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?