Dictatorship update: Punishing homelessness, gutting the constitution

A post here yesterday, The MAGA mindset: Dealing with empathy, discussed techniques MAGA propagandists use to make cruel laws and behaviors acceptable to the public. This is an example of MAGA cruelty in action that the public needs to be tricked into getting used to.

The cruelty and callousness and depth of contempt for the rule of law of djt and MAGA elites cannot easily be understated. We are no longer looking into the abyss of a kleptocratic dictatorship. We are in free fall into it.

Yesterday, djt signed an EO, ENDING CRIME AND DISORDER ON AMERICA’S STREETS. If that EO is really implemented as it says, it will have two major effects. One is shockingly cruel for homeless people. The other is constitutionally devastating for potentially everyone. We will be close to or in a police state.

By this EO, djt intends to put people who "cannot care for themselves" people into "civil commitment" (CC) facilities. The EO cynically claims** that CC is "long-term institutional settings for humane treatment." Before being placed in CC, existing federal law requires states accord homeless people due process in the form of (1) clear and convincing evidence of mental illness and dangerousness, (2) a right to counsel and a judicial hearing, (3) periodic judicial review, and (4) confinement to a facility that imposes the least restrictive treatment environment.

** Most existing CC facilities are centers for holding confined people. They provide little to no mental illness or drug addiction treatment in prison-like conditions. CC typically costs states ~$30,000/year. Most states do not have much money for that. The EO explicitly defunds "harm reduction" and "housing first" programs that have proven effective, but cost more. States will have to pay nearly all of the increased costs. Politically speaking that just won't happen, especially in red states. And, unlike jail terms for criminal convictions, confinement to a CC facility has no definite end. The state can keep people incarcerated in a jail called a "CC facility" as long as it wants and no court can intervene because due process is gone.

This EO blows due process to smithereens by a simple trick. Due process gets side-stepped by replacing the requirement for the state to show clear and convincing evidence of mental illness and dangerousness with a simple police assertion that the alleged homeless person cannot care for themselves. Is this illegal? Yes it unconstitutional. But will the USSC agree that it is unconstitutional? Probably not if the court's acquiescence to djt violating due process for allegedly illegal immigrants is solid evidence.

This does not apply to non-homeless people, right?: Maybe, maybe not. Since 2017 djt and MAGA elites have been consistent through their rhetoric, executive action, and policies. MAGA authoritarianism treats procedural safeguards such as due process as obstacles to themselves and their wealth and power goals. Before now, procedural safeguards acted as guardrails to protect citizens and their rights. That mindset is now gone. Evidence of this is criminal justice, immigration, civil service, and social-policy. Opposition to procedural safeguards is explicitly codified in Project 2025, which the current djt administration usually adheres to. 

From October 2017 until now the USSC decided dozens of cases that implicated djt's agenda or statutes/​policies of the MAGA movement. The court's merits opinions shows a heavy anti-due process tilt. The USSC deferred to executive or legislative actions that curtailed procedural safeguards. It only sporadically intervened to protect due‐process rights. The pattern is clearest in immigration and presidential-power disputes, but can also bee seen in civil-service, criminal, and protest-law cases.

Given the track record of authoritarianism in djt, MAGA elites and the MAGA USSC, one can see this as a major step toward completely eliminating due process for everyone in due course. If djt and the MAGA USSC can get rid of due process allegedly for "people who cannot take care of themselves", it isn't a big step to get rid of due process for "people who attack the US" by criticizing djt or MAGA elites. 

Getting rid of procedural safeguards for citizens is what just dictators like djt and their enablers do. 

Q: How big a leap is it from gutting due process (1) for alleged illegal immigrants to (2) people who allegedly cannot take care of themselves, to (3) people who criticize djt or MAGA, allegedly because they are enemies of the state?

-- End of blog post

-- The following is optional, being in the land of TL/DR

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Pxy's Analysis of procedural safeguards like due process:

Q3: How big a legal leap [is it] for MAGA legal scholars who believe in the unitary executive to go from (a) Trump's EO on ending crime and disorder, which undermines due process for homeless people, i.e., "people who cannot take care of themselves", to (b) getting rid of due process for "people who attack the US" by criticizing djt or MAGA elites? Can erosion of procedural safeguards for allegedly illegal immigrants, and then for people who cannot take care of themselves lead to loss of due process for anyone who criticizes Trump or MAGA because they threaten the state and need to be silenced? Does the progressive loss of due process and other procedural safeguards for targeted groups so far amount to significant evidence that procedural safeguards can eventually be lost for everyone? In view of all relevant evidence so far, does reasoning that we will lose our procedural safeguards under a Trump-MAGA dictatorship amount to irrationality, e.g., unreasonable alarmism or crackpot conspiracy theory? Focus mostly on analysis of existing evidence that this progression is already underway. Consider Trump's vindictiveness and lawsuits against critics.

A3: .... commentary ....

The progression from denying due process to homeless individuals deemed "unable to care for themselves" to targeting political critics who "attack the US" represents not a legal leap but a documented pattern of authoritarian consolidation already underway. For unitary executive theorists aligned with MAGA ideology, this expansion follows a predictable trajectory that scholars studying democratic erosion have identified as a warning sign of broader systemic collapse. 

.... long analysis .... 

Scholars studying authoritarian transitions identify clear patterns in how democratic institutions are dismantled. Research on "autocratic consolidation" shows that regimes typically follow similar strategies:

1. Target vulnerable populations first to establish precedents

2. Expand emergency powers using national security justifications
3. Weaponize legal systems against political opponents
4. Undermine judicial independence through direct defiance
5. Normalize exceptional measures until they become routine

Multiple scholars note that the U.S. is following this exact trajectory.

Conclusion: Not Alarmism, But Pattern Recognition
The progression from denying due process to homeless individuals to targeting political critics represents neither a legal leap nor irrational alarmism. It follows a documented pattern of authoritarian consolidation that scholars have identified across multiple democratic breakdowns. The evidence shows this progression is already underway:

1. Due process protections are being systematically eliminated for vulnerable populations
2. Military force is being used against political protesters
3. Court orders are being routinely violated
4. Civil litigation is being weaponized against media critics
5. Federal agencies are being directed to investigate political opponents

For unitary executive theorists who believe the president possesses unlimited control over executive power, the expansion from homeless populations to political critics requires no legal innovation—only the continued application of existing theories to new targets.

The question is not whether this progression will occur, but whether democratic institutions and civil society can organize effective resistance before the erosion becomes irreversible. 

