow it was. Given that, the President correctly pointed out that there would never be a good time to withdraw US forces. (He was also quite correct that “China and Russia, would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.”)

….(I)f Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that one year—one more year, five more years or 20 more years—that US military boots on the ground would have made any difference.

How many more American lives is it worth, how many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery? I’m clear on my answer. I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past, the mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of US forces. 

I cannot and will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another country’s civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss. This is not in our national security interest. It is not what the American people want. It is not what our troops who have sacrificed so much over the past two decades deserve. 

I’m onboard with all that. Some military people I know will be too, and some will not. 

But notwithstanding the corruption of various post-2001 Kabul regimes, The New Yorker’s Steve Coll is hard on the reductive notion that the Afghans themselves bear the blame for not getting their shit together: 

(T)o suggest that the Afghan people haven’t done their bit is a kind of blame-shifting that I think is not only unjustifiable but outrageous. 

The Afghans now have suffered generation after generation of not just continuous warfare but humanitarian crises, one after the other, and Americans have to remember that this wasn’t a civil war that the Afghans started among themselves that the rest of the world got sucked into. This situation was triggered by an outside invasion, initially by the Soviet Union, during the Cold War, and since then the country has been a battleground for regional and global powers seeking their own security by trying to militarily intervene in Afghanistan, whether it be the United States after 2001, the CIA in the nineteen-eighties, Pakistan through its support first for the mujahideen and later the Taliban, or Iran and its clients. 

To blame Afghans for not getting their act together in light of that history is just wrong.

So was there any sort of feasible middle course between total withdrawal and what the great Dexter Filkins dubbed “the forever war” (and he dubbed it that twelve years ago, in 2009), aimed at the unlikely goal of total destruction of the Taliban and establishment of Jeffersonian democracy?

In April I wrote that “If this were an American version of Brexit, I would cop to being on the side of ‘Remain’—with a severe qualifier.” The qualifier I had in mind was along the lines suggested by the former NATO SACEUR Admiral (Ret.) James Stavridis, who proposed that keeping even a battalion of US combat troops incountry might be a wise move, as a kind of tripwire to deter Taliban aggression, not unlike the role of the old Berlin Brigade (1961-94). 

In some ways that was not very different than the US approach over the past several years, as Coll writes:

The decisions of the Obama Administration, and the Trump Administration in the first couple of years, reflected a rare political consensus in the United States that there was a willingness to sustain a relatively small troop deployment and expenditures in Afghanistan for a path out that would not lead to what we are watching now. 

But even remaining with a small footprint and constrained ambitions is not a long term solution for a country where there is no appreciable homegrown counterweight to monsters like the Taliban. Even Coll, comparing the process to negotiations with FARC in Colombia, admits that that might have taken another twenty years. And America is not known for that kind of patience.


It is of course possible to believe that withdrawal from Afghanistan was the right thing to do, and also believe that we could have handled it, ya know….better. 

Per the Stavridis plan, Coll has posited that the real objection to the Biden-led withdrawal is not that we should have remained, but rather, the haste with which the administration “pulled the plug on what was not a large deployment, and one that was not incurring a lot of casualties.”

Writing in The Week, Joel Mathis quoted retired General (Ret.) Douglas E. Lute, who told The New York Times. “The puzzle for me is the absence of contingency planning. If everyone knew we were headed for the exits, why did we not have a plan over the past two years for making this work?” Mathis adds: “Even if you believe it was important for America to finally get out of Afghanistan, and even if you believe things were always going to end badly, the way we’ve chosen to leave has been ugly and harmful.”

The images of desperate Afghans trying to cling to the outside of a giant US Air Force C-17 Globemaster as it took off from Kabul airport inevitably recall the searing images of Vietnamese trying to get on Huey helicopters on the roof of the besieged US embassy in Saigon in April 1975, and of other American helicopters being pushed off the decks of ships like the USS Midway, and Kirk, and Okinawa to accommodate the incoming aircraft bearing those refugees. (Human remains were subsequently found in the wheel well of one C-17.)

These images do bring up some memories for me. 

In 1991, my parachute infantry regiment of the 82nd Airborne was laagered in southern Iraq, in the spot where we had halted our advance when the cease fire was announced. Forbidden to intervene, we watched helplessly as Saddam turned his surviving forces on his own people to suppress the discontent rising in his cities. Nightly we could hear the artillery being fired in nearby towns like An Nasiriyah. Dissidents and rebels came to our checkpoints with tales of atrocities by government troops, begging for asylum or pleading for help, which George H.W. Bush had promised as he encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. The rebels expressed their dismay that the United States now declined to assist them in their cause, and they weren’t comforted by nuanced explanations of geopolitics, the limits of the UN mandate, or realpolitik. Meanwhile our medics kept busy treating an increasing torrent of civilian casualties. Hysterical Iraqi mothers came to the aid station with bleeding and burned children, and the medics held the dying babies in their hands, bundled them onto helicopters, did everything they could, their best efforts only a wall of sand against a tidal wave of pestilence and death and destruction. It was gutting, but our orders were to stay out of the civil unrest. So we stood by helplessly as the remnants of the Republican Guard limped north to put down the Kurdish rebellion, passing right by US checkpoints manned by itchy-trigger-fingered paratroopers who could do nothing but watch. 

It’s a similarly helpless feeling now to watch that sort of thing happen again, writ large, and arguably far worse.

Afghanistan is now in the throes of a major humanitarian crisis that promises to continue for some time. As part of that, America has a moral responsibility to evacuate and resettle in the US as many of the Afghan nationals who worked alongside our forces as humanly possible: warriors, interpreters, officials, and others. The plight of these people, who are now being hunted like dogs by the country’s new rulers, is heartbreaking, and our duty to help them is both ethical and pragmatic. (In a gutting interview with The Bulwark, a US-trained Afghan pilot now in hiding pleaded: “Please don’t leave us behind. Please. We will be great Americans.”)

As Charlie Sykes says, it is “a fundamental test of our national honor and decency.”

The failure to organize this better—and sooner—is the most egregious failure that can rightly be laid on the Biden administration, and it has an obligation to un-fuck it most tic. We as American citizens have an obligation to demand it. It is particularly inexcusable as this nightmare was foreseen by many in the know. (George Packer offers a blistering indictment in The Atlantic.). 

