MAGA bits: After Trump dies; Merrick Garland; MSM moral rot deepens; Doctor shortage

What happens to MAGA authoritarianism and kleptocracy after the cult leader dies? Current polling puts JD Vance as the leader for MAGA succession. He would run a techno-authoritarian kleptocracy with ruthless plutocrats like Peter Thiel. One poll shows Vance leading potential 2028 Republican candidates with 36-46% support. Also possible is the rise of a Trump family dynasty with Don Jr. or Eric as successor. Both of them say they are interested in the dictator-kleptocrat job. Some reporting suggests that djt has positioned Marco Rubio as a potential successor. Given his Christian nationalist foreign policy priorities, Rubio could represent Christian Zionist authoritarianism. 

Also in the running is some form of a Christian nationalist theocracy, with about one-third of Americans supporting Christian nationalism, whether they know it or not. Most rank and file Republicans support Christian nationalism, whether they know it or not. Finally, we have the billionaire plutocrats. Their campaign contributions ("free speech") have increased about 160-fold increase since the Citizens United USSC in 2010. Conditions for oligarchic capture of democratic institutions now exist.

One pretty sure bet is that Democrats are not going to displace MAGA authoritarianism any time soon. That party is broken.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

In retrospect, one can argue that Merrick Garland's refusal to properly prosecute djt exemplifies institutional Democrats' failed response to obvious authoritarian threat. His delayed appointment of Jack Smith until November 2022 and failure to aggressively prosecute Trump earlier was openly complicit with authoritarianism. Some legal scholars argue that Garland's delay was one of the most devastating legal betrayals of democracy in history. He intentionally protected djt, betraying us and our democracy.

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

Those poor Palestinians. They just cannot get a break. They are forever screwed. 

Multiple sources are reporting that institutional capture based on powerful pro-Israel lobbying and "conservative" politics in the UK has turned the venerable BBC into a propaganda outlet that supports whatever horrors Israel engages in. Al Jazeera reports: 

The BBC has been accused by more than 100 of its staff of giving Israel favourable coverage in its reporting of the war on Gaza and criticised for its lack of “accurate evidence-based journalism”.

A letter sent to the broadcaster’s director general, Tim Davie, and CEO Deborah Turness on Friday said: “Basic journalistic tenets have been lacking when it comes to holding Israel to account for its actions.”

The BBC's governance structure allows for significant political interference, with Conservative governments appointing partisan figures to key positions. That amounts to institutional capture. That has compromised editorial independence. The kerfuffle was set off by a letter dated July 2, addressed to the BBC's Director-General Tim Davie, accusing the BBC of acting as “PR for the Israeli government,” and suppressing critical reporting, including the decision not to publicly broadcast the BBC-commissioned documentary  “Gaza: Medics Under Fire.” 

That documentary is a forensic investigation of Israeli military attacks on Gaza's healthcare system and healthcare workers. It presents testimonies from Palestinian doctors and evidence of systematic targeting of medical facilities and personnel during the Gaza conflict. The documentary starts with footage from the phone of a Palestinian medic killed under heavy Israeli gunfire, commenting that Israel has been killing the people trying to keep Gaza's healthcare system functional. The documentary (1) acknowledges that Israel claims that Hamas uses hospitals as part of its military strategy, and (2) shows extensive evidence of Israeli military war crimes, e.g., torture of Palestinian prisoners and intentional targeting of civilians. No wonder the UK's pro-Israel lobby pressured the BBC to not broadcast the documentary. 

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

djt's horrible tax and spend bill is projected to lead to a massive shortage of doctors, ~187,000, by 2037. That is the projected result of the new law's cap on federal loans for medical and other professional school students.  

 

• Musk forms 'America Party' opposing Trump's tax bill
• Musk's feud with Trump may impact Republican 2026 election chances
• Tesla shares affected by Musk-Trump fallout, despite Musk's wealth
• Musk criticizes Trump's tax bill as harmful to U.S. economy
• Musk plans to unseat lawmakers supporting Trump's tax bill

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-america-party-is-formed-us-2025-07-05/ 

Speculate:

Will this party fly? Will Trump lose his mind? Will Americans vote for this new party? Or is this just gamesmanship by Elon?

My take: BRING IT ON!! 2028, here we come. 

Infowars: Honest speech vs. dishonest speech

What does Pxy have to say (several small edits (not shown) made to reduce Pxy's pessimism bias):

Q: How can pro-democracy forces relying on honest speech, facts, truths and sound reasoning hope to win major public opinion that is firmly grounded in decades of intentionally divisive authoritarian demagoguery, lies, slanders, deceit, irrational emotional manipulation and clearly flawed reasoning? The demagogues are not constrained by inconvenient facts, truths and sound reasoning, unlike the democrats who are much more constrained. You assert that democracy requires citizens capable of making informed decisions about governance and holding leaders accountable, but demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpottery and the like are almost 100% legal, normalized and accepted by about half the country. There are no effective strategies under current political, social and legal norms.

