MAGA dictatorship updates: Russell Vought is getting the authoritarian job done

As noted here on multiple occasions, Russell Vought is the 2nd most powerful authoritarian MAGA operative in America today. Only djt is more powerful. Vought is the head of the OMB, an obscure but extremely powerful government agency. To a large extent, he controls the flow of money and power in the federal government.

Vought is a deeply corrupt CN (Christian nationalist) theocrat. He is soft-spoken, insanely goal oriented, extremely intelligent and viciously ruthless. His overwhelming focus is on converting US government and society from what they are today into a cruel, deeply corrupt, and bigoted Old Testament-style Christian theocracy. He is focused on transitioning government to his vision of a bigoted, kleptocratic Christian theocracy after Trump dies or is out of power. That's what he quietly uses his vast power for.

Our failing MSM, in its usual clueless incompetence and/or subversion, doesn't report nearly as much about Vought as his power and ideology warrant. But today the NYT posted an article about him. Sadly as usual, the NYT frames its reporting in pro-Trump, pro-authoritarian terms. The article's framing is anti-democracy, anti rule of law and anti-civil liberties. 

What the NYT is mildly alarmed about (not paywalled) is the possibility that Vought is getting close to making Trump a dictator shielded behind the legal euphemism called the "unitary executive". The NYT's milquetoast, pro-dictator framing posits the danger as "threatening to erode checks and balances". The reality and pro-democracy frame is that checks and balances have been eroded. We are close to the dictator's and Christian theocrat's goal of a dictator in control of a theocracy, or if Trump passes from the scene, a theocrat controlling a dictatorship. 

The NYT article make Vought's long-term goal crystal clear:

"We want to make sure that the bureaucracy can’t reconstitute itself later in future administrations".

The NYT reports that Vought was frustrated but patient with Musk and DOGE: "We’re going to let DOGE break things, and we’ll pick up the pieces later". Vought hates government and wants the independence of federal agencies completely obliterated, commenting calling "unelected"
bureaucrats: "a cartel working behind closed doors". That's unitary executive dogma speaking. The pieces picked up will be replaced with corrupt, unelected theocratic, pro-dictator MAGA loyalist bureaucrats. That's the plan.

A legal expert commented on what it means when the executive controls the money flow, which Vought has engineered with the consent of MAGA USSC shadow docket decisions: "One of the main sources of power that Congress has over the executive branch is the budget. If the executive branch isn’t controlled by the power of the purse, then there is very little that will control the President. It’s a fundamental challenge to liberty for every single person in America."

A fundamental challenge to liberty for every single person in America? Well duh! Good catch NYT. /s

Other terrifying comments and thoughts by Vought or spokesmen: "We have now been embarked on deconstructing this administrative state. Step after step, it’s to move quickly, trying to think through what the founders would have done in the circumstances, and be aggressive”. Regarding the Education Department (DoE), he claims it spreads “woke-rot” propaganda like “grooming minors for so-called gender transition.” Regarding the Federal Reserve, it “been wrong for decades". The State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) actively embarrasses the United States". And the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) targets “struggling families in a craven effort to sustain the broader bureaucracy’s radical progressive agenda”. Vought also once commented that he wanted federal employees to be "in trauma".

That nicely sums up the cruelty, seething hate and deranged detachment from reality that MAGA elites like Vought claim to believe and the goals they strive for.

A morality analysis

The open question for people like Vought is how much of reality they see and hate is falsehood, i.e., grounded in true ignorance, and how much is lies and slanders, grounded in cynical mora rot. Do MAGA elites like Vought really and sincerely believe the untruths that the DoE grooms minors for sex-change, the USAID actively embarrasses the US, or the IRS really does struggling families in a craven effort to fund evil progressivism? 

Sure, it is impossible to know for sure if they actually believe all of those obviously false things. So we are left to decide what to believe based only on the evidence in the public record. What evidence is in the public record? MAGA's public record is accurately and reasonably summarized like this: 

MAGA rhetoric and tactics has a rock solid public record of (1) thousands of brazen lies or falsehoods, (2) thousands of outrageous slanders, (3) constant divisive, distracting, bad faith rhetoric dominated by intentional, irrational emotional manipulation (fear mongering, fomenting bigotry, etc.), and (4) usually logically flawed crackpot reasoning. 

Translated into English: The empirical evidence overwhelmingly points to there being no reason to trust or believe that elite MAGA rhetoric or behavior is genuine and in good faith. Instead, there are compelling reasons to distrust almost everything that any MAGA elite says. In other words, why trust a damned thing any MAGA elite says unless you just happen to know it is true.

In view of the circumstances, the burden of proof of sincerity and trustworthiness is on MAGA elites, not the public. They need to prove their good will and good intentions. We do not need to prove anything.

Q: Does what MAGA elites say and do provide sufficient evidence to trust that their intentions are honest and pro-democracy, or is the evidence sufficient to believe that their intentions are dishonest (corrupt, bigoted, etc.) and pro-authoritarian, or is the evidence still ambiguous or something else?  