The future for women and girls under this hateful medieval theocracy is especially grim, as we all know. But I’m not going to sit still for lectures on feminism from the GOP—a cult of personality to a serial sexual predator, for which misogyny is a core value, and which itself promotes a viciously anti-female domestic agenda under the guise of its own religious fundamentalism. As gutting as those images are—and the grisly thought of what the Taliban will do once back in power—they don’t change the calculus that there was and is no solution here that the US can impose at the point of a bayonet. 

The Afghan crisis will present many of the same refugee and immigration issues that plagued Europe during the Syrian war, and the US cannot justifiably shrug and turn away, even though a great many—especially on the right—would like to. As with the plight of Afghanistan’s women and girls, I’m not prepared to have the “Build the Wall” demographic lecture me about how Biden has forsaken these refugees, though mostly they are lobbying for him to do just that. The likes of Charlie Kirk are already claiming that Biden wanted Afghanistan to fall because he “wants a couple hundred thousand more Ilhan Omars to come into America to change the body politic permanently.” Tucker CarlsonJ.D.Vance, and Stephen Miller made similar points. 

So the GOP at once wants to blame Biden for abandoning our allies, while actively advocating to make that abandonment as awful as possible. 


On the subject of domestic repercussions, it’s beginning to look like I had it totally backward with my earlier assessment that Biden was cleverly using Trump as cover. In the end, Biden may get all the blame even though Trump initiated the pullout, a function of how fast and ugly the endgame was, and how willing Trump’s supporters are to believe any old nonsense he spews.

Again, Madame Kavorca’s market share seems secure. 

All but forgotten—and certainly ignored by the GOP—is the fact that the Trump administration made eye-popping, self-serving concessions to the Taliban to keep them from killing Americans ahead of Donald’s 2020 re-election bid, concessions that helped create the conditions Biden must now contend with. But we have long known that Trump & Co. are very keen to make side deals with our enemies. 

(That Trump deal is part of the reason Biden carried on with the planned withdrawal, knowing that the alternative might well be a renewed campaign of Taliban bloodshed that would target US troops, and make the current fiasco look like a church picnic.)

But I’m still not convinced it will hurt Biden that much, for that very same reason, which is how calcified partisan loyalty is in these United States. If a third of the country gives Biden absolutely no credit for getting us out of a pandemic and restarting the economy, are they going to despise him any more because of Afghanistan? Nothing he does will win him any points in MAGA World….but neither will he lose any, since the hate-o-meter is already pegged. 

Conversely, it’s hard to see many Democrats switching sides to Team Trump because Kabul fell, even as ugly as it was. Of course the GOP will hammer Biden over it, dishonestly, but how many Americans are not already hunkered down in their tribes and available to go over to the other side? Is there a significant sliver of swing voters, Never Trump foreign policy hawks, and others who will be so upset about Afghanistan that it will push them into the GOP camp? We shall see.

Meanwhile, I’m sure the Lincoln Project is already at work on an ad featuring Trump speaking at a rally just this past June, taking “credit” for the Afghanistan withdrawal, saying he “started the process” and that Biden “couldn’t stop it” even if he “wanted to.”

It goes without saying that the assertions this week by Donald Trump that if he were still in charge the withdrawal would have gone swimmingly are risible beyond belief. (He also promised Infrastructure Week would start soon, that he’d release his tax returns, and that he would unveil his Much-Better-Than-Obamacare health plan.) Naturally, Trump sycophants like Hugh Hewitt, with his lip prints firmly embossed on Donald’s butt cheeks, are promoting this “I alone can fix it” fairy tale, which no one who hasn’t been comatose since 1983 ought to swallow for a minute. Over four years Trump showed that he could not successfully manage a lemonade stand, let alone a strategic withdrawal under pressure from America’s longest war.  

But because I’m a masochist, I dipped into some right wing social media this week to see for myself what MAGA World is saying. Hold on to your hats: it’s astonishingly….hmmmm, what’s the word? 

Oh, yeah: deranged.

Everything was fantastic in Afghanistan while the great patriot and Christian warrior Donald Trump was in charge! It was only when Joe Biden took over that things went to hell! (Also: Trump can bench press 700 lbs, dunk from the top of the key, and make love to seven different Eastern European prostitutes at the same time!) The comments are riddled with willful distortions, inaccuracies, and outright lies, as you would expect from folks who believe Trump won the election, COVID is a hoax, and lizard people are running a secret Satanic sex ring. Most of it is just red-faced ranting about Joe and Kamala and libtards in general. 

You know: Trumpism.

I didn’t notice much concern for the war in Afghanistan in that community for the preceding two decades. On the contrary: it was all America First and “bring the troops home.” As David Frum writes in The Atlantic:

Over the next weeks, pro-Trump critics of Biden will astonish the world with their shamelessness, as they convert from attacks on endless wars to laments for the last helicopter out of Saigon. That shamelessness will prove more effective than it deserves to.

This is utterly predictable, of course, but it’s going to be the narrative that will last for generations in the fever swamp that is right wing America, like the notion that the press lost Vietnam, or that the only thing Nixon did wrong was get caught. But it has about as much connection to reality as a seminar hosted by Mike Lindell. It is tribalism at its worst, pure and simple.

Another sign that Afghanistan is just a maguffin in MAGA World’s regularly scheduled Two Minutes Hate is the vitriol directed at General Mark Milley, including calls for his resignation. Memo to America: The CJCS is not in the chain of command and has no operational role in the Afghanistan withdrawal. Demanding Milley resign is like calling for the surgeon general to quit because you’re mad at your family doctor. Needless to say, the bile here has more to do with GEN Milley’s slapdown of Matt Gaetzhis efforts to stop Trump’s coup d’etat, and his subsequent demonization by Tucker Carlson than anything rational. 


Redhatters venting on Facebook don’t merit a millisecond of our time, except anthropologically. But there are credentialed voices on the right who are promoting the same narrative, which is equally insidious, if not more so.   

