MSM reporting on American authoritarianism and corruption failed us

Context

Today, MAGA demagoguery routinely still attacks the MSM as unreasonably harsh or irrational in criticizing Trump, MAGA elites and MAGA politics and policy. However, the reality is that the MSM has been far too lenient, forgiving and normalizing of what is roughly the opposite of normal. Within months after Trump came on the scene in 2016, it was obvious that the MSM did not have any idea of how to deal with Trump or his poisonous demagoguery. Now about 10 years later, the MSM still fails us. However, the reasons for continuing failure appear to have shifted significantly from mostly incompetence, ignorance, and disbelief in MAGA’s authoritarianism, to a more influential degree of (1) fear of Trump and MAGA retribution, and (2) complicity by sympathetic or intimidated corporate MSM ownership. Ignorance and incompetence are still factors, but the fear and corporate factors cannot now be dismissed as minor.

Assessing the MSM’s failure

The bottom line is that conventional MSM reporting usually conveys discrete facts accurately while producing a misleading overall picture. The core failure is fragmentation of information that is reported. Each firing, prosecution threat, act of court defiance, coercive deployment, attack on universities or press outlet, corrupt pardon, regulatory favor, divisive lie or slander, and unwarranted voting restriction get reported as a one-day story. When the separate events are related, the MSM rarely assembles the information into the recognizable authoritarian or kleptocratic moves. Actions and inactions by Trump, MAGA judges on the USSC, and MAGA politicians or elites in in congress and federal agencies have all worked to concentrate presidential power, disable oversight, punish opposition, and weaken or destroy independent pro-democracy and pro-public interest institutions.

Experts in democracy describe America as in a period of exceptionally rapid autocratization with a corresponding weakening of democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties and honest, transparent, competent governance. Steep deterioration in press freedom, impartial law enforcement, judicial independence, and protections against political punishment have all been documented.

MSM failures along the way have been repeated and important. The fragmentation rises from episodic reporting of individual actions. To help people understand what is going thematic framing would help reveal cumulative causation and systemic consequences of MAGA actions and policy. For example, the MSM seems to be allergic to any reporting about impacts on the flow of wealth and power arising from MAGA actions. In all or almost all instances, MAGA policy deprotects the public interest and the American people while releasing restraints on and empowering wealth elites and powerful corporate interests.

The overwhelming effect of Trump/MAGA governance has been to transfer wealth, governmental leverage, and legal protection upward from ordinary citizens and public institutions toward affluent households, corporations, politically connected industries, donors, and the presidency itself. Available quantitative estimates suggest that ~65–70% of benefits arising MAGA tax packages flows upward to elites and special interests. But based on MSM’s poor reporting, it is very hard to see or understand what Trump, MAGA elites and their major donors and supporters are doing. Coverage seldom follows wealth and power effects regarding who pays, who profits, who becomes politically deprotected, etc.

Other MSM failures include neutrality and “both-sides” reporting that inherently obscures asymmetries between ordinary partisan conduct and attacks on constitutional government. Election reporting routinely failed to identify or condemn election denial as a democratic threat. Horse-race framing of news substitutes polls, tactics, and political “wins” for policy effects. That reduces public knowledge and increases cynicism about politics generally. Sanewashing converts Trump’s incoherent rambling, threatening, or radical language into coherent policy prose; empirical research finds evidence of this selective translation. Euphemisms such as “norm-breaking”, “controversial”, “unorthodox”, all sanitize conduct more accurately described as authoritarian, corrupt, retaliatory, or lawless. Hard-news organizations remain reluctant to use “authoritarian” even though standard definitions fit.

Q: Is mainstream media’s central failure that, although its individual stories are usually accurate, the fragmentation of reporting about MAGA’s goals creates a profoundly misleading narrative that makes Trump and MAGA politics appear normal instead of the main part of coordinated democratic backsliding and authoritarian upward wealth-and-power redistribution?

Some info links:

Pre-Primary News Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Race: Trump’s Rise, Sanders’ Emergence, Clinton’s Struggle —  Media exposure is essential if a candidate is to rise in the polls. Absent a high poll standing, or upward momentum, it’s difficult for a candidate to raise money, win endorsements, or even secure a spot in the pre-primary debates.

