In defense of beleaguered democracy and truth: Another warning and an example

The warning

Terrible thinking and tactics by America's ARR (authoritarian radical right) are worsening fast. A long, detailed NYT opinion by Damon Linker includes this warning (opinion not behind paywall):

We shouldn’t grow complacent about just how dangerous it all is — and how much more dangerous it could become. The efforts to overturn the 2020 election failed. We’re told that’s because the institutions held. But it’s more accurate to say that most of the individuals holding powerful positions within those institutions — the White House, the Pentagon, the courts, election officials in Georgia and other states — sided with the Constitution over Mr. Trump’s desire to remain in power.

But what if key individuals decide differently the next time they are faced with this kind of choice? What if they have come to believe that the country is in such dire straits — has reached a state of apocalyptic decadence — that democracy is a luxury we can no longer afford?

A coalition of intellectual catastrophists on the American right is trying to convince people of just that — giving the next generation of Republican officeholders, senior advisers, judges and appointees explicit permission and encouragement to believe that the country is on the verge of collapse. Some catastrophists take it a step further and suggest that officials might contemplate overthrowing liberal democracy in favor of revolutionary regime change or even imposing a right-wing dictatorship on the country.

The list of people making these arguments includes former officials in the Trump administration, some of whom are likely to be considered for top jobs in the event of a Trump restoration in 2024. It includes respected scholars at prestigious universities and influential think tanks. The ideas about the threat of an all-powerful totalitarian left and the dismal state of the country — even the most outlandish of them — are taken seriously by conservative politicians as well as prominent influencers on the right.

That makes this a crucial time to familiarize ourselves with and begin formulating a response to these ideas. If Mr. Trump manages to win the presidency again in 2024, many of these intellectual catastrophists could be ready and willing to justify deeds that could well bring American liberal democracy to its knees.

The Claremont Catastrophists

Probably the best-known faction of catastrophists and the one with the most direct connection to Republican politics is led by Michael Anton and others with ties to the Claremont Institute, a right-wing think tank in California. Mr. Anton’s notorious Claremont Review of Books essay in September 2016 called the contest between Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton “The Flight 93 Election.” Mr. Anton, who would go on to serve as a National Security Council official in the Trump administration, insisted the choice facing Republicans, like the passengers on the jet hijacked by terrorists intent on self-immolation in a suicide attack on the White House or the Capitol on Sept. 11, was to “charge the cockpit or you die.” (For a few months in 2000 and 2001, Mr. Anton was my boss in the communications office of Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and we have engaged in spirited debates over the years.)

Mr. Anton’s “Flight 93” essay originally appeared on a website with modest traffic, but two days later Rush Limbaugh was reading it aloud in its entirety on his radio show. The essay set the tone of life-or-death struggle (and related imagery) that is common among catastrophists.

The Christian Reverse Revolutionaries

Those on the right primarily concerned about the fate of traditionalist Christian morals and worship in the United States insist that we already live in a regime that oppresses and brutalizes religious believers and conservatives. And they make those charges in a theologically inflected idiom that’s meant to address and amplify the right’s intense worries about persecution by progressives.

Among the most extreme catastrophists writing in this vein is Stephen Wolfe, whose book “The Case for Christian Nationalism” calls for a “just revolution” against America’s “gynocracy” (rule by women) that emasculates men, persuading them to affirm “feminine virtues, such as empathy, fairness and equality.” In its place, Mr. Wolfe proposes the installation of a “Christian prince,” or a form of “theocratic Caesarism.”

Other authors aspire to greater nuance by calling the dictatorship weighing down on religious believers soft totalitarianism, usually under the rule of social-justice progressivism.  

...... 

Some will undoubtedly suggest we shouldn’t be unduly alarmed about such trends. These are just a handful of obscure writers talking to one another, very far removed from the concerns of Republican officeholders and rank-and-file voters.

But such complacency follows from a misunderstanding of the role of intellectuals in radical political movements. These writers are giving Republican elites permission and encouragement to do things that just a few years ago would have been considered unthinkable.

In a second term, Mr. Trump’s ambition is to fire tens of thousands of career civil servants throughout the federal bureaucracy and replace them with loyalists. ....