In The Bulwark, the Iranian-born neoconservative writer Shay Khatiri offered a savage indictment of the horrors that, in his view, Biden has wrought by letting Afghanistan fall. Setting aside the question of who really bears the blame, those horrors are true enough. But there is no alternative universe in which the US, in 2021, could prevent that situation, short of some sort of permanent military occupation, which Mr. Khatiri overtly favors. Apart from that open-ended commitment, he does not offer much in the way of concrete proposals for what we ought to have done differently or should do going forward. He does weigh in with praise for Trump in ordering some feckless airstrikes on Syria in 2017 (adjective mine), which, like the headline itself—“Blame Biden for Afghanistan’s Return to the Dark Ages”—hints at the real agenda here, which may have more to do with elections in America than combat in Afghanistan.

A graduate student at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins (fitting for those who remember Nitze’s own record), Mr. Khatiri writes in his bio on his website that his “studies are centered around the application of military power and war to politics.” Yet one very much gets the feeling that he holds a pre-Vietnam War, counter-Clausewitzean vision of military power as an omnipotent force in all political matters. His cred takes a further hit when one sees in that bio that he counts Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams, and Scooter Libby among his mentors. 

These, of course, are some of the chief bozos who led us into Iraq. 

When it comes to the neo-cons, I was gonna say, “Have they no shame?” but I think by now we know very well that they do not. 


I’ve now rambled for 5000 words and not even scratched the surface of the strange and terrible saga of American involvement in Afghanistan. So I’ll wrap up by quoting a Mr. Robert Zimmerman of Hibbing, Minnesota, who wrote a song called “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” about another American cancer, wanton racial injustice. The hubris of American exceptionalism and the blind faith in military power is a different but equally toxic strain in our country, and his words apply there as well:

“Take the rag away from your face, now ain’t the time for your tears.”

You don’t get the Nobel Prize in Literature, as Mr. Zimmerman did, for being dim. The time for weeping over our strategic errors in Afghanistan was in the spring of 2003, when we pointlessly, stupidly invaded Iraq, and in the years that followed, when we continued to pursue a strategy that emulated our last great foreign policy debacle, in Southeast Asia. What we are witnessing now is only the all-but inevitable result. The recriminations will go on and on, but these expressions of shock, either genuinely naïve or Captain Renault-like, ring hollow. 

We have seen this movie before, and ought to have known how it ends.


Photo: Framegrab from smartphone video of desperate Afghans clinging to the exterior of a departing USAF C-17 as it takes off from Kabul airport, August 15, 2021.

The Insurrectionist On My Street

I live in a very progressive part of Brooklyn, and if you think that’s a redundancy (like hot water heater, or tuna fish, or ATM machine), I’ll take you on a walk through Bay Ridge or Crown Heights. 

My neighborhood is a racially, religiously, and economically diverse community that retains a fair amount of old school Brooklyn flavor, even as it admittedly embodies some of the most comic stereotypes about the borough post-gentrification. Ax-throwing bar? Check. Artisanal rubberband shop? Check. Vegan Peruvian fusion sushi? Check. Flyer for band seeking mandolin player (Influences: Tom Waits, Partridge Family, Megadeth….glut of guys respond to ad, all with the same handlebar mustache)? Check. 

Politically speaking, the community comes down hard on the Democratic side. Barack, Hillary, Bernie, and Biden bumper stickers are prevalent. It’s not a place where you’re apt to see any “Make America Great Again” or “All Lives Matter” signs in windows.

So it struck me as very odd when, a few years ago, I noticed a car regularly parked on my street with an Oath Keepers license plate. It was there so often that it was clear it belonged to one of my neighbors. 

At the time not many people were familiar with the organization, but I was, in part because it panders to the community I came from, which is the military and law enforcement. 

Since January 6th, of course, the whole country has learned who these guys are. 

The Oath Keepers are a far right wing extremist group founded in 2009, the same year the so-called Tea Party movement emerged in reaction to the election of the first Black US president. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes them thusly:

The core idea of the group is that its members vow to forever support the oaths they took on joining law enforcement or the military to defend the Constitution. But just as central is the group’s list of 10 “Orders We Will Not Obey,” a compendium of much-feared but entirely imaginary threats from the government—orders, for instance, to force Americans into concentration camps, confiscate their guns, or cooperate with foreign troops in the United States. 

These supposed threats are, in fact, part of the central conspiracy theory advocated by the antigovernment “Patriot” movement of which the Oath Keepers is a part—the baseless claim that the federal government plans to impose martial law, seize Americans’ weapons, force those who resist into concentration camps, and, ultimately, push the country into a one-world socialistic government known as the “New World Order.” In 2013, the group took on a more aggressive stance, announcing the planned formation of “Citizen Preservation” militias meant to defend Americans against the New World Order.

Understanding that, it’s no shock that on January 6, 2021, members of the Oath Keepers were prominent among the terrorists who stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to murder government officials and overturn the election in favor of Donald J. Trump. The notion that these malicious clowns are somehow “keeping their oaths” to defend the Constitution by acting as self-appointed brownshirts is the cruelest joke of all, but by now we ought to be used to living in this Kafka/Orwell/Idiocracy mashup.

Thirty-one Oath Keepers thus far have been charged with crimes related to the events of that day. The group’s involvement seems to be far more extensive, pre-meditated, and centrally coordinated than almost any other organization implicated in the attack.

And yet, that car and its pro-Insurrection license plate are still there on my Brooklyn street.

(The car has out-of-state plates from somewhere that, unlike New York, doesn’t have both front and back tags. Because, as my friend Aaron Naperstak notes, “Nothing says patriotism like insurance fraud.”) 

Hilariously, it’s a Prius, perhaps the most stereotypically bleeding heart liberal car on the American market. I guess Insurrectionists like getting good gas mileage too.

But if it was always disconcerting to have a neighbor sporting the emblem of a radical right wing militia, one keen to infiltrate and radicalize the armed forces and law enforcement communities, it is much more unnerving that it is still there after that organization has been exposed and publicized as openly seditious and violent, and complicit in an ongoing domestic insurgency.


I can’t say I was surprised when, earlier this spring, the Oath Keepers car was vandalized. It was keyed along the left side, and someone had scratched “FU” on the driver’s side door. 