News Coverage of the 2016 General Election: How the Press Failed the Voters

From fake news to enemy of the people: An anatomy of Trump’s tweets

Trump calls “fake news” the “enemy of the people”

‘Alarming deterioration’ of US press freedom under Trump, says Reporters Without Borders

Political Communication and Media Agenda-Setting

False equivalencies: Online activism from left to right

‘Horse race’ reporting of elections can harm voters, candidates, news outlets: What the research says

Did journalists ‘sanewash’ Donald Trump during the 2024 election campaign? An empirical analysis

Why journalists are reluctant to call Trump an authoritarian – and why that matters for democracy

Analysis of Tax Provisions in the House Reconciliation Bill: National and State Level Estimates

Congressional Budget Office: Distributional Effects of Public Law 119-21

Is “clear mind” politics the best way to do politics?

Context

At least as long as human civilizations have existed, politics has been significantly or mostly a battle for influencing enough of what minds perceive and how they think about it to get what proponents want. For example, shooting wars are usually preceded by collecting enough minds to willingly or grudgingly support a war. Wars with bullets, bombs and drones need minds sufficiently willing to be both fighters and the public supporters needed to sustain the fighting. Leaders who want to engage in wars, usually also engage in tactics to influence public perceptions of reality and threats. Such influencing includes creating false realities and threats to build public support for war.

Modern cognitive and social science make clear that when we are engaging with politics, unconscious bias, prejudices, tribe and group loyalties or identities, self-identity, self-esteem, moral values, and ideological belief are usually dominant in our perceptions of reality and thinking about it. When they are inconvenient or identity-threatening, facts, robust truths, and good faith sound reasoning are usually downplayed, denied or distorted by most people to some non-trivial extent. Our mostly unconscious minds and their traits tends to render what is inconvenient or threatening less so, often a lot less so. Our minds evolved to protect our identities and loyalties, even when it means denying reality or distorting into something it isn't.

That doesn't apply to just war. It applies to almost everything else where politics is involved, i.e., almost everything if not literally everything. People do not evaluate political information as detached reasoners. They unconsciously apply reality- and reason-distorting filters such as motivated reasoning, biases, and defense of identity. That generally strongly influences what evidence people accept and how they interpret it.

The clear mind

As used here, a clear mind for politics or clear-minded politics refers to a state of mind that humans can achieve to some extent. That state of mind can be called anti-biasing and anti-ideology. A clear mind does not refer to perfection in reasoning or perceptions of reality. It does not assert any universal moral values. No human can be completely free of their biases, moral values, self-identity, etc. That is not possible. Humans are not the Borg, Vulcans or computers. But what people can do to some variable extent is consciously try to be more influenced by facts, robust truths, and good faith sound reasoning, especially when they are inconvenient.

Where much, probably most, political irrationality, ill-will, oppression, cruelty, war and other bad outcomes arise is from the unconscious mind's fast but subtle battle to make what is real but inconvenient or threatening either (1) less inconvenient or threatening, or (2) not inconvenient or threatening at all, e.g., by denying reality or sound reasoning. Bending unruly reality and sound reason to fit with what is psychologically or socially comfortable is a major breeding ground for war, hate, bigotry, unwarranted distrust, crackpottery, lies, slanders, and irrational emotional manipulation. Arguably, that's the most important breeding ground.

In short, clear-minded politics is not about attaining perfect neutrality, perception, or rationality. The concept is just a humble effort to at least noticeably subject one’s own preferred conclusions to evidence and criticism, especially when doing so is uncomfortable. None of this is to state or imply that unconscious bias or irrationality is unique to one side or bad outcomes. It's everywhere, in everyone. No one can make the irrationality and messiness completely go away, but everyone can try to deal with it honestly in good faith.

The concept of clear-minded politics is not new. But the label "clear mind" or "clear-minded" appears to be possibly new. For example, Magnus Vinding's 2022 book Reasoned Politics points squarely at clear mind politics, but he doesn't use that label. Philip Tetlock's 2015 book, Superforecasting: The Art and science of Prediction, does two things. First, he documents the power of unconscious biases and identity to degenerate politics into irrationality. Second, he discovered a way to find the few people in a population who are naturally talented in doing clear-minded politics. He called those people superforecasters.

Tetlock's research identified key mental traits that allowed people to be clear-minded by tamping down their own biases, prejudices, identities, ideology, etc. -- superforecasters relied more heavily on facts, robust truths and sound reasoning than average people. In other words, clear-minded politics is possible to at least some extent. It is not a utopian fantasy.

How to put clear-minded politics into practice

As an example, my core political moral values are centered on defending and fighting for secular democracy, the secular rule of law, civil liberties and honest, transparent, pro-public interest government. Engaging with in that in a clear-minded way means laying out facts, robust truths and good faith sound reasoning. Providing at least some links to at least some of the main facts, true truths and sound reasoning relied on increases transparency by allowing anyone to easily assess asserted facts and reasoning. Anyone willing to read and consider what is written is then free to completely or partly accept or reject anything written or asserted.