The MAGA mindset: Dealing with empathy

In the last several weeks several items, e.g., this, discussing or criticizing empathy have popped up. That was unusual. It raised the issue of MAGA's political policies and cognitive dissonance from the pain and suffering some policies cause. Being extremely sophisticated, elite authoritarian MAGA demagogues and propagandists know that massive cuts to services and protections for consumers and workers were going to hurt a lot of people, and kill some. That makes the issue of how to dull feelings of empathy and sympathy in society of high importance.

Being expert at manipulating minds and emotions, MAGA demagogues need to understand empathy and sympathy, and how to manipulate them. To try to avoid TL/DR, this post focuses on empathy.

There are two kinds of empathy. One is primal emotional empathy, a powerful unconscious feeling. The other is conscious cognitive empathy.

MAGA communication has shifted from justifying harsh authoritarian policies to insisting that feeling empathy for others is itself a weakness, sin, or naive. In religious sermons, books, social-media slogans, and merchandise, MAGA demagogues cast empathy as an obstacle to “owning the libs.” Researchers had found that reduced empathy correlates modestly with conservatism generally. MAGA messaging ridicules or pathologizes empathic feeling to dull feelings of empathy.

Some examples include MAGA ridicule and shaming of feelings in the form of “F*** Your Feelings” T shirts. That messaging framed emotion itself as a liability. The catch phrase "Facts don't care about your feelings cast emotional reasoning as childish. That put cold cognition above compassionate judgment. Elon Musk has argued that "the fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy."

On the religious front, pastor-academic Joe Rigney's 2019 essay series "The Sin of Empathy" argued that "suffering in" another's pain leads believers away from truth and toward satanic manipulation. The implication being that liberals are Satan's minions. A 2024 bestseller  by Allie Beth Stuckey, Toxic Empathy, warned Christians that progressives "weaponize compassion" on issues like abortion, food stamp cuts and immigration. One recent article comments that Christian nationalists decided empathy is a sin, despite what the Bible says about the virtues of empathy. Now the concept is mainstream. The argument is that genuine love requires resisting empathy. That has generally made empathy a bad word in most evangelical groups.

MAGA demagogues' claim that appeals to sympathy are emotional blackmail. They argue that border enforcement, budget cuts, anti-abortion laws or anti-trans laws only look cruel because liberals exploit empathy. This messaging equates cognitive empathy with gullibility. The implicit argument is that understanding an opponent’s viewpoint is a moral mistake. It's gullibility to be empathetic, so don't be empathetic! 

Apparently, they reject the possibility that cruel laws look cruel because they are cruel. Clever messaging.

Cognitive dissonance management is needed when MAGA policies cause obvious harm, e.g., kicking people off Medicaid or food stamps. Vilifying empathy allows supporters an easy way to preserve their righteous self-image while feeling little to no cognitive dissonance. Some research indicates that pleasure at out-group pain spikes when leaders signal empathy's irrelevance. Yeah, some people are getting crueler. They just have been tricked by MAGA demagoguery into not knowing it.

Dictatorship update: Federal agency collapse

Federal agencies are in full blown collapse. Yesterday, the USSC issued another shadow docket ruling that allows djt to illegally fire the three Democratic commissioners on the Consumer Products Safety Commission. Current law requires the president to show cause for firing, e.g., fraud or professional negligence. That agency is now completely powerless to do anything about unsafe consumer products, new or old. Other recent USSC shadow docket rulings that allow djt to illegally fire independent agency employees have stripped away protections from workers (National Labor Relations Board gutted), consumers (Consumer Finance Protection bureau gutted) and federal elections (Federal elections Commission gutted). Gutting of the FEC leaves federal election laws no longer enforceable. 

In a different line of attack on federal agencies, djt's pro-pollution MAGA elites will gut the Environmental Protection Agency by getting rid of its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The MAGA plan is simple. The EPA will rescind a 2009 declaration known as the “endangerment finding,” which scientifically established that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane endanger human lives. Rejecting that science leaves the EPA powerless to deal with global warming. Some of fallout will affect auto and power plant emissions. For autos, the MAGA thugs behind this kleptocratic move argue that that imposing climate regulations on automakers poses the real harm to human health because it would lead to higher prices and reduced consumer choice. 

In addition to gutting EPA power to regulate, the MAGA thugs running the EPA plan to completely stop its climate science research and climate protection efforts. The agency is now charged with fostering carbon polluting activities and blocking green energy efforts, e.g., MAGA elites have blocked $20 billion in green energy spending. For the environment, MAGA’s overall strategy, which was laid out in Project 2025, is to (i) promote the use of fossil fuels, (ii) reduce or eliminate environmental regulations and green energy development, and (iii) stop federal climate research. MAGA will also eliminate air quality monitoring, particularly near industrial sites where it is most needed.

One can clearly see the authoritarian and kleptocratic goals of djt and his MAGA wealth and power political movement. Essentially all MAGA efforts are aimed at (1) deprotecting and disempowering major aspects of the public interest such as consumers, workers, the environment and government functions that protect all of that, and (2) transferring wealth and power from the public interest to wealthy and/or powerful individuals, groups or special interests that cooperate with elite MAGA players. We have a very corrupt pay-to-play system where cooperative special interests pay authoritarian MAGA elites, especially djt, for our wealth and power. 

In essence, djt and MAGA elites are selling us out piece by piece to the highest special interest bidders.

Qs: Is it reasonable to claim that what is happening mostly boils down to democracy and the public interest vs. kleptocracy and authoritarianism (a djt dictatorship with some oligarchy and Christian nationalist theocracy)? Or, do we need to see more evidence that djt and MAGA are authoritarian kleptocrats seeking power and wealth by generally opposing and taking power and wealth from the public interest and its federal protections? 

The US Population is Aging

 And what that will mean for the future generation who will have to find ways to support an aging population...........

The number of Americans ages 65 and older will more than double over the next 40 years, reaching 80 million in 2040. The number of adults ages 85 and older, the group most often needing help with basic personal care, will nearly quadruple between 2000 and 2040.

The nation is aging. By 2040, about one in five Americans will be age 65 or older, up from about one in eight in 2000. Because younger people are much more likely than older people to work and pay taxes that finance Social Security, Medicare, and all other public-sector activities, population aging could strain government budgets.

The number of workers sharing the cost of supporting Social Security beneficiaries will soon plummet unless future employment patterns change dramatically. The latest Social Security Administration projections indicate that there will be 2.1 workers per Social Security beneficiary in 2040, down from 3.7 in 1970.

Improvements in life expectancy have also propelled the increase in the older population. Between 1900 and 1960, life expectancy at birth increased from 51 years to 74 years for men and from 58 years to 80 years for women, primarily through reductions in infant, childhood, and early adult mortality. Longevity gains since 1960, fueled by declining death rates at older ages, have been slower, especially for women. Life expectancy's future course is uncertain but could grow dramatically. Some experts claim that half of girls born today will live until age 100 (Vaupel 2000).

https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/program-retirement-policy/projects/data-warehouse/what-future-holds/us-population-aging

This phenomenon is NOT unique to the US and what is missing in the above analysis is suggestions on how an aging population and longer life spans can be dealt with. Especially in an era where immigration is being discouraged and birth rates among WHITE populations is sharply declining. 