It stayed that way for a while, unrepaired, until recently someone added a second “FU” right next to the first, in the same scratchiti “handwriting,” suggesting that it came from the same commentator. Subsequent to that, several big dents have lately appeared in its body, as if kicked. (Nothing implying a hammer or other Kubrickian “Dawn of Man “ implement of destruction—a measure of graduated, Herman Kahn-style response, perhaps. This is a liberal vandal, remember.)

I continue to wonder: how much more of this abuse will the owner take before he gets the message? 

Maybe the repairs are financially prohibitive. Maybe he is sticking to his, er, guns, as a show of defiance. Or maybe he has no idea why this is happening. 

Several people have suggested to me that the owner may have bought the car used, and didn’t understand what that Oath Keepers plate meant and didn’t bother to remove it. That strikes me as odd: Would you leave a random license plate on a car you bought, especially if you didn’t understand what it means? (Also working against that theory: the multiple radio antennae on the car, suggesting someone monitoring police frequencies, CB, etc. Very Oath Keeperish.)

But maybe. Human beings, I’ve noticed, do all kinds of weird shit. If so, the fella must be really confused about why he keeps getting vandalized. Perhaps someone should leave him a note. 

But all of this offers a teachable moment, as it was once popular to say; a chance for a thought experiment in freedom of expression, community, and the limits of comity.

So for the sake of argument, let’s turn the tables for a moment. 

If I lived in deep red Staten Island, or one of those other conservative Brooklyn communities that I mentioned, and kept getting my car keyed because I have a Biden/Harris sticker on it (which I do), I would be disgusted, and angry, and would rant about the need for respect for freedom of expression. I would go on at length, sanctimoniously. Might even write a blog about it.  

Likewise, if this were 2012, and my moderate Republican neighbor in San Francisco (they do exist) was getting her car vandalized because it had a Romney sticker on it, I would feel the same outrage, even though I was very much on Team Obama. We don’t cotton to mob rule in America. Tolerance for differing opinions is the bedrock of democracy.


But what if some white dude living in Harlem had a Klan sticker on his car? Should he expect that to go unnoticed or remarked upon? Should he expect his neighbors to smile and nod and say hi to him when he walked by, to invite him to block parties, and to solicit his participation in community board meetings? 

What about someone living in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood like Skokie, Illinois whose car (German, I presume) sports a swastika decal and the slogan 6MWE (“Six Million Wasn’t Enough”)? We still in the realm of reasonable political discourse that calls for civility and goodwill?

These are extreme examples, admittedly, but they speak to the issue. How much civility can you expect when you announce that you would like to see your neighbors disenfranchised, treated as second class citizens, or even rounded up and murdered? 

Conversely, should the community be expected to put up with it?

When it comes to domestic political protest, I don’t advocate violence—either against property, or, far worse, people. Absolutely not. The Oath Keepers and other Insurrectionists do advocate that, of course, so they have little standing to complain when it is employed against them. That does not open the door to an eye-for-an-eye free-for-all, or imply that we ought to descend to their level, but it does make their whinging pretty hard to take. Not to put too fine a point on it, but keying a car—even repeatedly—is a lot milder than storming the Capitol to lynch our lawmakers and overturn an election. 

We are not talking here about ordinary political differences, like my Biden and Romney examples. We are not talking about people who share a communal belief in Enlightenment ideals of representative democracy and whose differences dwell within that agreed upon ethos. We’re talking about a group of people who reject the fundamentals of democracy altogether, who want to seize and retain power by force, and oppress those groups whom they find distasteful.

The magnanimous refrain I’ve heard from some—including progressive friends who are equally opposed to this dude’s politics—has been: “What about this guy’s First Amendment rights?” A fair point. But when you publicly align yourself with an organization that openly advocates violent revolution, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, autocracy, or other such poisons, can you reasonably expect meek acquiescence from those whom you are openly declaring unworthy of the same respect? Freedom of speech is necessarily tempered by concerns for public safety, particularly when one advocates and incites violence, or worse, actively engages in it, as the Oath Keepers have done.  

Funny how those who demand civility often have a truncheon gripped in the hand that they are hiding behind their back.

This was the whole crux of the media’s woeful inability to comprehend Trumpism when it emerged in 2015. Treating a terrorist movement that is an existential threat to our system of government by the same rules that you treat ordinary political players who act in good faith is exactly the kind of naivete that those terrorists hope to exploit. The US media has barely gotten better at it even after six years of practice. 


As a sidenote, it irks me that the Oath Keepers emblem shamelessly mimics the US Army Ranger tab in color and design. Right next to the Biden/Harris decal on my car I have an American flag—the idea of my friend Justin Schein, who gave me both stickers—as a reminder that Republicans and right wing assholes don’t own the Stars & Stripes, even though their ostentatious displays of it endeavor to make us think otherwise. (It’s gotten to the point where—tragically—like many people I know, when I see someone flying the flag I tend to be suspicious of their politics.) Next to my Biden and US flag decals, I have Airborne wings and the Ranger tab, which I sweated a bit to earn, a rebuke to the reactionary attempt to hijack the whole concept of patriotism, and a reminder that plenty of people who served this country have no truck with Trumpist scheisse.

It just so happens that this past weekend my wife and I picked our ten-year-old daughter up from sleepaway camp in upstate New York. The region where her camp is located is serious Trump country, and the number of TRUMP 2024: TAKE AMERICA BACK signs was chilling……to say nothing of the occasional house that sported not just one or two Trump signs (pikers!), but had been turned into gigantic Christmas-decoration-level shrines to the Donald. 

The mind reels. 

After we picked her up we treated our rollercoaster-crazy child to a visit to a Six Flags amusement park upstate. (I’ll pause here to note that the Six Flags brand, which originated outside Dallas, refers to the six national flags that have flown over the Lone Star state: those of Spain, France, Mexico, the independent Republic of Texas, the Stars and Stripes, and—lest we forget—the flag of the Confederacy. Fitting.) 

At the entrance to the park there was a sign that read “NO PROFANITY / NO OFFENSIVE CLOTHING.” So inside the park, what was I to make of the kindly grandfather in the electric wheelchair, cradling his infant grandchild while wearing a black t-shirt with huge lettering that read FUCK BIDEN? Does that not count as offensive, or profane, or obscene? Not in that community, I suppose. 