The cognitive biology of politics: Framing effects in news reporting

How rhetoric and other kinds of information is framed affects how people perceive and think about it. Framing can serve informational and/or deceptive purposes depending on its design and implementation. Scholarship distinguishes between legitimate framing practices that support democratic discourse and manipulative framing that undermines honestly informed decision-making.[1] 

One of the critical failures of mainstream media politics reporting is its failure or refusal to use pro-democracy framing in news reporting and commentary. In short, the MSM keeps framing MAGA/Trump news in terms of wins and losses for MAGA/Trump. That is a pro-authoritarian way to report news. 

Why? Because when MAGA/Trump win in court or get something they want related to democracy, the rule of law, or civil liberties, that win almost always comes at the expense of whichever of democracy, the rule of law, and civil liberties is impacted. But if the MSM chose to report news in terms of whether democracy, the rule of law, and/or civil liberties wins or loses, the public would be better informed of what is really going on. 

An example: The MSM reports that the USSC used the shadow docket without explanation to let Trump pull some illegal crap that violates a civil liberty. The court's action is framed as a win for Trump. Deceptive, irresponsible reporting like that is the norm.[1] Instead of the usual crappy, pro-Trump reporting like that, the MSM could frame the same thing as (1) the USSC decision was a loss for the rule of law, and (2) what it allowed Trump to do was a loss for civil liberties. See the difference? Win for MAGA/Trump vs loss for rule of law and civil liberties.

And that is a major part of why it is rational, fair and balanced to give the MSM a grade of F- for reporting MAGA/Trump news in the usual way.

Q: Is it rational, fair and balanced to give the MSM a grade of F- for reporting MAGA/Trump news in the usual way?

Footnote:

1. Framing can be good or bad. It can be pro-authoritarian and disinforming. In my opinion, that is a form of bad. Scholars see pro-democracy framing as informative and "legitimate". Another way to see it, e.g., my way, is that pro-democracy framing is moral, but pro-authoritarian framing is immoral, or evil if people get unjustifiably hurt or killed.

Data from a 2024 research paper, Safeguarding the Peaceful Transfer of Power: Pro-Democracy Electoral Frames and Journalist Coverage of Election Deniers During the 2022 U.S. Midterm Elections, asserted that journalists routinely failed to alert the public to the threat posed by candidates unwilling to embrace the legitimacy of U.S. elections. If one looks at MSM reporting about MAGA/Trump politics, it is clear that journalists are routinely failing to alert the public to MAGA/Trump threats by using pro-authoritarian framing in reporting and commentary.

Other recent research indicates that the most recent frame a person encounters has the strongest impact. The data indicates that familiarity with a frame plays a significant moderating role. Familiar issues like climate change elicit different response patterns compared to less familiar topics. To some extent that translates into behavior.

FWIW, some DP posts on framing:

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/08/the-morality-of-framing-issues-in.html

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2021/01/framing-issues-in-politics.html

https://dispol.blogspot.com/2019/08/media-reporting-and-cognitive-biology.html

Trump's dictatorship starts its main military purge

Multiple sources are reporting about defense secretary Pete Hegseth ordering about 800 senior-level military officers for a meeting next week. Regardless of how MAGA demagoguery spins this, the meeting can be seen as the beginning of a purge of military leaders. Trump and MAGA elites want to get rid of military leaders who are disloyal to Trump or loyal to the constitution over Trump. Some observers see this as a purge in support of Trump's and MAGA's ongoing coup to replace democracy and the rule of law with a corrupt Trump dictatorship and the rule of his egotistical whim. 

Last February, Hegseth and Trump conducted an unprecedented purge of senior military leadership, firing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Charles CQ Brown Jr., Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti (the first woman to serve as a service chief), and Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife. This was the first time that two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been dismissed from their senior military roles. Hegseth has systematically removed military leaders without public explanation, including the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse in August, whose preliminary assessment of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities had reportedly angered Trump.

History shows that authoritarian leaders like Trump use both conventional and unconventional purge methods depending on circumstances. Trump's consistent pattern of norm-breaking suggests the Quantico meeting will use innovative intimidation techniques instead of traditional outright mass firings. After the meeting, those deemed to be disloyal will be quietly picked off one by one.

Evidence to date indicate that Trump's Quantico meeting will be a sophisticated form of military control that transcends traditional purges. This unprecedented military gathering serves Trump's broader campaign of military institutional capture, just like Trump and MAGA elites have now fully captured federal agencies. The Quantico meeting will very likely constitute:

1. A loyalty test by way of observing behaviors of the generals and admirals in attendance.

2. An intimidation display to demonstrate Trump's absolute authority and power. That is fully aligned with the USSC's open support for a dictator euphemistically called a unitary executive

3. A message to create compliance and loyalty to Trump by fear and intimidation.

4. A vehicle to reinforce Trump's and MAGA's authoritarian power and control demagoguery.

The inclusion of enlisted personnel is consistent with Trump's pattern of using witnesses, spectacle, and psychological pressure to achieve political control objectives that traditional methods do not effectively accomplish. By now it is clear that Trump's authoritarian approach often operates outside conventional frameworks and tactics. That requires analysis that accounts for unprecedented tactics designed to achieve MAGA's authoritarian goals by new means.