The example

Salon writes about antics that Trump's attorneys are increasingly engaging in to derail the New York civil fraud trial. If Trump loses this case, it could bankrupt him. What his attorneys are doing is now openly attacking the judge in court filings and making false statements in open court directly to the judge. Trump is trying to make the judge lose emotional control and react in a way that provides an opportunity for Trump to get his case dismissed for bias and misconduct by the judge. Trump is openly baiting the judge.

I am not aware of such open, direct attacks in past court cases, although it's possible some of this has happened in the past. But what this example represents is a complete breakdown of norms and decorum in defense of how the courts work. This is what a direct attack on democracy looks like.

Salon writes:

“Absolutely untrue”: Judge shames Trump lawyer for using 

Breitbart article to attack clerk in court

Trump lawyer threatened to push for mistrial after citing complaint from Twitter user "applying the 69th Amendment"

[On Friday] Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron opened by raising his concerns about the former president and his legal team's jabs at Engoron's principal law clerk, Allison Greenfield, over their perceptions of "bias."

“I’m worried about this,” Engoron told the defense, according to The Daily Beast.

“To the extent that there is the perception of bias,” Trump lawyer Chris Kise replied, he needed to “as a lawyer… at least mark it.”

Engoron said he didn't consider the case to be political and “promised not to pound the table again, the bench.” But he reiterated a Thursday assertion that he had an “unfettered right to get assistance” from his clerk, who sits at his side on the bench, and explained he had "no idea" how that act demonstrates bias.

“You can say whatever you want about me,” he said. “And that has been taken advantage of. I think that’s where there would be any appearance of bias, but I cut this case right down the middle.”

In response, Kise dove into a rant about how the matter was "treading in a dangerous area."

“The entire country, if not the world, is watching this proceeding,” Kise argued. “And the U.S. heretofore has been a model for integrity and impartiality in the judicial system, since its founding. Nothing in here should create any appearance that the adherence to those principles has wavered… Yes, as a judge you’re entitled to receive [assistance], but from someone who has potentially demonstrable bias… and the manner in which that has taken place, we at least have to make a record.”

Kise rehashed the same argument he made at the end of the day Thursday, griping about how “things are frequently, if not inordinately, against us on every major issue.” He said he felt as if he were taking on “two adversaries, not one,” and referenced a Thursday night article calling for Greenfield to be disbarred because of her political donations to Democrats.

The allegations in the article, he said were, "delivered to the court" on Friday morning, asserting that he may move for a mistrial and adding that the same "information" about "extrajudicial conduct” was brought up last month.

"It's not information, it's an allegation," Engoron fired back, saying that he had no idea what article Kise was referring to and hadn't seen it.

Though he admitted to not remembering the specific publication, Kise said he thought it "may be Breitbart," which is a website once run by Trump's ex-strategist Steve Bannon. The Daily Beast confirmed that the story in question was a "thinly sourced Breitbart article about a complaint filed by a Wisconsin man not involved in the trial."

Specifically, the article is sourced entirely to an X/Twitter user from Wisconsin whose account bio reads, "Applying the 69th Amendment to the Internet!" according to The Messenger. That user filed a bar complaint, circulated on a website with a URL in Greenfield's name that was created on Oct. 4, 2023, the day after Engoron first issued the gag order against Trump. The user's feed is also rife with attacks of the judge.

When Kise disclosed the origin of the claims on the pro-Trump website, audible groans resounded in the courtroom.

At that point, Engoron seemed to have reached his wits end, calling Kise's claim that he had been made aware of the story on Friday morning, "absolutely untrue, okay?!”

“I would have remembered receiving such an allegation,” he roared, adding. “Let everybody in the room decide what they think of Breitbart… It's a shame things have descended to this level.”

Note the two instances where the judge lost emotional control. Pounding on the bench in anger and yelling ("roaring") at Kise. Trump will file for a mistrial and cite both of those incidents as evidence of bias and a basis to get the lawsuit thrown out and dismissed with prejudice. Dismissed with prejudice means that the lawsuit can never be refiled and Trump walks away unscathed from his years of fraud.

If Engoron's emotional control fails, Trump could very well win this lawsuit, which he has already lost because Engoron has already found that Trump did commit lots of fraud over the years.

This is how the ARR works and how we seeing attacks on democracy and the rule of law play out. Why Kise hasn't been sanctioned and disbarred is a legit question. The answer is simple. Trump would use it as evidence of bias by Engoron. 