There were a great many other patrons in the park with hyper-patriotic (faux patriotic, I would say), quasi-Blue Lives Matter, and other right wing t-shirts and hats. Nearby, at a diner, I saw a guy with a star-spangled t-shirt bearing the legend “Just an Ordinary Dad….Trying Hard Not to Raise Liberals.” With him was his sweet little crewcut son, maybe four years old. Childhood is not predestination, but as Philip Larkin reminds us, that sort of thing doesn’t exactly bode well for that unfortunate kid. 

By contrast, there were but a handful of people of color among the visitors to that park that day, likely a function of the racial homogeneity of the region, but perhaps also a reflection of their desire not to be surrounded by people who so openly and proudly display their open hatred for them. And those haters do so, I hasten to add, without the slightest apparent fear of confrontation. Or shame.  

They would be in for a rude awakening if they were to park in my neighborhood.


The question of facing down Insurrectionists is not an academic one. As I have noted many times in this blog, echoing a chorus through the mediasphere, Trump’s self-coup may have failed, but Beer Hall Putsch-like, it has merely set the stage for the next attempt. 

The threat of violence from right wing radicals who reject Biden’s legitimacy remains dangerously high, as Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, writes, a threat that is connected to a whole range of other reactionary grievances. Already angry, spittle-spewing right wingers, enraged at being asked to wear a mask to help stop a deadly pandemic, have physically confronted public health officials and threatened bodily harm. (The Venn diagram of those who think Biden is not the legitimate president and those who think the COVID-19 vaccine is a government mind control plot is a near-perfect circle.)

And it is not just some lunatic fringe that is engaged in this gangstercrat effort to undermine democracy. Even as we speak, the Republican Party is attempting to seize power in defiance of the will of the majority through voter suppression and electoral subversion. That slow-burning guerrilla campaign, a form of what the US Army once called “low intensity conflict,” will only intensify as we lurch toward the midterms, when a Republican retaking of the House might be sufficient to throw this country into utter chaos even worse than late 2020 and early 2021. 

What this slow motion Republican coup d’etat bodes for the 2024 presidential election is even more terrifying, especially when we look back at how close we came to disaster last winter. 

In the Daily Kos, Laura Clawson writes:

Donald Trump isn’t just a sore loser. He isn’t even just a sore loser who indiscriminately lashed out and encouraged his supporters to riot. Donald Trump was at the head of an actual, methodical coup attempt last December and January, a fact that’s starting to draw more and more notice as details emerge.

There was “an actual, cognizable plan to overturn the election, an actual strategy to get Donald Trump declared the winner of the election, not just throwing stuff against the wall and tantrum tweeting and easily dismissed farkakte lawsuits,” MSNBC’s Chris Hayes said Thursday night. He added, “Now it’s clear that by late December, they had arrived at an actual plan in place they were trying to execute.”

Clawson goes on to explain how, in the interregnum between election day and the inauguration, Trump called his acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting deputy AG Richard Donoghue and pressured them to announce that the election was illegitimate. According to contemporaneous notes Rosen took, Trump told him: “Just say the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.” 

By now we ought not be shocked by revelations of anything Trump did, yet he continues to astound. 

The next day, December 27, at Trump’s direction, a Justice Department official named Jeffrey Clark drafted letters trying to get state officials to overturn the results of their states’ elections. Rosen and Donoghue refused to send those letters out, prompting Trump to consider firing Rosen and putting Clark in his place. As Clawson writes, “If that had happened, Clark could have sent out those letters, giving state-level Republicans the excuse they needed to trash the election results and put in new electors for Trump.”

(Bill Barr, on whom I’ve been very hard in these pages, had also refused to participate in the “Stop the Steal” con job, which is part of the reason Rosen was in that “acting” role in the first place. When a reprobate like Bill Barr thinks you’ve crossed an ethical line, watch out.)

Trump’s infamous call to Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger came soon after, on January 2, during which he pressured Raffensperger to “find 11,780 votes” that would swing the state into his column, or at least create a sufficiently useful shitshow he could exploit. (Clawson notes that on December 31 and January 3 phone calls were also “made [but not answered] from the White House to the Republican chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.”) Famously, Raffensperger’s refusal to cooperate is all that stopped that plan; had a more complaint bootlicker been in that job, Trump would have gotten his way. 

Since these latest revelations, Rosen has met with the Department of Justice inspector general, and spoken to the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than six hours. Donoghue has also agreed to testify, as have other DOJ officials. As Heather Cox Richardson notes, “What this means is that congressional investigating committees now have witnesses to Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.” What, if anything, Congress and Merrick Garland’s DOJ will do about it, remains to be seen. 

But we know this much: Clearly, Trump’s strategy was to generate enough doubt and disinformation that he could throw the election into chaos and have a plausible chance of getting Republican lawmakers to refuse to certify it. Not coincidentally, the January 6 mob attack—just four days after the Raffensperger call—was aimed at the same thing.

And he came damned close to pulling it off.

As many have noted, what are the odds that we will be so lucky next time? If our system depends on the integrity of just a few random Republican officeholders in key positions in a handful of swing states—people whom the GOP is now methodically removing and replacing with loyal foot soldiers for that very reason—we are well and truly fucked.

The GOP-controlled Georgia legislature has since stripped Raffensperger of his power, and ensured that it, not some rogue official with an irritating sense of integrity, will be in place to make that call next time. Those Republican legislators also recently took steps to seize control of the Fulton County Board of Elections—which is to say, Atlanta—enabling them to remove board members they don’t like and replace them with their own minions, thus controlling the count in that otherwise overwhelmingly Democratic county, which accounts for about a fifth of all votes in the entire state.

If Republicans succeed in these efforts they won’t even need a Rosen or a Raffensperger to overturn the results of the next election, should it not go their way. Nor will there be any need for cosplaying Oath Keepers in tactical gear to storm the Capitol. Because the Republicans will have already put the fix in upstream.


Which brings us back to Brooklyn. 

Someone openly advertising their support for the violent overthrow of the US government is no small thing, especially when they are not some rando outlier but part of a very real and very dangerous national movement that commands the loyalty of tens of millions. 