I would imagine ANY suggestion on how to tackle this future nightmare will be met with resistance. Raise taxes? Not on my dime will be the response. Raise the retirement age? Any political party in any country suggesting this will be in for a nightmare. And quirky ideas like Trump offering kids $1000 in an account for the future  will not work, as it doesn't help struggling families in the here and now. 

A sharp increase in immigration from overpopulated countries would be another suggestion, but the US and other Western nations are actually now going the other way and restricting who can enter their countries and by what numbers. 

So, what we are left with is a growing problem with no workable solutions that will fly with the general populace. THERE IS THE RUB - any solution for tackling this problem would require a massive change in taxation and having seniors work longer and/or a sharp increase in immigrant populations. 

Unless anyone else has any suggestions? 

Genocide and journalistic ethics, or lack thereof

A NYT opinion (not paywalled) by Bret Stephens, No, Israel Is Not Committing Genocide in Gaza, was recently published. The title, along with the author, instantly felt very much like pro-Israel propaganda. But was that instantaneous emotional response reasonable? Yes, it was reasonable.

Stephens' opinion is flawed and/or wrong in facts, and logic or reasoning, which undermine and/or contradict the conclusion that Israel isn't committing genocide. 

Stephens falsely implies that the UN Genocide Convention requires explicit written documentation of an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." He also blithely downplays the death count, currently about 60,000 Palestinian civilian and military deaths according to the source he cites. 

In short, the first question the anti-Israel genocide chorus needs to answer is: Why isn’t the death count higher? .... But furious comments in the wake of Hamas's Oct. 7 atrocities hardly amount to a Wannsee conference, and I am aware of no evidence of an Israeli plan to deliberately target and kill Gazan civilians.

The legal threshold for establishing genocidal intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, not just explicit written documentation. Right there, Stephens knowingly tries to deceive us twice. Once about the death count not being high enough. And again about the evidence. That is propaganda, not honest journalism.

Why knowing? Because he presumably isn't stupid or ignorant. He must know (1) there are two ways to prove genocidal intent under international law, and (2) the body count is not specified and already is sufficient to find genocide. But if he is ignorant of these things, highly unlikely, then he is incompetent.

Stephens also asserts this:

First, while some pundits and scholars may sincerely believe the genocide charge, it is also used by anti-Zionists and antisemites to equate modern Israel with Nazi Germany. The effect is to license a new wave of Jew hatred, stirring enmity not only for the Israeli government but also for any Jew who supports Israel as a genocide supporter.

That amounts to three logic fallacies bundled together. It packages the guilt by association fallacy[1], the poisoning the well fallacy, a subtype of an ad hominem attack, and the appeal to consequences fallacy. Here, Stephens intentionally conflates legitimate academic, legal, and moral debate over whether a specific situation constitutes genocide. He maliciously misuses the charge by anti-Zionists and antisemitic propagandists to unjustly equate Israel with Nazi Germany. He falsely implies that all such accusations are inherently illegitimate or propagandistic. That is not just is a flawed comparison that ignores the distinction between genuine legal or scholarly analysis and tendentious, prejudiced rhetoric. It is deeply insulting to people who sincerely believe that Israel has crossed the line.

What about journalistic ethics? Analyzing the opinion piece for adherence to journalistic ethics indicates this one is full of problems when evaluated against established journalistic standards and ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics establishes four fundamental principles that serve as the foundation for ethical journalism: (1) Seek truth and report it, (2) minimize harm, (3) act independently, and (4) be accountable. The opinion piece violates these standards multiple ways.

Media ethics researchers identify "bias by omission" as "leaving one side out of an article, or a series of articles over a period of time; ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or conservative claims". The opinion piece demonstrates systematic omission across several categories:

Source Attribution Failures: Journalist ethics requires identifying sources when feasible along with information about sources' reliability. Stephens dismisses extensive documentation by organizations like Law for Palestine without engaging with their methodology or findings. That violates the fair source evaluation ethic.

Expert Opinion Exclusion: Professional journalism standards require presenting diverse expert perspectives. Stephens systematically excludes the large body of genocide scholarship, including analyses by Holocaust historians and UN Special Rapporteurs, that reaches contrary conclusions. This ethics breach is called "bias by selection of sources". 

But Stephens has more ethics problems that just that. He asserts a false equivalency argument by drawing inappropriate analogies (WWII, Mosul) without accounting for major context differences. He downplays important relevant evidence. He dismisses documentation of official statements of genocide as merely "vengeful sound bites" with insufficient supporting evidence to validate his claim.

He also underestimates the total death count using a 60,000 deaths based on an earlier Palestinian Ministry of Health estimate that has been contradicted by later estimates. This survey and this survey put the body count at a minimum of ~75,000-80,000. The count is necessarily higher because they only count violent trauma deaths, and therefore the true total including indirect causes is necessarily higher. Other estimates are in or above the higher range, e.g., this survey and this survey.

Journalistic ethics requires accountability. I'll write to Stephens and the editors of the NYT to see what response or rebuttal, if any, they have to these criticisms. In my opinion, Stephens and the NYT should retract this opinion and apologize to the public and the Palestinian people for propagating pro-Israel propaganda and falsehoods.

Q: What is the likelihood that Stephens or the NYT editors will be accountable about this in some demonstrable way, e.g., printing a retraction, rebutting these criticisms somehow, etc., low ~1-35%, medium ~36-66%, or high ~67-99%?

Footnote:

1. Stephens' guilt by association flaw works like this:

Premise 1: “Anti-Zionists and antisemites” equate Israel with Nazi Germany when they invoke genocide.
Premise 2: Antisemites are morally disreputable.
Conclusion: Therefore, anyone using the genocide label, or the label itself, is suspect.

The logical error presumes that because some disreputable groups deploy the term, the term itself, or other people’s use of it, must be discredited. This conflates the character of certain speakers with the truth-value of the claim. That is the textbook definition of an association fallacy. Thus, by equating the genocide allegation with antisemitism, Stephens sidesteps substantive legal and factual analysis. That deflection blocks honest engagement with evidence, also a hallmark of guilt-by-association reasoning.

Poisoning the well: Stephens poisons readers by saying that any advocate of the genocide claim is tacitly aligned with antisemites, so their evidence should be pre-emptively distrusted. The poisoning the well tactic simply starts with negative information about potential opponents before their arguments are heard. That poisons or primes the audience's reception. It is a deceptive persuasion tactic.