Once people are in possession of clear mind politics content, they are completely free to not only assess and accept or reject some or all of the facts and reasoning for themselves, they will naturally assess, and accept or reject on the basis of their moral values, biases, social loyalties, self-identity, etc. There is always be disagreements. But with clear-minded politics mindsets, disagreements will be at least somewhat more influenced and constrained by the facts, truths, and reasoning than disagreements where other mindsets dominate. Other mindsets include liberalism, conservatism, capitalist, secular, White Supremacist (racist), populist, fascist, socialist, kleptocratic, autocratic, oligarchic, and theocratic, e.g., Christian nationalist theocratic.

Q1: Does evidence- and reason-based clear mind politics (with links to info sources) help create mental freedom for people to choose and decide for themselves what they believe, disbelieve or are unsure about, or is it better for people to let ideology, self-identity, tribe loyalty, etc. mostly shape perceptions of reality and reasoning by downplaying facts, truths, and sound reasoning?

Q2: About what % of Americans who engage in politics at least a little will claim that they do not base their politics mostly on facts, robust truths and sound reasoning, and instead they claim their politics is based mostly on lies, deceit, crackpottery, and/or irrational emotional manipulation, ~2%? More? Less?

Some info sources:

National Archives: Powers of Persuasion

Propaganda and the American Public

Motivated Reasoning in Political Judgment

Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts

 

Regarding what’s in rank & file MAGA minds

Trump's brand of governance: 

Blowing shit up

The core source of power that enables Trump and MAGA wealth and power politics is rank and file voters. Enough of them voted to give power to both Trump and MAGA politicians. Without those votes, Trump and MAGA elites would not be reaping the vast reward of their power to gain more wealth and power, mostly at our expense and the expense of the public interest.

Obviously, not mean every Trump or MAGA politician voter endorses every action they take Polling indicates that majorities oppose a lot of what Trump, MAGA officeholders, donors, and business allies have done or are getting as rewards for being MAGA supporters, funders and enablers. Without a sufficiently large voting coalition, Trump would not hold presidential authority and many MAGA-aligned politicians would be far less powerful and damaging to democracy and the rule of law.

Regarding the rule of law, Trump and MAGA elites have inflicted ghastly damage on it. Damage arises from various lines of attack. The attacks include (1) punishing lawyers for representing MAGA opponents, and (2) removing independent federal agency watchdogs who used to investigate government waste and abuse in defense of the public interest. Now the watchdogs look out to protect elites with their special interests in their quests for more wealth and power at our expense. When a president and allied political elites treat courts, lawyers, and fiscal oversight as enemies to be crushed, not limits to be obeyed, Americans lose protection from arbitrary authoritarian and kleptocratic power.

So what are they thinking?

Apparently most rank and file voters continue to support Trump and MAGA politicians primarily due to various combinations of (1) partisan identity and tribe loyalty, (2) distrust of allegedly opposing elitist institutions, (3) alleged threats to freedoms from the Democratic Party, liberalism, socialism and communism, and (4) some policy matters, e.g., immigration control. A significant portion of supporters see threats to democracy or white privilege as something they fear and want Trump and MAGA politics to defend.

In those minds, threats to democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties come from America’s political left and center, and from the Democratic Party, not from politics or politicians they support. Many Trump supporters identify election administration, alleged widespread election fraud, a hostile federal bureaucracy (a tyrannical socialist deep state), biased censorship of truth by platforms, illegal immigration with crime, snotty elite institutions, or Democratic control of government as core threats.

A small but maybe significantly growing group of voters who voted for Trump now claim to no longer support him as much, with some maybe not voting from him if he runs for office again in 2028. The reasons they give are largely materialistic, centering on the cost of living and Trump’s failure to deliver lower costs. Some turned from Trump because they see him as either (1) too weak on immigration, or (2) too aggressive on immigration. They tend to not see any significant to democracy, the rule of law or civil liberties from Trump or elite MAGA politics. A few defected from Trump over what they see as his dishonesty, cruelty, vindictiveness, self-dealing, erratic behavior, or his fixation on personal grievances and vengeance instead of worrying about governing. Also in the mix of defector reasons is Trump’s Iran war.