Of course, every redneck flying the rebel flag is gleefully siding with the traitors who took up arms against the USA 161 years ago. But we are not talking here about events in the distant past, even as flying the Stars & Bars has become a totem of present day seditionism as well as the Civil War-era variety.

One poll taken in the immediate aftermath of the attack on the Capitol put the percentage of Republicans who approved of the Insurrectionists’ actions at 45%. Six months later, even after the gory and horrifying details had emerged, another poll reported that 47% of Republican respondents still consider it “a legitimate protest.” 53% of Republicans think Biden is an illegitimate president and Trump actually won the election. 

And these folks have made it clear that they don’t put further violence off limits. On the contrary: they revel in it. Just dip into right wing talk radio, social media, and the reactionary press and you will find a tsunami of juvenile valorization of the idea that “patriots” must “take back our country,” by force if necessary. They relish the idea, for the same reason that they flocked to Trump in the first place: because it is an outlet for their white rage, because it speaks to their desperate need to feel heroic and connected to some larger purpose (might I suggest joining Habitat for Humanity instead?), and because it gives them permission to vent their irrational hatred of various fellow Americans on the basis of things like skin color and cloak it in the guise of something legit. 

Make no mistake, folks: We are still in the thick of the Insurrection, and January 6th was but one battle in a long campaign.

In the meantime I won’t shed any tears for the pro-coup d’etat Prius owner on my street. 


Photo: Oath Keeper outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on January 5, 2021, the night before the attempted coup at the Capitol. 

Credit: Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images. Originally published by NPR.

Piggy’s American Adventure

A few weeks ago, apropos of Republican efforts to subvert fair elections in this country, I wrote in these pages about the rising danger of autocracy in the United States. 

File that under “dog bites man.” That has been a running theme in this blog for the entire four years of its existence.

And it is not merely the danger itself but its source on which I am fond of harping, which is to say: the extent to which tens of millions of Americans wholly support the authoritarian movement that is Trumpism, and how that strain in the national DNA—far more than one gaseous, orange-hued game show host-cum-tyrant manqué—represents the greatest threat to what we like to think of as “America.” 

By now it should be painfully clear that Trump and Trumpism would not have risen without the support of this swath of our countrymen: a minority, to be sure, but large enough to do serious damage. And it is that same dangerous minority that is now enabling the Republican Party to carry out its wantonly anti-democratic attempt to disenfranchise millions of Americans and install itself in permanent power in defiance of the will of the majority and of basic principles of representative government.

But in a recent piece in The New Yorker called “What We Get Wrong About America’s Crisis of Democracy” (re-printed from its original publication earlier this year), Adam Gopnik reminds us that this formulation of democracy-under-attack is actually backwards. 

He writes:

Lurking behind all of this is a faulty premise—that the descent into authoritarianism is what needs to be explained, when the reality is that . . . it always happens

The default condition of humankind is not to live in broadly egalitarian and stable democratic arrangements that get unsettled only when something happens to unsettle them. The default condition of humankind, traced across thousands of years of history, is some sort of autocracy.

He is quite correct of course. 

From tribal chieftains to the crowned heads of Europe to tin-pot despots in various ideological garb, authoritarians of one type or another have always dominated human governance. Indeed, that’s what makes the American experiment—still in its infancy at a mere 245 years old—so unique and inspiring. Most of human history is like Lord of the Flies, with the bulk of the species cast in the role of Piggy, fighting off the Jacks of the world. Even amid our pioneering national experiment in liberal democracy, and despite the chauvinism of flag-waving, Lee Greenwood-singing American exceptionalists, the United States is no different, and has always had to contend with this same dynamic. 

Gopnik again:

America itself has never had a particularly settled commitment to democratic, rational government. At a high point of national prosperity, long before manufacturing fell away or economic anxiety gripped the Middle West….a similar set of paranoid beliefs filled American minds and came perilously close to taking power. The intellectual forces behind Goldwater’s sudden rise thought that Eisenhower and JFK were agents, wittingly or otherwise, of the Communist conspiracy, and that American democracy was in a death match with enemies within as much as without. (Goldwater was, political genealogists will note, a ferocious admirer and defender of Joe McCarthy, whose counsel in all things conspiratorial was Roy Cohn, Donald Trump’s mentor.)

Goldwater was a less personally malevolent figure than Trump, and, yes, he lost his 1964 Presidential bid. But, in sweeping the Deep South, he set a victorious neo-Confederate pattern for the next four decades of American politics, including the so-called Reagan revolution. Nor were his forces naïvely libertarian. At the time, Goldwater’s ghostwriter Brent Bozell spoke approvingly of Franco’s post-Fascist Spain as spiritually far superior to decadent America, much as the highbrow Trumpites talk of the Christian regimes of Putin and Orbán.

To be clear-eyed about it, the US has always been a plutocracy, shot through with the cancer of racism to boot, and at best only tempered by the democratic mechanisms we revere (and a lot of idealism that we have only intermittently lived up to). Those democratic mechanisms require constant reinforcement, as they have frequently—if not constantly—been under assault from within as well as without.

(I’m speaking in terms of contemporary mores. We all know that the original form of American democracy enfranchised only white male landowners, with Black people not gaining the right to vote for almost another century, and women of all colors only within the lifetime of some living Americans. It may not have been fully autocratic, but it certainly was not egalitarian in the way that we define representative democracy today. The contemporary GOP seems keen to go back to that sort of system.)

It’s true, of course, that we have never devolved into a state of total jackbooted oppression approaching that of some other industrialized nations. Tom Wolfe once wrote mischievously about how the dark night of fascism was always said to be descending upon the US, yet somehow only ever managed to land in Europe. Fair enough. But the long tradition of liberal democracy in America, imperfect though it is, and perhaps only aspirational, is precisely what makes any kind of authoritarian in-roads on these shores so worrying. 


That authoritarianism has never taken hold here is more likely a lucky accident than a testament to any special virtue on our part. The enthusiasm with which those millions of Americans even now thrill to Trump’s hatemongering, eagerly accept his mendacity, and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge his manifold hypocrisies, failures, and criminal behavior bluntly gives the lie to such juvenile self-regard. 

In fact, much as we would like to think otherwise, there are some ways in which the US is especially vulnerable to an autocratic regime, though we have never flirted with it so openly as the past five years. Among these are parochialism, monolingualism, geographic isolation, the legacy of Puritanism, and above all, the pervasiveness of repressive and oppressive religiosity. 