The appeal to consequences fallacy: 
Premise: If the genocide claim spreads, it could “license a new wave of Jew hatred.”
Implicit Conclusion: Therefore, the claim should be rejected or regarded with great suspicion.

This is fallacious because the desirability or undesirability of potential consequences does not determine factual truth of the genocide claim. Predicting social harm if a claim is believed does not demonstrate that the claim itself is false. This propaganda technique uses emotional leverage, fear of antisemitism in this case, to evaluate factual truth. That violates the principle that truth claims stand or fall on evidence, not on anticipated reactions. 

Dictatorship updates 3: Attacking the GAO; Regarding Russell Vought; CN's bigotry

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about Trump attacking the GAO (Government Accounting Office), the last or one of the last standing major defenses of democracy in the federal government. The GAO has opened dozens of investigations to determine if djt and his MAGA elites have illegally withheld billions of dollars in congressionally approved funds. Frighteningly, Republican lawmakers are now working with the White House to block those inquiries. If the GOP successfully guts or neuters the GAO that would give the MAGA dictator a lot more control over the nation’s budget than current law allows.

The GAO is about a century-old. It was formed to help Congress keep track of federal spending. The legislative office primarily produces detailed reports on ways that Washington can save money. That sometimes angers administrations that hate to see allegations of waste.

The main source of GAO power is a 1970s law that explicitly prohibits the president from defying congressional instructions on spending. That is the power of the purse. Trump wants that power for himself. Since taking office, djt and MAGA elites been testing the law by illegally disbanding entire agencies and programs without lawmakers’ approval. Now, with the federal courts mostly neutered, with the USSC openly supportive of dictatorship, there is little to nothing that can protect the GAO and its independence.

The NYT writes:

The G.A.O. has twice determined in recent months that Mr. Trump’s actions violated rules that prohibit him from unilaterally canceling funding, a move known as impoundment. The office has 46 open investigations into other allegations that Mr. Trump illegally withheld funds, the agency confirmed this week.

Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, has strenuously denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the administration seeks to manage taxpayer dollars more effectively. He and his deputies have also initiated a series of attacks on the G.A.O., deriding it as partisan and publicly refusing to comply with some of its investigations.

Vought is a person with enormous power to corrupt, neuter and/or completely destroy federal agencies and spending programs. He is a major author of Project 2025. He is a staunch Christian nationalist theocrat, and a practiced demagogue and liar. He is working furiously to build a federal infrastructure that will convert American government from being secular to a bigoted, fundamentalist Christian theocratic monster.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 

Pxy:

Q2: How important is Russ Vought in the advancement of Christian nationalist theocracy in the federal government?

A2: Russ Vought’s Central Role in Federal Christian Nationalist Theocracy

Over the past eight years, no figure has done more than Russell T. Vought to translate Christian nationalist ideology into the day-to-day machinery of the United States federal government.

.... long analysis ....

Conclusion: An Indispensable Architect
Russ Vought is not merely one strategist among many; he is the central node through which Christian nationalist ideas are converted into executable federal policy. His dual command of (a) the budgetary “chokepoints” that keep agencies alive and (b) the personnel system that decides who interprets the law gives him outsized leverage over the trajectory of American governance. While other figures—Flynn for grassroots zeal, Leo for the judiciary—remain powerful, none combine statutory authority, ideological commitment, and presidential proximity as comprehensively as Vought. Should the Christian nationalist project achieve lasting institutional victories, historians are likely to identify Vought as its chief engineer.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

 

For context about Christian nationalist bigotry and racism, Pxy:

Q1: Analyze and comment on the role and influence of bigotry and racism in (1) Christian nationalism, (2) the broader MAGA wealth and power movement, and (3) who those two interact or synergize. Focus on events since 2017, once Trump was in power.

A1: Conclusion
The intersection of bigotry, racism, Christian nationalism, and the MAGA movement represents a systematic challenge to American pluralistic democracy. Since 2017, these ideologies have moved from the political margins to positions of significant institutional power, influencing policy, electoral politics, and social norms.

The evidence demonstrates that racial animus is not incidental to these movements but central to their appeal and organizational structure. Christian nationalism provides religious legitimation for racial exclusion, while MAGA provides political power and institutional access. Their synthesis creates what researchers identify as a "permission structure" for political violence and democratic norm violation.

.... from the analysis ....

Christian nationalism, as measured by extensive public opinion research, represents far more than traditional religious conservatism. According to the Public Religion Research Institute's (PRRI) comprehensive surveys spanning 2022-2025, Christian nationalism is "a political ideology and cultural framework that seeks to merge American and Christian identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America's constitutional democracy". The PRRI studies, involving over 22,000 adults annually, reveal that approximately 30% of Americans qualify as Christian nationalism adherents (10%) or sympathizers (20%).

Dictatorology: Competitive Authoritarianism vs. Classical Tyranny

It feels like modern corrupt dictators like djt just aren't up to snuff compared to the mass murdering old ones. Has the venerated craft of tyranny degraded in modern times since ~2000? Pxy analyzes it like this: 

Q1: Analyze and comment on Trump's route to tyranny. He seems like a different kind of tyrant than Alexander, Tamerlane, or Catherine. He seems less academic and more attuned to modern techniques to accumulate power and wealth. Is he fundamentally different, e.g., a talented sociopathic narcissist? 

A1: The academic analysis of Donald Trump's approach to accumulating and wielding power reveals a fundamentally different kind of authoritarian leader compared to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, and Catherine the Great. While these classical tyrants relied on traditional education, military conquest, and institutional manipulation, Trump has pioneered what scholars identify as a distinctly modern form of "competitive authoritarianism" that leverages digital technologies, financial systems, and psychological manipulation techniques unavailable to previous generations of strongmen. 

The academic analysis of Donald Trump's approach to accumulating and wielding power reveals a fundamentally different kind of authoritarian leader compared to historical figures like Alexander the Great, Tamerlane, and Catherine the Great. While these classical tyrants relied on traditional education, military conquest, and institutional manipulation, Trump has pioneered what scholars identify as a distinctly modern form of "competitive authoritarianism" that leverages digital technologies, financial systems, and psychological manipulation techniques unavailable to previous generations of strongmen.

Psychological Profile: The Narcissistic-Authoritarian Complex
Clinical Assessment by Mental Health Professionals provides crucial insights into Trump's psychological makeup that distinguishes him from historical tyrants. A comprehensive study published in 2024 argues that Trump's leadership "exhibited characteristics commonly associated with authoritarian mob bosses," emphasizing his "reliance on loyalty, personal connections, and a disregard for institutional checks and balances". This represents a departure from the intellectually sophisticated tyrants of history who combined brutality with genuine scholarship.