But in general, continuing support for Trump and the recent loss of some support are not mostly grounded in concerns about radical right American authoritarianism, kleptocracy or the three main flavors of pro-corruption tyranny now vying for power in the MAGA world, namely dictatorship, billionaire and corporate oligarchy, and deeply bigoted, cruel, aggressive Christian nationalist theocracy.

What’s the point here?

The main point is simple. Once Trump is gone, the aggrieved, angry mindsets, and crackpot conspiracies that enabled the existence of Trump and MAGA politics and power will still be there. If threats to democracy, the rule of law or civil liberties are perceived, they are believed to come from opposition to Trump, MAGA politicians and politics, and a belief that there really was a hostile deep state government that needed to be reigned in or completely obliterated.

Even if the Dems take control of the House and Senate in the 2026 elections, they will be unlikely to get anything significant done in service to the public interest. The MAGA party leadership is not going to become bipartisan, democratic, or public interest oriented. It will remain as elitist, corrupt and uncompromising as it possibly can with whatever power it has left. Essentially all of the old pro-public interest component of the GOP was RINO hunted out of power years ago. Now, the MAGA party is in power and those people will not give up their power in the public interest unless forced to do so.

Trump did not merely inherit a lot of false beliefs. He organized and politically intensified them to the point that MAGA arose from fragmented discontent, distrust, anger, fear, and latent bigotry and racism. He crystallized and weaponized that all of unhappiness with its attendant corruption, bigotry and nastiness into what MAGA is today.

Q: Who in the MAGA party, if anyone, has Trump’s level of charm and dark arts talent that can replace Trump and hold MAGA together after he is gone, e.g., Rubio, Vance, Don Jr., Melania, or anyone else, or will MAGA disintegrate into fragmented blocks of elitist authoritarian power?

Info sources:

Ahead of midterms, Republicans confront cooling support from young men over Trump policies

As Trump presidency enters second year, his voters share hopes – and concerns

Iran crisis tests Trump standing with young men who helped power 2024 win

Authoritarianism Among Trump Voters

How Americans view the “Deep State”

Approval of Trump on economy falls in new AP-NORC poll, as Iran war drives up prices 

Trump tries to build another shield to protect himself

Do you trust Trump or not?

Some sources have reported (link 1, link 2) that Trump wants to expand the scope of presidential privilege for communications that would allow him to keep secret a broader swath of his activities while in office. One report frames the new effort as Trump building a shield to protect himself from congressional investigations ahead of the 2026 mid-term elections. He obviously doesn’t want Dems investigating him if they get control of the House or Senate.

Trump claims that executive privilege (1) should be expanded to include communications with private, nongovernment advisers, and (2) limits imposed by the Presidential Records Act on what can be kept secret should be loosened or eliminated. The inherent importance of this is high. If a president can keep secret most or all of his dealings in office, Congress would have little to no ability to investigate presidential misconduct and crimes. The public record available after an administration ends would be pretty all that is flattering and little to nothing that isn’t.

Trump says expanded executive privilege is needed so presidents can receive candid, expert advice on decision-making from trusted private advisers without those conversations or the advisers’ identities being exposed through subpoenas or investigations. That raises the question of why now pursue sweeping formal opinion immediately before anticipated oversight fights with Dems? Trump’s timing here strongly supports the inference that the administration is preparing defenses against anticipated scrutiny.

Of course, if everything is kept secret, there is no way for the public, researchers, congress, law enforcement or the courts to determine if a meeting to get “expert advice on decision-making” is for the purpose of decision-making or how much the “expert” needs to pay Trump to get what they or their employers want. Secrecy hides criminality and treason just as well as it hides honest, good faith governance.

A fair and reasonable analysis

Given his track record, it is rational to believe that Trump wants to build a legal shield to (1) hide his corruption, (2) hide his betrayals of public trust and America’s interests, (3) protect his cronies, enablers, and donors, and (4) keep the public from seeing who and what is really influencing government policy and its goal of service to rich and powerful elites and their special interests before service to the public interest.

What Trump is trying to get is not normal executive privilege. It is an intentional strategy to erase records, hide private advisers, hide major donors, and make corruption harder or impossible to find and expose. When a president tries to destroy the paper trail and cloak private operators in secrecy, the point is not “candor.” The point is impunity.

So, we see the continuing Trump effort to build and protect his dictatorship and kleptocracy. Fewer records, means more secrecy, more corruption and loyalist power over federal institutions, and less to no accountability for the people who profit from power gained by corruption, In essence, Trump is trying to turn the presidency into a private protection racket for his benefit and the benefit of allied elites, corporations and major donors. Here, Trump is openly trying to use his power to corruptly enrich elites at the expense of the public interest using secrecy to hide and protect it what he is doing.