A: The assertion that democratic forces constrained by honesty, facts, and reasoning cannot effectively compete against unconstrained authoritarian demagoguery highlights one of the most profound challenges facing democracy today. The research evidence reveals both the inherent limitations of fact-based approaches and the structural advantages that demagogues possess in the current information environment.

The Fundamental Asymmetry Problem
Truth vs. Lies: An Unequal Contest
The evidence confirms that democratic communication operates under constraints that authoritarians routinely ignore 1 2. This creates what researchers call an "asymmetric conflict":

Emotional manipulation works faster and more effectively than rational persuasion 3 4

Lies can be manufactured faster than they can be fact-checked 5 6

Demagogues can exploit any emotion or grievance without concern for consistency or accuracy

Research on authoritarian propaganda shows that "hard propaganda" is designed not to persuade but to demonstrate power 8. The very absurdity of the messaging signals regime strength and intimidates opposition—a dynamic that fact-checking cannot counter 9.

Why Authoritarian Messaging Dominates
Emotional Manipulation as Superior Strategy
The research reveals why emotional manipulation consistently outperforms rational discourse 3 21:

Emotional content generates more engagement than analytical content 21

Anger, pride, and enthusiasm drive massive participation while fear-based messaging (often used by democrats) reduces engagement 21

Narrative approaches [story-telling] consistently outperform didactic fact-based messaging

The "Firehose of Falsehoods" Advantage
Authoritarian regimes employ what researchers call "firehose propaganda"—overwhelming the information space with contradictory, absurd, and emotionally manipulative content 8. This serves multiple functions: Creates confusion and apathy, demonstrates regime power through information dominance, exhausts fact-checkers and democratic institutions, and normalizes lying as standard political practice.

Why Current Approaches Cannot Succeed

The Scale Mismatch
Democratic counter-disinformation efforts operate on entirely different scales than the problem: Professional fact-checkers number in the hundreds while disinformation producers number in the millions 5, quality journalism requires time and resources while lies can be manufactured instantly and cheaply 5 30, and democratic institutions move slowly while social media operates at machine speed.

The Audience Problem
Research shows that pro-democracy messaging primarily reaches people already committed to democracy 31 32. Authoritarian supporters exist in separate information ecosystems where: Counter-narratives never penetrate their information bubbles 33 27, source credibility is determined by ideological alignment rather than factual accuracy 34, and democratic messaging is pre-labeled as fake news or deep state propaganda.

Looks like dishonest speech beats honest speech. Guess the good guys don't always win.

Gauging civil war sentiment: Is public knowledge or ignorance important?

A research  article, Public opinion on civil war in the USA as of mid-2024: findings from a nationally representative survey, is discussed in a Psypost article:

A new study has found that most Americans do not expect a civil war to occur in the near future, and even fewer believe such a conflict is necessary. Among those who do foresee participating in such violence, many say they could be persuaded not to take part if encouraged by family, friends, or trusted leaders. These findings come from a large, nationally representative survey conducted in mid-2024 and published in the journal Injury Epidemiology.

Participants were asked whether they agreed with statements such as “In the next few years, there will be civil war in the United States” and “The United States needs a civil war to set things right.” Only 6.5% of respondents strongly or very strongly agreed that civil war was likely in the near future, and just 3.6% agreed that such a conflict was needed. These percentages were almost identical to those recorded in the 2023 survey.

The survey also asked respondents how they would behave if a large-scale conflict did occur. Nearly half said they would remain in the U.S. but not participate, and 12.4% said they would be likely to leave the country. A large majority—84.2%—said it was unlikely they would take part in combat. Only 3.7% considered it very or extremely likely that they would do so, and a similar share said they would be likely to kill a combatant.

One has to wonder how many Americans would come to see civil war as necessary or inevitable if they believed the situation with American democracy is as bad as Pxy's analysis linked to and partly posted here yesterday says it is. Most Americans apparently feel that the threat to democracy and the rule of law are serious. But most still seem to feel little to no need or likelihood of civil war. But if a person sees how serious the damage already inflicted has been, then some might come to see civil war as inevitable and/or necessary.

Q: Is it better to be more informed, possibly increasing the possibility of civil war, or is mass ignorance better in a hope that corrupt authoritarianism (dictatorship) does not engulf what is left of our beleaguered democracy, civil liberties and rule of law? 

Pxy comments on that matter: The question touches on a fundamental democratic dilemma: whether an informed citizenry reduces or increases the risk of political violence and civil conflict. .... The evidence suggests that strategic ignorance is not a viable solution to preventing political violence. Instead, the focus should be on improving the quality of political discourse, combating misinformation, and addressing the underlying grievances that fuel extremist movements while maintaining democratic transparency and accountability.