In my feeble defense of democracy and the rule of law, I will write to the New York state bar asking for Kise to be investigated and punished for his blatant ethics violations. Maybe that will provoke a response. At this point, all pro-democracy institutions including state bars need to be proactive against attacks right freaking now, not later. 

Chris Kise

Former Florida solicitor general

and ARR anti-democracy warrior

Today's white working-class young men who turn to racist violence are part of a long, sad American history

 Catchy title that, wouldn't you agree?

In recent years, the United States has seen a surge of white supremacist mass shootings against racial minorities. While not always the case, mass shooters tend to be young white men.

Some journalists and researchers have argued that class and ideals of white masculinity are partly to blame.

This argument is not surprising. Throughout U.S. history, white men’s anxieties over their manhood and social class help explain many violent attacks on Black people, whom the perpetrators blame for denying them their rightful privileges.

Such was the case with Dylann Roof, a then 22-year-old white supremacist who was convicted and sentenced to death in the 2015 deaths of nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

In another case involving a racist mass shooting, Payton Gendron, a white supremacist who believed a slew of racist conspiracy theories he discovered online, was sentenced to life in prison after his convictions on the 2022 murders of 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store in a predominantly Black neighborhood.

One such unfounded conspiracy that then 18-year-old Gendron frequently cited was the “great replacement theory,” the false idea that a group is attempting to replace white Americans with nonwhite people through immigration, interracial marriage and, eventually, violence. Such ideas reflect white supremacist beliefs, but they also reveal deep insecurities about white men’s social status in America.

The rest of the argument:

https://news.yahoo.com/todays-white-working-class-young-122245329.html

The conclusion:

There are many parallels between racial violence of the past and mass shootings of today. Understanding anxieties about class and masculinity can perhaps go a long way to addressing such concerns in a new generation of young white men.

Question: Is "understanding" the anxieties of young white folks really going to make a difference? Or do we need to address their anxieties if we are going to conquer racism? 

History Bit: Zionism ≠ Judaism

American orthodox Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss comments on the differences between Zionism and Judaism.

News Bits: Evidence of Theia-Earth collision; Increasing radicalization of the radicals

nature.com writes: 

Strange blobs in Earth’s mantle are relics of a massive collision

Impact with a body called Theia 4.5 billion years ago left remnants deep inside Earth — and also created the Moon

The protoplanet Theia, which was roughly the size of Mars, slammed into 

proto-Earth 4.5 billion years ago (artist’s impression)

For decades, scientists have been baffled by two large, mysterious blobs in Earth’s mantle. These rock formations are thousands of kilometers long and slightly denser than their surroundings, hinting that they are made of different material than the rest of the mantle.

New computer modelling supports a dramatic origin story for these strange blobs: they are artefacts of a gargantuan collision 4.5 billion years ago between early Earth and another young planet — the same collision thought to have formed the Moon. The modelling suggests that this violent encounter caused material from the impacting world, called Theia, to embed itself in the lower half of Earth’s mantle. The collision also caused some of Theia’s remnants to be flung into orbit; these eventually coalesced into the Moon.

The idea that the mantle anomalies are remnants of Theia is not new, says Robin Canup, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. “But this paper is the first in my mind to really take that notion seriously,” she says.  

A giant collision between the young Earth and a smaller protoplanet has long been the prevailing theory for the Moon’s formation. Such an origin would explain features such as the Moon’s lack of many volatile compounds, which would have been vaporized during the collision with Earth.

Computer simulation of the impact

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

This is a very important bit to be acutely aware of. A NYT analysis (full article not paywalled) of what the ARR (authoritarian radical right) DJT is planning to do if he gets re-elected in 2024:

Close allies of Donald J. Trump are preparing to populate a new administration with a more aggressive breed of right-wing lawyer, dispensing with traditional conservatives who they believe stymied his agenda in his first term.

The allies have been drawing up lists of lawyers they view as ideologically and temperamentally suited to serve in a second Trump administration. Their aim is to reduce the chances that politically appointed lawyers would frustrate a more radical White House agenda — as they sometimes did when Mr. Trump was in office, by raising objections to his desires for certain harsher immigration policies or for greater personal control over the Justice Department, among others.

Now, as Trump allies grow more confident in an election victory next fall, several outside groups, staffed by former Trump officials who are expected to serve in senior roles if he wins, have begun parallel personnel efforts. At the start of Mr. Trump’s term, his administration relied on the influential Federalist Society, the conservative legal network whose members filled key executive branch legal roles and whose leader helped select his judicial nominations. But in a striking shift, Trump allies are building new recruiting pipelines separate from the Federalist Society.  