Q1: Is the main reason Trump wants expanded executive privilege now due mostly to (1) the prospect of the Dems taking control of the House after the 2026 midterm elections and investigating him for what he has done, or (2) since confidentiality for outside advisers has always been so indispensable for presidents, what the heck, why not expand privilege right, with the 2026 elections being just an innocent coincidence?

Q2: Do you mostly Trust Trump or not, and if so, on what evidence do you base your trust, e.g., he is going to make America great again, we won the war against Iran, or he tamed inflation and America is great again!?

Info sources:

Trump executive privilege memo could hamper Democrats if they win Congress

Trump Administration Claims Executive Privilege Over White House Conversations With Private Advisers

Applicability of Executive Privilege to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers — Executive privilege can apply to presidential communications with private advisers so long as the communications relate to official presidential decision-making, involve or reflect communications with the President or his direct advisers, and are confidential. (The DOJ, Trump’s personal legal defense team , definitely supports lots more secrecy)

Comparing Trump to Hitler

 

Propaganda is a truly terrible weapon in the hands of an expert. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1924

Hitler knew exactly what he was talking about regarding propaganda. Germaine, 2026

The idiots at the DoE

The loyalty of people working for Trump is truly blinding. In an attempt to kiss Trump’s ass, sycophants running his corrupted, incompetent Department of Education (DoE) posted a video the dim bulbs thought would please Trump. It backfired and the DoE boobs took the video down after they realized the gargantuan nature of their mistake.

Their mistake? The boobs compared Trump favorably to Hitler. An article by The New Republic, Education Department Seriously Posts Video Comparing Trump to Hitler, describes the mess. The DoE posted a propaganda video on X that favorably compared Trump to the brutal ferocity of Adolf Hitler. The post drew rapid backlash because it used a Darkest Hour clip where Winston Churchill warns that “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth”. In the video, that line referred to Hitler. A montage of man-stud Trump images followed the heat in tiger’s mouth comment.

The majestic man-stud Trump — he calls some people slobs

The DoE idiots paired the film clip with techno music, a montage of manly images of Trump, the caption “No one does it like us”, with a cute little tiger emoji. DoE staff intended the tiger imagery to portray Trump as muscular, powerful, intimidating stud-muffin. But those idiots failed to recognize the scene’s obvious Hitler context. Talk about gross incompetence, geez.

Well, at least the DoE idiots were right to say “No one does it like us”. That’s a serious understatement.

What about actual, serious, expert Trump-Hitler comparisons?

Obviously, some of us still have open minds. Some or most of us in the open-minded crew have some natural curiosity about the ongoing American catastrophe called Trump/MAGA. Welp, it turns out that over time expert comparisons of Trump to Hitler have made increasingly clear that Trump is a lot like Hitler in his brutal authoritarian mindset, cruelty, arrogance, corruption, and deep moral rot. Given the totality of the evidence in the public record, one can now confidently argue that in terms of mindset, arrogance, bigotry (including racism), cruelty, and moral rot, Trump is much more like Hitler than not.

We have a mini-Hitler on our hands. As one Peanut Gallery commenter observed, Compared him to Hitler, but with the understanding that it’s a compliment? Wow, that is fucking wild.

Trump called her a slob, she noticed hypocrisy

That is not to say or imply that Trump is operating concentration camps and carrying out mass murder of tens of thousands of people. But he clearly would like to if he could get away with it. Dead innocent people as collateral damage doesn’t faze him one iota. He’s just not yet in full dictator-murderer power like Hitler. Dog help us if he ever gets that kind of power.

Trump is clearly sensitive to how close he actually is to being another Hitler. He gets very pissed off when comparisons are made, even when the comparisons aren’t actually made. Trump just makes stuff up and goes to court with his moral rot and lies. For example, in a current defamation lawsuit against CNN, he whines to the USSC: Here, CNN made false factual accusations about President Donald J. Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election process, and embedded them in pernicious comparisons to Hitler’s and Goebbels’s use of the “Big Lie” in antisemitic Nazi propaganda.

Clearly, Trump is aware of Hitler comparisons and he doesn’t like it.