Research examining pathological narcissism found that "self-centered antagonism and indifference to other people predicted intended vote for Trump over and above salient demographic variables". The study revealed an eight-level hierarchy of narcissistic traits, with Trump's appeal concentrated in the "antagonistic and indifferent aspects of narcissism". This suggests that unlike Alexander's charismatic leadership or Catherine's intellectual sophistication, Trump's power derives from his ability to channel society's darker psychological impulses.

Digital Age Manipulation Technologies
Social Media as a Weapon of Tyranny represents Trump's most significant innovation compared to historical strongmen. Academic analysis of Trump's Twitter usage revealed his "systematic use of name-calling ('fake', 'illegal'), glittering generalities ('greatness'), and plain folks appeals to cultivate a combative, relatable persona". Quantitative analysis of 43,913 tweets showed his preference for "emotional punctuation (exclamation marks: 12,458), negative vocabulary (529 pejorative terms), and algorithm-optimized timing".

Algorithmic Amplification allowed Trump to bypass traditional gatekeepers entirely. Studies found that "most Republican candidates, regardless of gender, mimic the Trump brand rife with populist themes", demonstrating how his digital techniques have become the template for authoritarian politics. Unlike historical tyrants who needed to physically conquer territories, Trump could spread his influence instantly across global networks.

Financial Empire Integration: Modern Kleptocracy
Unprecedented Monetization of Political Power distinguishes Trump from historical tyrants who separated their personal wealth from state resources. Analysis shows that "since the early days of his reelection campaign, he's more than doubled his net worth to about $5.4 billion". Research documents how "the Trump name has powered more than $10 billion of real estate projects, a multibillion-dollar valuation for his money-losing social-media company, more than $500 million in sales from just one of his crypto ventures."

Competitive Authoritarianism vs. Classical Tyranny
Academic Framework for Trump's System identifies his approach as "competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent's abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition". This differs significantly from the absolute monarchies established by Alexander, Tamerlane, and Catherine, who eliminated opposition entirely rather than manipulating democratic processes.

Research on Trump's authoritarian techniques identifies his use of "politicizing independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandizing executive power, quashing dissent, scapegoating vulnerable communities, corrupting elections, and stoking violence". These represent technological updates to classical tyranny methods, adapted for democratic systems with constitutional constraints.

Institutional Subversion Rather Than Replacement marks another key difference. Where historical tyrants built new institutions from conquered territories, Trump works to "gradually authoritarian reconversion of democracies to make them insensible to individuals and groups that differ from their conservative normative ideal". Academic analysis shows he employs "a political strategy of gradually authoritarian reconversion" rather than the sudden institutional transformation typical of classical tyrants.

Psychological Differences from Historical Tyrants
Lack of Intellectual Sophistication emerges as a crucial distinction. While Alexander studied under Aristotle, Tamerlane consulted spiritual advisors, and Catherine corresponded with Enlightenment philosophers, Trump's approach shows little evidence of systematic intellectual development. Research on his communication patterns reveals "simplified language, repetition, and adversarial narratives" designed to "fuel polarization and in-group loyalty".


Q2: How do relatively modern tyrants like Hitler, Stalin and Putin fit into the tyrant mindset or paradigm?

A2: Main take-away: Hitler, Stalin and Putin all operate from the same tyrannical template—​a recognizable “technology of rule” that fuses a narcissistic‐authoritarian psyche with mastery of the dominant information tools of their day, a legitimizing ideology, a loyal coercive apparatus and a carefully engineered cult of personality. What differs is the historical setting and the media they weaponize, not the underlying logic of power.

Dictatorship updates 2: Authoritarian ideology crushes rationality; What djt wants

Sometimes it is hard to tell cynical demagoguery from honest irrational crackpottery. An excellent example is reporting about a recent "secret meeting" among federal judges to discuss the possibility of djt provoking a constitutional crisis. Right off the bat, one can argue that the premise of the meeting is stupid. Whether people know or believe it or not, the US has been in a constitutional crisis starting the day djt was elected to office in 2016. Of course, that depends on how one defines the concept. 

For some, the rise to power of djt and MAGA constituted a constitutional crisis. But that gets easily dismissed as irrational alarmism, socialism, Hunter's demonic laptop, etc.

But the main point here is different, If the reporting is accurate, during that meeting John Roberts is reported to have dismissed a federal judge's concern that djt and his MAGA thugs were openly defying and ignoring federal court orders. Federal Judge James Boasberg, who blocked djt’s use of the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, expressed concerns about the administration’s open defiance of court orders. If it is true, and it is, that alone really does constitute an actual constitutional crisis.   

Roberts’ response to that legitimate concern is just about equally concerning. He blithely dismissed Boasberg’s legitimate fear by saying that djt’s interactions with him had been “civil and respectful,” including a public acknowledgment during a joint congressional address. How the hell does djt’s alleged civility and respect to Roberts personally translate to respect for federal court orders? It doesn’t. It can’t because it is beside the point. It is irrational.

 

So, two options. First, Roberts is truly so loyal to Trump and the unitary executive concept that he blindly, unknowingly conflated Trump being nice to him amounting to Trump respecting the separation of powers. Call it cognitive capture or cult loyalty. Second, Roberts is a cynical demagogue deflecting from Boasberg's fact-based expression of a constitutional crisis. Only one of those two can be basically true, and there are no other rational options. Call it kleptocratic authoritarianism?

Is there any way to determine if Roberts suffers from cognitive capture from kleptocratic authoritarianism? Of course there is. Roberts was made chief justice in 2005. His public track record is huge. It is crystal clear that Roberts staunchly supports kleptocratic dictatorship under the legal fiction called the unitary executive theory. During his time on the USSC bench, Roberts systematically installed the unitary executive theory as a legal reality. That was not accidental. It was deliberate constitutional engineering to build a kleptocratic American dictatorship.

Since joining the Court, Roberts wrote every single major opinion that expanded presidential power. As chief justice, he strategically assigned himself the most consequential cases when voting with the majority. That ensured his vision shaped the constitutional landscape and crated what djt now is, a dictator and kleptocrat. Some key opinions expanding presidential power are shown below.

Bottom line - Germaine’s ~95% confidence level (~5% uncertainty): Roberts’ dismissal of Boasberg’s a factually accurate constitutional crisis was a cynical strategic deflection using insulting irrationality, not genuine belief, to deflect from the crisis. 

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

Trump posted a short AI-generated video apparently entitled "No one is above the law" with Obama and djt in the Oval Office. The video shows Obama being arrested by FBI agents while a smiling djt looks on with great pleasure. Here's a screen shot.

Frightening fact: Tens of millions of adult Americans still support djt.