Why mindset explains politics best

Yesterday's post was about comparing our frightening current post-Charlie Kirk murder political situation to the 1950s Red Scare and McCarthyism with the 1933 Reichstag Fire incident that helped put Hitler in power. Pxy's historical analysis focused on circumstances and tactics and concluded that the Red Scare was the better analogy to explain and understand the current situation.

But after being reminded of the actors' state of mind, Pxy reversed itself and said that Reichstag Fire was the better  analogy because it went to the actors' state of mind. State of mind comes directly from cognitive biology and social behavior, not local circumstances. State of mind is the horse, local circumstances are the cart. AI analyses like this focus on local circumstances and thus give less accurate answers. In my experience and opinion, AI like Pxy has not been taught to elevate state of mind to high importance when analyzing politic and history. That is a major weakness in AI.

Here's how it played out with Pxy this morning when this issue came up from a comment yesterday (link to the full Pxy Q&A thread):

Q5: Analyze and comment on this Reichstag Fire vs Red Scare analogy (commentary): "IMHO, Reichstag fire is the clearly better analogy. In my opinion, the authoritarian's state of mind is far more important than local circumstances and tactics. It's mindset, intent, motives and morals that mostly drives authoritarian aggression. Local circumstances are the gatekeepers." Stay in analytic response mode.

A5:.... moderate analysis ....

Analytical Conclusion
The Reichstag fire analogy appears more apt for understanding authoritarian psychology and intent, while the Red Scare analogy better captures operational methodology and tactical constraints. The mindset-primacy argument has strong empirical support from political psychology research showing consistent authoritarian cognitive patterns across historical contexts.

However, the "local circumstances as gatekeepers" qualifier proves crucial—authoritarian intent must work through available institutional channels, which determines tactical expression even when psychological drivers remain constant. The most accurate analytical framework recognizes that mindset provides the compass while circumstances provide the map: Authoritarian psychology determines the destination (elimination of opposition, social conformity, unchallenged authority) while institutional realities determine the route taken to reach it.

In the current context, this suggests we are witnessing Nazi-level authoritarian intent constrained to McCarthyist tactical implementation—a potentially more dangerous combination than either historical precedent alone, as it combines psychological extremism with methodological sophistication.

Q6: So, is Red Scare or Reichstag the better analogy?

A6: Based on the comprehensive analysis, the Reichstag fire is the better analogy when evaluated through the framework that "the authoritarian's state of mind is far more important than local circumstances and tactics."

.... moderate analysis ....

Analytical Verdict
The Reichstag fire analogy better captures the essential nature of the current authoritarian moment because it accurately identifies the psychological drivers, stated intentions, and ultimate trajectory of the movement. The Red Scare elements represent implementation constraints rather than fundamental orientation.

This conclusion aligns with the principle that "mindset, intent, motives and morals" drive authoritarian behavior while "local circumstances are the gatekeepers."

Q7: So, is state of mind a more informative and useful focus than local circumstance for analyzing similar historical events?

A7:.... long analysis ....

Conclusion: State of Mind as More Informative Framework
For analyzing similar historical events, state of mind appears more informative and useful for several analytical reasons:

Explanatory consistency: Psychological orientation explains why similar events trigger similar responses across vastly different historical contexts. Local circumstances vary dramatically, but authoritarian psychological patterns remain remarkably consistent.

Predictive power: Understanding authoritarian mindset allows analysts to predict likely responses to future events regardless of specific institutional variations. Circumstances change constantly, but psychological drives provide stable analytical anchors.

Causal depth: State of mind analysis addresses the fundamental question of why authoritarians interpret events as opportunities for power consolidation. Circumstantial analysis describes what tactics are available but doesn't explain why authoritarians consistently choose to exploit tragic events for political advantage.

Historical insight: Focusing on psychological orientation reveals the underlying continuity that connects different authoritarian moments across time and space. This provides deeper insight into the nature of authoritarianism as a recurring historical phenomenon rather than treating each instance as unique.

However, the most sophisticated historical analysis employs both frameworks strategically: state of mind for understanding motivational consistency and predicting behavioral patterns, while local circumstances for understanding tactical variation and implementation success. This dual approach provides both explanatory depth and predictive utility for analyzing similar historical events.

And that is why pragmatic rationalism, my anti-biasing, anti-ideology meta-ideology, is heavily grounded in state of mind considerations, i.e., cognitive biology and social behavior. Local details are usually much less important than what is on the actors' minds. Circumstances dictate what a political actor can do and maybe get away with, but state of mind dictates whether the actor will even try to get away with it in the first place.