In short, Trump’s mindset and public conduct clearly shows his aggressive authoritarianism and personalist mindset much like Hitler’s. He demands personal loyalty, dehumanizes opponents and targets, employs nativist, bigoted and racist rhetoric, habitually lies, and delegitimizes elections and pro-democracy institutions. Like Hitler, he retaliates against real and perceived enemies. He uses his public power and trust for corrupt, personal and family advantage. That usually comes with detriment to the public interest, rule of law, or civil liberties. Those are not superficial similarities with Hitler. They constitute serious warning signs of anti-democratic rule and aggressive authoritarianism that drives Trump and MAGA politics and policy.

Q: If comparisons between Trump and Hitler are invalid or irrelevant, and the two are little to nothing alike, what evidence supports that?

Info sources:

The Weapons of Dictatorship: Terror and Propaganda

Holocaust Encyclopedia: Nazi Rule

The Nazi Party and Hitler’s rise to power

State of Deception: the Power of Nazi Propaganda — During a span of two decades, Nazi leaders showed the world bold new ways to use the weapon of propaganda. The Nazi Party’s advanced techniques influenced millions of Germans and other Europeans. Party members presented appealing visions of a New Order: a prosperous Europe led by Germany. At the same time, they demonized enemies, presenting them as threats to German society or western civilization.

The Symbolic Politics of Status in the MAGA Movement

Just another day in MAGAlandia

 

It's MAGA's fault

Nowadays, the news from MAGAlandia is overwhelmingly bad. A few routine reports exemplify the state of collapse the US is in now that we’ve attained the Golden Days of MAGA, or whatever the mess we’re in can be called.

False hopes about Meta

An ABC News report, Major changes coming to Meta after massive settlement, discusses an agreement by Meta (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) to pay up to $18 billion after multiple states sued, claiming the company’s social media platforms harm children. In New Mexico, a federal court ordered Meta to pay $567m for its failure to warn the public about dangers its social media platforms to children. The various reporting indicates that big, pro-public interest changes are coming to Meta.

The various reporting is very likely wrong. The fines might sound like a lot, but they’re not. For context, Meta’s latest financial results reported $61bn in revenue from April to June. That’s up 28% on the same period a year ago. What Meta will do is what any reasonable person in our deregulated capitalist system would expect them to do. The company will appeal decisions against it and make inconsequential cosmetic changes that the company can tout as huge improvements in the company’s toxic business operations.

Why make only cosmetic changes? Revenue and profit. Lots and lots of revenue and profit. Meta’s engagement-and-advertising model behind Instagram and Facebook is worth tens of billions annually. Meta won’t materially change that unless courts force it to change. Unfortunately, our federal courts have been corrupted by Trump and elite MAGA anti-regulation judges and dogma. All of that MAGA-stuff is vehemently anti-public interest and pro-allied special interest. We can therefore expect mostly meaningless hand-waving, crackpottery, and smoke and mirrors from the courts.

Public-interest changes that Meta might make will be structured to look substantial while minimizing damage to the company’s highly profitable business model and profits. For lots of huge, powerful companies like Meta, profits are far more important than public safety or damage to the public interest, including damage to democracy. In these Golden Days of MAGA, money talks, while damaged children and everything else that gets in the way walk. Some new protections for children, if any arise, will minimize damage to profits.

Hackers tinkering with critical water infrastructure

Consider, if you would, how your life might change if fresh water supplies and wastewater treatments were cut off for at least ~4 weeks. A news article, More than 100 water systems were hit in July cyberattacks, reports that Iranian hackers are playing with the controls of our fresh water and waste water treatment and supply systems. Toying with our water systems are just playful little test runs for a larger-scale attack. The hackers targeted water and wastewater facilities across at least a dozen states in July, including internet-exposed programmable logic controllers (PLCs).

Internet-exposed water systems in America’s Water and Wastewater Systems (WWS) Sector, commonly operate by PLCs connected directly to a cellular modem. Connecting PLCs directly to the internet obviously creates significant security risks. The fact that more than 100 internet-exposed water systems were hit in a single month points to a systemic vulnerability across the entire WWS sector. This is not just a series of isolated, unlucky targets.

FWIW, hackers can both change physical water treatment processes, and they can mislead facility operators into believing that water treatment processes are operating normally. Until it becomes clear that there has been an attack, hackers can deceive WWS operators.

MAGA does not take cybersecurity or public safety seriously

Trump and MAGA politics and policy are in power. They are therefore responsible for what happens on their watch.

We all know why state-supported Iranian hackers might be interested in toying with our WWS. Dealing a knockout blow to WWS in major urban areas is hard but not impossible. If our water systems go down for a month, or maybe even just 2 or 3 weeks, that could lead to major economic damage and tens of thousands of deaths. Bottled water might last a couple of days, or possibly a week. But failure of wastewater treatments will collapse sewage handling and treatment within a few days. Increasing numbers of toilets will stop working over time. For some people, it will probably feel like civilization collapse.