In other words, America is indeed exceptional among industrialized nations and Western democracies…..just not in the positive way that we flatter ourselves to think. 

No other First World democracy has the number of guns per capita that we do (by a mile), or the bloody trail of gun violence

None incarcerates its citizenry to the appalling extent that we do. In that category, the US vastly outpaces even such garden spots as Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.

None has a healthcare system as deliberately Dickensian as ours, or that purposefully ties healthcare to employment in a capitalist-friendly form of almost feudal indentured servitude.

We are also a society whose political system can be held hostage by a small number of bad actors among our elected officials—the Senate filibuster being the prime example. As Peter Nicholas writes, also in The Atlantic, “In most democracies, a stubborn minority party cannot stop the majority from debating the nation’s worst problems, much less solving them. McConnell is one reason the United States remains an exception.”

When it comes to ways in which the US is an outlier among developed countries, we might also add vacations, sports, and the metric system.

The US also is, and long has been, rife with folks who believe in all kinds of batshit crazy conspiracy theories. In his book The Delusion of Crowds, William Bernstein notes that Americans are far more susceptible to wackadoodle conspiracy theory than almost any other industrialized nation, and cites the aforementioned religiosity as the reason why. That segment of the polis, and the reactionary belief system that animates it, is the very epitome of Richard Hofstadter’s “paranoid style,” a strain that has been in the American soul even before we were an independent, sovereign state. 

How bad is it? A new piece on cults in The New Yorker reports that “A survey published in May by the Public Religion Research Institute found that fifteen per cent of Americans subscribe to the central QAnon belief that the government is run by a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles and that twenty per cent believe that “there is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.”

So, yeah, pretty bad.

While these factors have not (yet) brought about a true autocracy in the US, they have conspired to make the US considerably more conservative than most of our fellow First World nations, and the nature of that conservatism more extreme. In my previous blog entry, “Suppression and Subversion” (June 30), I noted a recent piece in the Morning Consult which found that American conservatives skewed harder right than their counterparts in the British Commonwealth countries, with 26% of the US population overall qualifying as “highly right-wing authoritarian,” twice the percentage of Australia and Canada, the co-silver medalists.

In that same essay I also quoted Robert P. Jones, author of White Too Long: The Legacy of White Supremacy in American Christianity, who seconds Bernstein in arguing that, as with conspiracy theory, the crucial factor that sets the US apart is the prevalence of white evangelical Protestantism, which has what he calls “a theological proclivity toward authoritarianism.” In its most extreme form, Jones writes, that Protestantism “is fundamentally anti-democratic and theocratic”…..that is to say, it hews to a white nationalist, patriarchal, Christian supremacist worldview that favors a “strongman” style of leadership.

Both the Bernstein and Jones observations came from a piece in the Washington Post by Jennifer Rubin, who offered the blunt assessment that encapsulates all of this: “The truth about many in the GOP base (is) they prefer authoritarianism to democracy.” 

And we are seeing the toxic impact of that fact play out before our very eyes. 


Throughout the Trump administration, including the election of 2020 and its aftermath, we have seen myriad examples of right wing America’s willingness to go full bull goose neo-fascist. Many of these examples—like the kidnapping of children as matter of national policy, the establishment of a gulag archipelago along our southern border, or the desire to turn the US military against American citizens—were previously unthinkable.

But when it comes to the unthinkable, there may be no better or more vivid example of the autocratic strain in American society than the Insurrection of January 6th, and even more so, the Republican Party’s attempt to whitewash it in the six months since.

Because there has been so much disinformation surrounding it, let’s be clear about what happened, ICYMI: A bunch of Trump supporters, encouraged by the dude himself, tried to violently overturn the election, and the Republican Party has since decided that it’s totally cool with that. (“Nothing to see here folks, move along.”)  

Republicans are keen to compare the Insurrection to the BLM demonstrations of last summer, as if a violent attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of presidential power—fomented by the defeated head of state—is somehow equivalent to garden variety street protest, even those that involved scattered but limited property damage. But Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), one of the only sane Republicans left in office, made short work of that clumsy attempt at misdirection:

Some have concocted a counter-narrative to discredit this process on the grounds that we didn’t launch a similar investigation into the urban riots and looting last summer. I was called on to serve during the summer riots as an air national guardsman. I condemn those riots and the destruction of property that resulted. But not once, did I ever feel that the future of self-governance was threatened like I did on January 6th. There is a difference between breaking the law and rejecting the rule of law. Between a crime, even grave crimes, and a coup.

Based on my highly unscientific survey of right wing talk radio and other media, the alacrity with which Republicans are now setting their collective hair on fire over the House select committee suggests that they are REALLY worried about what is being aired there, as well they should be. An honest accounting of the events of that day in January—and the months and years that led up to it, and what has happened since—will reveal the bloody trail leading right to the GOP’s door. That’s why they’ve tried to block such an accounting at every turn. 

The moving testimony of Capitol Police officers last week painted a gut-wrenching portrait of brutal violence by Trump supporters, vile racism, and mind-bending irony (e.g., the beating of police officers with Blue Lives Matter flags, the signs that said “Jesus Is My Savior and Trump Is My President”). It was, as some have observed, as close to an “At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” moment as the modern Republican Party is likely to face.

Elaine Godfrey in The Atlantic:

This morning’s testimony (July 27) was the first time Americans have heard such a vivid and agonizing account from the front lines of the attack—the officers’ growing panic as the mob surrounded them, how the rioters called them “traitors” and threatened to kill them with their own guns, the realization that they might die right there on the marble steps of the Capitol. 

It was a stinging riposte to the grotesque Republican insistence that it was a “peaceful protest” by a “loving crowd” of “people who love this country” and who behaved like “normal tourists.” (Alternate explanation that somehow co-exists in the GOP narrative: it was a false flag operation by antifa.)