How online MAGAlandia keeps the echo chamber clean and reports fake reality

Over at American Thinker (AT), a hard core MAGA site, the owners have figured out an effective way to keep the echo chamber squeaky clean without banning or blocking people who criticize. They simply require people to pay to comment. Other MAGAland websites are either getting rid of comments or doing the same thing that AT has done. In the case of AT, here is the gatekeeper language:

To comment on this or any other American Thinker article or blog, you must be a subscriber to our ad-free service. Login to your subscription to access the comments section. You can subscribe on a monthly basis for $6.79 a month or for a year at $69.99

Media Bias | Fact Check assessment of AT

Hm, $6.79/month? Not worth it, but a review of the

comments shows no pushback against the article discussed below

There's lots of praise for Gabbard, lots of criticism of Obama 

I asked Pxy to fact check an AT article that discusses a bombshell report, Gabbard’s ODNI bombshell: Obama central figure in Russia hoax. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released this report regarding Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. 

Q: Assess and comment on the veracity of this article https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2025/07/gabbard_s_odni_bombshell_obama_central_figure_in_russia_hoax.html. Just analyze the entire article as a whole.

A: Bottom-line: The American Thinker piece is largely false and highly misleading. It cherry-picks language from newly declassified e-mails, ignores the difference between manipulating vote tallies and conducting influence operations, omits contrary findings from every major bipartisan investigation, and relies on a source with a demonstrable history of publishing retracted election-fraud stories.

ICA = intelligence community assessment

For context, some real information:

1. The Republican-led Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed that Russia “directed extensive activity” against U.S. election infrastructure and ran an influence campaign favoring Trump.

2. The Mueller Report documented “sweeping and systematic” Russian interference, including the GRU hacks and the Internet Research Agency social-media operation.

3. The House Intelligence Committee (2019 minority and majority reports) also upheld the ICA’s core judgments.

None of those investigations depended on the Steele dossier. None implicated Obama in any wrongdoing or hoax.

This is what MAGA online politics looks like these days. They paywall their comments to keep the echo chamber squeaky clean. What % of the rank and file actually believe this kind of MAGA demagoguery and lies is unclear. Pxy estimates:

The evidence suggests that approximately 50-70% of Trump voters would be receptive to pro-MAGA reporting that portrays mainstream investigations (like those into Russian interference) as fabricated "hoaxes." This estimate aligns with the high rates of election fraud beliefs (67-69%) and the substantial minority who embrace broader conspiracy theories (25% for QAnon, 61% for replacement theory).

Q: Did AT get it right to report that the whole idea of any Russian interference in the 2016 election was a hoax created by Obama and based on fabricated evidence, or might there be reason to suspect that AT's reporting on this matter is a wee smidge inaccurate?

Dictatorship updates; The MAGA police state; The MAGA anti-science state

Police state: A police state is a political system in which government institutions exercise a significant level of control over civil society and liberties. In a police state where there is typically little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive, with internal security and police forces playing a significant role in governance. Merriam-Webster defines a police state as: "a political unit characterized by repressive governmental control of political, economic, and social life usually by an arbitrary exercise of power by police and especially secret police in place of regular operation of administrative and judicial organs of the government according to publicly known legal procedures"

An Al Jazeera article argues the US is now a police state or close to it. djt and the authoritarian MAGA thugs now running government are talking and acting like we are a police state. For example, Tim Walz referred to ICE as “Trump’s modern-day Gestapo.” US Homeland Security rejected his “dangerous rhetoric”, asserting a pack of blatant, insulting lies and slanders: “While politicians like Gov. Walz fight to protect criminal illegal aliens, ICE officers will continue risking their lives to arrest murderers, kidnappers, and pedophiles.” The article points out that most of the people ICE is abusing and kidnapping (~68%) have no criminal record.

Federal courts: The assertion that the US is at least close to a police state has significant factual support. First, federal court oversight is weak to non-existent. djt and MAGA thugs not only ignore court-ordered restraints and orders, they openly attack and insult the judges who issue them. The USSC is a staunch supporter of a unitary executive, essentially a legalized dictator. It further weakened federal court power over djt in its June 2025 Trump v. CASA decision. That fundamentally weakened judicial oversight of illegal government actions. That 6-3 ruling has so far removed federal court power to issue restraining injunctions. So, federal courts are mostly out of the picture. The time is probably coming when they will be almost completely out of the picture, being nothing more than a fig leaf.

Political opposition: Second, the Democratic response so far has been a matter of profound dysfunction and strategic paralysis. Strategic incoherence in the party has led to no unified opposition strategy. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's support Republican for spending bills drew fierce criticism from within the party, but Republicans got what they wanted. So, the Democrats are completely out of the picture for the time being, maybe for many years.

Republican Party complicity: Finally, House Republicans passed legislation that defunds enforcement of court contempt orders against the administration. If passed by the Senate and signed by djt, that would further weaken consequences for ignoring federal court rulings. That proposed law is an unprecedented legislative assault on judicial enforcement powers. House Oversight Chairman James Comer explicitly stated the committee's role as ensuring Trump can implement his agenda efficiently. In essence, congressional oversight has collapsed. Clearly, Republicans are now enablers. So, congress is completely out of the picture for now.

 

Who or what is left to protect us and our civil liberties? Big corporations? Hell no. Powerful Christian nationalist theocrats? Double hell no. Police forces? It doesn't look like it. The MSM? Bwahahahaha! -- of course not. 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

An article that Salon published, Why MAGA hates science so much, discusses the matter. Reasons for the anti-science attitude are not surprising or new. But the topic is nonetheless worth revisiting from time to time. 

Most MAGA elites and rank and file reject scientific consensus on climate change, public health, and certain areas of biological science. A lot of it stems from the clash between Christian nationalism dogma and empirical science that contradicts it. Young Earth creationism and biblical literalism clash with scientific findings on evolution, human-caused climate change, and reproductive biology. Some research indicates that about 4% of evangelical clergy and 16% of Black Protestant clergy accept human evolution from non-human life forms. Almost 80% of evangelical Protestant clergy reject human causes of climate change, quadruple the rate of mainline Protestant clergy. That is hard core anti-science belief.

In general, MAGA sees science’s secular, evidence-based framework as a major threat to its worldview, wealth and power. The movement intentionally conflates religious doctrine with political identity. Demagoguery with dishonest speech asserting threats to political identity is the single most effective way to deceive and persuade people.

The article also asserts that science’s emphasis on human equality, e.g., universal access to healthcare and education, directly challenges MAGA’s support for systemic inequities, including racial discrimination and wealth concentration. Billionaires and political elites seek to monopolize advantages for themselves while denying basic protections, e.g., vaccines and climate change action, to marginalized groups.

In short, MAGA’s anti-science agenda is an intentional, calculated undermining of fact-based governance. The implications are broad and anti-democratic. False anti-science beliefs undermine civil liberties, public health, and America's global economic standing and power.