Oops, things got a bit out of hand!

Q1: Under MAGA politics and policy, cybersecurity is left voluntary and up to the private sector, but is that sufficient to protect our WWS and our personal safety?

Q2: Is the hack of 100 water systems evidence of the private sector doing a good job of cybersecurity and thus protection of public health and welfare, or is it evidence of capitalist private sector failure?

Q3: Should the burden should be on government and utilities to demonstrate adequate cybersecurity by independent testing, mandatory remediation, and adequately funded redundancy, or should the public just assume that a plan, an advisory, or a manual-operations are adequate to protect us?

Is most of Trump’s damage intentional?

Beginning at the end of Feb. 2025, Trump’s actions in office started to look personally significantly intentionally destructive. It didn’t feel like just incompetence causing unintended damage. If so, one could argue that there is nothing incompetent in destruction if what he is trying to do. Since then, the feeling of intentional destruction has grown continuously. But so far, I’ve found little reporting, analysis, or commentary focused on intentional destruction. In view of how important this would be if it were true, what I found so far is scattered and isolated, e.g., a politician, a commentator, a historian expert on fascism and authoritarianism, a liberal think tank, and a prominent business school.

A Raw Story article, Tanking economy spurs stunning conclusion from analyst: Trump’s doing it ‘deliberately’, again raises this point. The analyst, James Downie (a opinion journalist/commentator) discussed in that article argues that unlike ordinary presidential economic failures, many of the bad outcomes under Trump are the predictable results of his or his administration’s actions.

So far, Trump appears willing to impose large, foreseeable harms to institutions, targeted groups, international cooperation, and selected parts of the economy in pursuit of personal objectives such as personal power, political dominance, fomented symbolic conflict (culture war), or rewarding favored constituencies/donors.

In view of the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer a destructive intent. Trump was repeatedly warned about foreseeable, avoidable damages, but went ahead anyway. He repeatedly ignored warnings, rejected less destructive alternatives, and continued bad behavior even after the damage was real and obvious. That does not amount to mind-reading. It is just a normal evidence-based way drawing conclusions about purpose from Trump’s sustained pattern of destructive behavior.

Relevant evidence of Trump’s destructive intent includes (1) Trump’s statements of contempt for the targeted individuals or institutions, indifference to its beneficiaries, and sometimes open approval of the harm, (2) a repeated pattern of damaging choices that produce the same destructive effects, (3) clear warnings of damage beforehand from knowledgeable officials, affected institutions, courts, markets, or experts, (4) feasible alternatives that would achieve the stated goal with significantly less collateral damage, and (5) persistence or escalation after harmful effects become undeniable.

Why would he do this?

Trump’s lust for vengeance is well-known. He tries to get even for real and imagined wrongs. He believes in asymmetric retaliation, “hit back 100 times harder than you’ve been hit”. Vengeance could explain some of his damage but not all.

Also, Trump’s character has a prominent kleptocratic/grifter component. His scams and grifts are well-documented. Greed could be another motive for some of his damage. By limiting or destroying democratic restraints on his power, his capacity to reach for wealth and power increases. Dismantling anti-corruption safeguards is a transactional model where self-interest and well-connected insiders and interests push aside public-service functions and norms. And since the USSC immunized Trump against liability for crimes he commits in office, the chances of him facing jail time or even prosecution are quite low, essentially almost zero.

Finally, all of those sources of destructive motive, personal grievance, authoritarian-kleptocratic power-seeking, and self-enrichment, could be mutually reinforcing. In other words, he could have multiple motives for causing so much damage to any given target.

Q: How likely is it that most of Trump’s damage to democracy, and rights and protections for citizens and the public interest is intentional and not mostly due to incompetence?

Regarding blogging about politics as a hobby

 

Context

America is at a major turning point about whether our experiment in self-governance will either continue to succeed for the foreseeable future or revert to the mean or norm, ending in some form of failure. The historical norm is most people living most of the time under various forms of tyranny, oppression, bigotry and corruption. The existence of modern democracies with citizens enjoying a non-trivial degree of wealth and power since the mid-1800s is far from the historical mean or norm. The likelihood of America’s near-term fate of continuing success or democratic collapse and failure ought to become pretty clear within the next ~2½ years. How the 2026 midterm elections play out could show the likely outcome if failure is in the cards. Continuing success is likely to take longer to project with reasonable confidence.