Godfrey notes that “just as striking as the officers’ testimony is Republican lawmakers’ refusal to engage with it. The GOP response has been to minimize or even scoff at what occurred.” That, of course, is merely a continuation of its response since the fateful day itself. The GOP’s current attempts at damage control consist largely of trying to ignore the hearings, claiming that the committee is partisan (after they rejected a fully bipartisan commission set up according to rules they demanded, then turned down when Democrats agreed), and risibly insisting that Nancy Pelosi, not Donald Trump, somehow is responsible for the Insurrection. (Yes, I remember when she exhorted the crowd to march on the Capitol and “stop the steal.”) 

Godfrey again:

But the GOP’s sweep-it-away approach will be difficult to sustain. According to Cheney, the select committee plans to investigate “every phone call, every conversation, every meeting leading up to, during, and after the attack,” which will keep the issue in the headlines for the coming weeks or months. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s decision to pull his appointees from the committee after Pelosi refused to seat Representatives Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana seems like it might have been a political miscalculation. Now the GOP has no one on the panel to counter or challenge the investigation. The only two Republicans on the panel are Trump detractors appointed by Pelosi—Cheney and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois—which will underscore that there are still members of the party who hold the former president and many of their colleagues responsible for the insurrection.”

To that end, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership cannily seem to be following the exact  strategy James Carville advised some months ago in an interview with Vox: Do not let the American people forget for even one moment the horrific events of January 6th, and just how horrific they were, and the Republican Party’s responsibility for them. 

And I don’t mean that in a partisan/gamesmanship way. I mean it in an “Are we gonna save our democracy or not?” way.

But in attempting to rewrite the history of January 6th, many Republicans want to go much further than even the notion that it was a church picnic that just happened to get a little rowdy. In their version, the people who stormed the Capitol (terrorists, as Capitol Police officer Daniel Hodges correctly described them, by the dictionary definition) were not just misguided or a little rambunctious, but actual heroes

We all knew that was where this was heading, right?

Among those promoting this Bizarro World vision—surprise!—are such monstrous clowns as Matt Gaetz, Louie Gohmert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs, and Paul Gosar, the usual suspects, who held a farcical press conferenceto denounce the “mistreatment” of 1/6 insurrectionists who have been charged with crimes, people whom they want us to believe are “political prisoners.” (This of a piece with the effort to turn Ashlii Babbitt—who was shot dead while trying to break into a section of the Capitol with a group of people who wanted to hang Mike Pence—into some sort of martyred heroine.)

Should we be surprised that the GOP—and not just these cretins but the so-called leadership as well—has moved from merely downplaying the Insurrection, to denying it happened at all, to now actively championing the actions of those who stormed the Capitol to murder the Vice President and overturn the election? That is the Trumpian pattern for all scandals, and we are seeing it yet again.

Because at the end of the day, the modern Republican Party is not the party of law and order that it claims, or the great defender of “freedom” that it laughably poses as, or even an adherent to core democratic values at all. It is a party that thrills to precisely this kind of brownshirt-style political violence, and wants uncontested control of the levers of power, which it intends to gain by any means necessary. We are kidding ourselves, with potentially lethal consequences, if we are foolish enough to think otherwise.


Recognizing that democracy is the exception and not the rule doesn’t make the struggle against autocracy any easier. It may, however, alter the way we view that struggle, and the means and methods we use to wage it. 

(The fight also may get a little easier if Republicans continue to commit suicide-by-COVID-19 in massive numbers due to their anti-intellectualist, Know Nothing rejection of basic science.)

Gopnik again:

The way to shore up American democracy is to shore up American democracy—that is, to strengthen liberal institutions, in ways that are unglamorously specific and discouragingly minute. The task here is not so much to peer into our souls as to reduce the enormous democratic deficits under which the country labors, most notably an electoral landscape in which farmland tilts to power while city blocks are flattened. This means remedying manipulative redistricting while reforming the Electoral College and the Senate. Some of these things won’t be achievable, but all are worth pursuing—with the knowledge that, even if every box on our wonkish wish list were checked, no set-it-and-forget-it solution to democratic fragility would stand revealed. 

The only way to stave off another Trump is to recognize that it always happens. The temptation of anti-democratic cult politics is forever with us, and so is the work of fending it off.

So in addition to addressing gerrymandering and the Electoral College (good luck!), what does this Sisyphean task look like in practice, in our current moment?

Republican efforts at suppressing and subverting the vote must be resisted with every peaceful means at our disposal. (Note: I say “peaceful,” not “legal,” as non-violent civil disobedience may be required.)

The massive right wing disinformation machine must be called out and countered, difficult as that is when the experts tell us that even debunking disinformation tends to spread it

The Democratic Party must stick together, implement the Biden/Harris agenda, and in word and deed make it clear to the American people that there is only one political party in the United States that is in its right mind, and is actually accomplishing things that benefit the American people, from public health, to the economy, to the climate emergency, to returning us to a cogent foreign policy, to addressing inequality, to all the things that affect American families at the most visceral level.

And last but not least, the sins of the past, both recent and distant, must be reckoned with. That is why the right wing is so desperate to attack “critical race theory,” which is just a fancy way for them to deny that there is systemic racism in the USA. They might as well deny that the Earth is round. (Which some of them have done as well.) In that regard, their campaign is very much like their previous campaign against the teaching of Darwin’s Origin of Species and the theory of evolution. Though to be fair, some of them may not have completed the evolutionary process, so their skepticism is understandable.

In terms of accountability for more recent crimes, the House committee on January 6th is a start, as is the Manhattan DA’s investigation into—and indictment of—the Trump Organization and its former CFO Allen Weisselberg, along with the criminal investigation into Trump’s election tampering in Georgia, and other inquiries. One hopes those legal efforts will soon expand and broaden. In a piece called “Future Proofing the Presidency,” the editorial page of the Boston Globe recently called for the criminal prosecution of The Former Guy himself, stating, “Saving American democracy for the long run requires a clear condemnation of the Trump presidency. That means making clear that no one is above the law.”

Right on. Notwithstanding the risky precedent of prosecuting former heads of state (fyi: France is doing it right now), to let Trump off scot free—yet again— would send the worst possible signal to would-be future despots. And a failed coup that meets with no appreciable repercussions is just a dry run. 

Autocracy may be humankind’s default mode, but you best believe that doesn’t mean we have to put up with it. 


Illustration: Cover art for the 1980 edition of William Golding’s Lord of the Flies, by Barron Storey