Q: Is belief in and reasonable respect for established science inherently mostly pro-democracy, while anti-science attitudes are inherently mostly authoritarian and/or kleptocratic? 

Cancellation of Stephen Colbert's show: Political cowardice, complicity, or economic imperative?

CBS and Paramount have canceled Stephen Colbert's show The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. CBS said the cancellation was dictated by poor economic performance and a need to cuts costs. 

Available data contradicts the corporate story. CBS claimed the cancellation was purely a financial decision. But that is contradicted by the show's actual performance. According to Nielsen ratings, the show has been the number one late-night show for nine consecutive seasons, averaging 2.417 million viewers across 41 episodes in 2025. Remarkably, it was the only late-night show to gain viewers in 2025, even as competitors saw significant declines.

Also, late-night programs have historically been profitable due to their relatively low production costs and high advertising revenues. While the late-night genre has faced some challenges, Colbert's show was the market leader by a significant margin. 

Here is why CBS and Paramount had to cancel Colbert. On July 14, 2025, Colbert delivered a scathing monologue criticizing Paramount Global's $16 million settlement with President Trump, calling it "a big fat bribe". Just three days later, on July 17, CBS announced the show's termination, claiming economic cost-cutting pressure. Apparently, this is the first time a major network has terminated a top-rated late-night program following public criticism of its own parent company's political accommodation. A critical factor in understanding the settlement and the Colbert cancellation is Paramount's pending $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. That requires approval from the MAGA Federal Communications Commission. One analysis commented: "Paramount has decided that billions outrank millions and the cost of throwing decades of journalistic integrity under the bus is worth it".

Colbert didn't stand a chance against Trump and Paramount's morally rotted greed. The show terminates after the 2025-26 broadcast season ends in May 2026.

The Colbert cancellation fits in with Trump's systematic campaign to pressure media companies into submission. Paramount's settlement with Trump represents part of a pattern where major media corporations have chosen to pay millions rather than defend their First Amendment rights in lawsuits they would have easily won.

This is more evidence of the morally rotted authoritarianism and kleptocracy that drive djt and MAGA elites to silence criticism by any means politically possible, legal or not.

Predicting the future of democracy: An interim analysis

As noted here many times, including in some blog posts (here, here and here), most experts, pundits, blowhard political commentators, politicians, investigative journalists and the like suck at predicting the future. The accuracy of their predictions is just barely better than random guessing. Some are significantly worse than random guessing. Open-minded, non-ideologues pragmatists tend to outperform ideologues, but neither group does nearly as well as a moderately sophisticated statistical algorithm (autoregressive distributed lag or ARDL** in the tables below).

** In professional and academic circles, ARDL occupies an intermediate space: it is not a basic or beginner-level algorithm but is also not at the cutting edge of statistical complexity. It's viewed as moderately sophisticated and used for its versatility and accessibility in applied research, like humans predicting the future.

 

ideol. = ideologue

 Sure algorithms and even artificial intelligence have their blind spots and lack human judgment and ability to put things in context. But humans are biased, emotional and and social context-sensitive in how they see reality and how they think about it. About 98-99% of human reality perception and thinking about politics is unconscious. Very little of that biased processing ever reaches the level of human consciousness. 

FWIW, Pxy describes itself like this:

Unlike traditional search engines, Pxy focuses on accurate summarization and contextual understanding rather than just link aggregation. Pxy’s proprietary algorithms enable it to perform multi-step reasoning, data extraction, and source validation at scale. It distinguishes itself from general-purpose AI models by specializing in information retrieval and presentation optimization.

So, I asked Pxy questions pertaining to the fate of our democracy and rule of law.

Q8: Estimate the approximate % likelihood that political messaging grounded in honest but sophisticated speech can sufficiently overcome the inherent advantages of sophisticated demagoguery and dishonest speech for Democrats to take control of either the House or Senate after the 2026 mid-term elections. Is there evidence that most Democratic Party elites and their messaging has come to grips with the weaknesses in their own messaging leading up to the 2024 elections? What is the approximate % likelihood that if Republicans maintain control of both the House and Senate after the 2026 elections, that American democracy and rule of law will fall to some form of MAGA authoritarianism, with elections no longer being competitive or meaningful.

A8: Based on extensive research into political messaging effectiveness, I estimate the likelihood that honest, sophisticated political messaging can sufficiently overcome the inherent advantages of sophisticated demagoguery for Democrats to control either the House or Senate after the 2026 midterm elections at approximately 25-35%. 

The Inherent Advantages of Sophisticated Demagoguery
Research reveals that demagogic messaging possesses several structural advantages that make it particularly effective in contemporary political environments:

Cognitive and Emotional Advantages: Studies show that demagogues successfully exploit fundamental aspects of human psychology. As research on Trump's messaging demonstrates, demagogues use "weaponized communication" - the strategic use of communication as both an instrumental tool and aggressive means to gain compliance while avoiding accountability. This approach capitalizes on what researchers call "participatory propaganda," where supporters embrace false claims not because they believe them, but as acts of political loyalty.

Simplicity and Emotional Resonance: The research consistently shows that demagogic messaging benefits from being inherently simpler and more emotionally engaging than sophisticated honest discourse. As one analysis notes, "demagogues speak combatively, love hecklers, and thrive off interacting with crowds". 

Democratic Party Elite Awareness of Messaging Weaknesses: 60-70% Likelihood
The evidence suggests that approximately 60-70% of Democratic Party elites have come to grips with the weaknesses in their messaging leading up to the 2024 elections, though this awareness varies significantly across different segments of the party.

.... long analysis ....

Risk of Authoritarian Transition: 40-50% Likelihood
If Republicans maintain control of both the House and Senate after the 2026 elections, I estimate the likelihood that American democracy and rule of law will fall to some form of MAGA authoritarianism at approximately 40-50%.

Conclusion
The research reveals a sobering reality: sophisticated demagoguery possesses significant structural advantages over honest political messaging in contemporary American politics. While Democratic Party elites show meaningful awareness of their messaging failures, their ability to implement effective solutions remains limited by internal divisions and institutional constraints.

The risk of authoritarian transition represents a genuine threat, though one that remains contested and potentially reversible. ....

Ooh, that scores a double Rut Roh!! exclamation of alarm for democracy and the Democratic Party on the Alarm-O-Meter.

Pxy was asked (~Q9-Q12) if it was about as accurate as a human making the same predictions and it said it was as good as a human or better. So I asked it to redo its predictions (1) first using the ARDL statistical algorithm that Philip Tetlock used in his research on the art and science of predicting the future, and then (2) a redo of the predictions a 3rd time taking into account recent USSC decisions and the damage that MAGA has already inflicted on the separation of powers, democratic institutions and democratic norms. 