Democracy is rare – source

Online American pro-democracy politics as a hobby

Given the rarity of democracy, the importance of the US in world affairs and the human capacity to self-annihilate or at least collapse modern civilization, dealing with politics in some fashion is a reasonable thing to spend some free time with. Being grounded in all aspects of human cognitive biology and social behavior, politics is absolutely fascinating.

Being a hobby, there’s no external pressure for it to accomplish anything. Some people engage in online politics as trolls. Trolling can be seen as a politics-related hobby. Trolls like to provoke emotional reactions like anger or resentment for personal fun, self-satisfaction or even virtue signaling to like minded people. They engage in bad faith, with little to no concern for truth or whatever wreckage they leave in their wake. They happily do their troll hobby regardless of adverse consequences to anyone or anything else.

Other people engage with online politics in good faith to try to make things better as they see the concept of “better”. Most of them hope that their efforts can help at least a little. And for most good-faith operators there probably is some satisfaction in at least trying to engage, even if there’s no way to know what impact that may have.

What can reasonably be done, if anything?

Decades of radical right propaganda-demagoguery has deeply polarized American society. For tens of millions of Americans, it has normalized lies, deceit, bigotry, authoritarianism, corruption, and crackpot reasoning and rhetoric. To be fair, the left vs right difference is a matter of asymmetry, not an absolute. Some radical and non-radical left propaganda-demagoguery has polarized some on the left. Affective polarization, i.e., mutual dislike and distrust between Democratic and Republican self-identities, is significant.

Given the deep polarization and distrust, what can one reasonably hope to accomplish doing online politics in defense of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties? For most people, little to nothing that’s tangible can reasonably be expected. But that’s fine for a hobby. There is no demand or requirement for any tangible or positive outcome.

But for people of good will acting in good faith, there are some things worth knowing. Social science makes clear that trolls and other closed-minded operators usually cannot be convinced of anything they have mental or social barriers against believing in. Their minds change on their own terms, for their own reasons. Externally presented facts, robust truths and sound, good faith reasoning that are inconvenient are usually not persuasive. For people with closed minds, mental factors such as self-identity, group or tribe loyalties, moral values and inherent biases are what controls beliefs and behaviors.

So what can be done, if anything, to better align-one’s politics hobby with current polarized American political and social reality? Welp, a realistic objective is to understand that a recitation of facts or a clear rationale will not cut through an identity-based falsehood or flawed reasoning. Instead, one can try to convey truth in a minimally painful way for open-minded people. Human beings have evolved mechanisms to evade inconvenient truths, particularly when truth conflicts with self identity or social belonging.

For example, try to separate facts from what might be humiliating identity threats. It means: when discussing political claims, distinguish between evidence about what people or institutions have done and language that others may hear as an attack on their personal worth, group status, or moral identity. A statement can be factually true but framed in a way that makes its target feel shamed or insulted. That tends to cause defensiveness and make careful evaluation of the evidence less likely or impossible.

Also, one can (1) try to emphasize shared values before presenting disputed or inconvenient evidence, and (2) point out emotional manipulation, scapegoating, unfalsifiable claims, and logic flaws such as ad hominem attacks, and false dilemma and straw man deflections. Those tactics tend to reduce perceptions of insult or threat to people who are in disagreement. In short, try to make friends or at least neutrals out of people you disagree with. If they see you as an enemy or insulting, they are much less likely to give your evidence and reasoning fair consideration.

Q: Are trolls and others who operate in bad faith worth the cognitive effort and emotional cost of trying to deal with respectfully or in good faith, e.g., when the cognitive load to deal with bad faith is much higher than the cognitive load needed to spew it?

Bad faith operators have a huge advantage

Info links:

Democracy — data about the rise of modern democracies

In most countries, democracy is a recent achievement. Dictatorship is far from a distant memory

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy — Our point isn’t that citizens behave duplicitously when they consider and debate such issues [abortion, environmental policy, etc.]. Rather, our argument is that cultural commitments operate as a kind of heuristic [mental shortcut] in the rational processing of information on public policy matters. ….. The people they trust, naturally, are the ones who share their values—and who as a result of this same dynamic and others are predisposed to a particular view. As a result, even citizens who earnestly consider empirical policy issues in an open-minded and wholly instrumental way will align themselves into warring cultural factions. ….. The key to debiasing here is to frame empirical information in terms that make assent to it compatible with, rather than antagonistic to, the commitments of individuals of diverse cultural persuasions. (emphasis added — it’s easier said than done)