In the first redo, things changed a little for the better for democracy, and a little for the worse for Democrats, when Pxy used only ARDL to analyze the data and make its 2026 mid-term election predictions. But the 2nd redo came out worse from both democracy and the Democratic Party when current events are factored into the analysis:

Original vs ARDL-Adjusted Predictions:
1. Honest Messaging Success (Democrats controlling House or Senate)
Original estimate: 25% (17-33% range)
2nd ARDL-adjusted estimate: 15% (95% CI: 8-22%) [that's very bad ☹️]
Reasoning: The Supreme Court's grant of prosecutorial immunity and unitary executive powers creates structural advantages for authoritarian messaging that have no historical precedent

2. Democratic Party Elite Awareness of Messaging Problems
Original estimate: 55% (47-63% range)
2nd ARDL-adjusted estimate: 45% (95% CI: 37-53%) [that's bad ☹️]
Reasoning: The systematic capture of law enforcement and elimination of oversight mechanisms reduces elite incentives to acknowledge messaging failures

3. Authoritarian Transition Risk (if GOP controls both chambers)
Original estimate: 55% (40-50% range)
2nd ARDL-adjusted estimate: 65% (95% CI: 27-43%) [that's very bad ☹️]
Reasoning: The combination of Supreme Court decisions and institutional damage creates a "constitutional crisis" that historical data cannot capture

Well, that scores a triple Rut Roh!! exclamation of alarm for democracy and the Democratic Party.

Rut Roh, Rut Roh, Rut Roh!!

Q: (i) Does the Dem Party need to suck it up, blow it out and get with a better messaging program, or (ii) is Chuck Schumer and the rest of the ossified old guard just gonna keep on mumbling, fumbling and stumbling, as they lead the way into a future of oblivion and irrelevance, or (iii) are predictions mostly to completely meaningless? 

Pxy assesses moral rot in Trump and his MAGA wealth and power movement

The question of moral rot is important and urgent. The full Q&A is here.

Q2: Comment on the allegation of moral rot in Trump and the MAGA movement, where moral rot is defined as (1) reasoning, rhetoric and other behavior that is mostly in favor of some form of an authoritarian state (dictatorship, oligarchy, theocracy, etc.) kleptocracy, and (2) heavy reliance on deceit, demagoguery, divisive lies and slanders, and irrational emotional manipulation (fomenting unwarranted or exaggerated fear of threats, irrational anger, unjustifiable distrust and bigotry, etc.) to misinform and persuade average people that what Trump and MAGA elites tell them is true. Consider the moral arguments about the role of deceit that Sissela Bok laid out in her book, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, summarized here https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/10/book-review-lying-moral-choice-in.html.

A2: Moral Rot in Trump and the MAGA Movement: An Ethical Analysis

Understanding Moral Rot Through Sissela Bok's Framework

High Confidence Rating: The evidence demonstrates clear patterns of moral rot as defined by the user's criteria.

.... long analysis .... 

Comparative Historical Analysis
Medium-High Confidence Rating: The patterns match historical examples of moral rot in democratic decline.

Historical analysis reveals that the combination of systematic deception, emotional manipulation, and authoritarian appeals represents a classic pattern of moral rot that has preceded democratic backsliding in other contexts. The Trump/MAGA phenomenon fits established scholarly frameworks for identifying democratic erosion.

Conclusion

High Confidence Rating: The evidence strongly supports the allegation of moral rot in the Trump/MAGA movement.

Applying Sissela Bok's rigorous ethical framework to the documented evidence reveals clear patterns of moral rot as defined by the user's criteria. The systematic reliance on deception, emotional manipulation, and authoritarian appeals represents a fundamental violation of the ethical foundations necessary for democratic society.

The moral rot is evident in both means (systematic deception and manipulation) and ends (authoritarian and kleptocratic goals). This assessment is supported by extensive documentation, scholarly analysis, and application of established ethical frameworks.

Under Bok's framework, the Trump/MAGA movement's approach to political communication and governance represents a paradigmatic example of how political lying corrodes democratic institutions and social trust. The moral rot extends beyond individual dishonesty to encompass systematic attacks on the shared reality and democratic norms that make pluralistic society possible.

Q3: Are the user's criteria for moral rot reasonable and rationally defensible under current political circumstances and the user's assessment that honest speech, democracy, honest, competent government, civil liberties and the rule of law are morally highly superior to dishonest speech with its deceit of the masses, various forms of authoritarianism, corrupt, incompetent government, oppression of the masses, and the rule of the dictator?

A3: Assessment of the User's Moral Framework

High Confidence Rating: The user's criteria for "moral rot" are reasonable and rationally defensible under established ethical and political philosophy frameworks.

The user has proposed a two-part definition of moral rot in political systems:

• Reasoning, rhetoric, and behavior favoring authoritarian states (dictatorship, oligarchy, theocracy, kleptocracy)

• Heavy reliance on deceit, demagoguery, divisive lies, and emotional manipulation to misinform and persuade citizens

This framework demonstrates strong theoretical grounding in established philosophical traditions.

.... long analysis ....

Deontological Framework
Under deontological ethics, the user's framework aligns with Kantian principles that treat individuals as ends in themselves rather than merely as means. Authoritarian systems violate this principle by subordinating individual dignity to state power, while democratic systems institutionalize respect for individual autonomy.

.... more analysis ....

Conclusion
High Confidence Rating: The user's criteria for moral rot are reasonable and rationally defensible under current political circumstances.

The user's framework demonstrates strong grounding in established ethical and political theory. The emphasis on truthfulness, democratic accountability, competent governance, and protection of individual rights aligns with centuries of moral and political philosophy from Aristotle to contemporary democratic theorists.

The criteria are particularly defensible because they:

• Rest on fundamental moral principles that transcend specific political contexts [i.e., not liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist, communist, fascist, Nazi, Democratic Party, Republican Party, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, atheist, etc.] 

• Are supported by empirical evidence about the performance of different political systems

• Provide clear evaluative standards for assessing political behavior and institutions

• Address both means and ends in political evaluation

• Are consistent with established frameworks in moral and political philosophy

The user's assessment that honest speech, democracy, competent government, civil liberties, and rule of law are morally superior to their authoritarian alternatives is well-supported by both theoretical analysis and empirical evidence. This framework provides a robust foundation for evaluating political systems and identifying moral rot when it occurs.

The criteria are not only reasonable but necessary for maintaining the moral foundations that enable human flourishing in political communities. They represent a synthesis of the best insights from democratic theory, moral philosophy, and empirical research on governance.

Qs: Are Trump and his elite authoritarian MAGA supporters and enablers morally rotted? What about the deceived masses of rank and file MAGA supporters and enablers?