These back-room discussions were described by seven people with knowledge of the planning, most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. In addition, The New York Times interviewed former senior lawyers in the Trump administration and other allies who have remained close to the former president and are likely to serve in a second term.  

The interviews reveal a significant break within the conservative movement. Top Trump allies have come to view their party’s legal elites — even leaders with seemingly impeccable conservative credentials — as out of step with their movement.

“The Federalist Society doesn’t know what time it is,” said Russell T. Vought, a former senior Trump administration official who runs a think tank with close ties to the former president. He argued that many elite conservative lawyers had proved to be too timid when, in his view, the survival of the nation is at stake.

In the past, DJT choose federal judge nominees from the ARR Federalist Society. The FS gave us all six of the ARR Republican politicians who now dominate the USSC. For the new and improved (more radical, enraged and virulent) DJT, those 6 FS guys are too wimpy. They don't even know what time it is. 

This another warning about the incredibly high the stakes in the 2024 and elections thereafter. A ferocious kleptocratic dictatorship is brewing among ARR elites if they ever get the chance to impose it on all of us. We have been warned.

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

In a rare moment of bipartisanship, the House has proudly lowered the bar for what it takes to stay in congress. It’s called the foggy mirror test. If you put a mirror under the congressperson’s nose and it fogs from breathing, then they are qualified to stay in power. The Hill writes:

A total of 31 Democrats joined 182 Republicans in voting to keep Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) in Congress on Wednesday, killing a Republican-led effort to oust the embattled lawmaker.

The lower chamber voted 213-179-19 against a resolution to expel Santos, marking the second unsuccessful attempt this year to eject the first-term lawmaker from the House. A two-thirds threshold is needed to expel a member of Congress.

A total of 31 Democrats and 182 Republicans voted against the resolution, while 24 Republicans and 155 Democrats voted to expel Santos.

Hm, maybe the House didn’t lower the bar, but instead dropped in on the ground. Or, maybe they just tossed the bar in the trash can. At the least, we can know that if a person in congress fails the foggy mirror test, they will be out of power. Probably.

Test passed or failed?

Well, lookie here...

I was just taking a gander at our sample ballots for next Tuesday, and lo and behold, Ohio’s finally getting with the program that 23 other states have already adopted.

Link here.

Yes, we are voting on legalizing marijuana. 

Do you think it will pass?

“If passed, the new law would take effect a month after the election.”

Merry Christmas?

News bits: Israel bombs refugees; CN note; The one-way ratchet to kleptocratic tyranny

That speaks for itself. Source.

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

A NYT opinion comments about Mike Johnson and the radicalized GOP:

Mike Johnson is the first person to become speaker of the House who can be fairly described as a Christian nationalist, a major development in American history in and of itself. Equally important, however, his ascension reflects the strength of white evangelical voters’ influence on the House Republican caucus, voters who are determined to use the power of government to roll back the civil rights, women’s rights and sexual revolutions.

“Johnson is a clear rebuttal to the overall liberal societal drift that’s happening in the United States,” Ryan Burge, a political scientist at Eastern Illinois University, wrote by email in response to my query. “His views are far out of step with the average American and even with a significant number of Republicans.”

Robert Jones, president and founder of the Public Religion Research Institute, described Johnson in an email as “the embodiment of white Christian nationalism in a tailored suit.”

What is Christian nationalism? Christianity Today describes it as the “belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a ‘Christian nation’ — not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future.”

Johnson’s election as speaker, Jones went on to say, “is one more confirmation that the Republican Party — a party that is 68 percent white and Christian in a country that is 42 percent white and Christian — has embraced its role as the party of white Christian nationalism.”  

The MAGA movement, in Podhorzer’s view, was unleashed with the Tea Party movement in 2010, well before Donald Trump emerged as a dominant political figure, and the elevation of Johnson marks the most recent high point in the movement’s acquisition of power: “Mike Johnson becoming speaker is better understood in terms of the ongoing white Christian nationalist takeover of the American government through MAGA,” he writes.

White Christian nationalists, Podhorzer contends, “were once reliable votes and loyal foot soldiers for almost any Republican candidate since the 1970s,” but they “rebelled when John McCain and other establishment Republicans treated Obama’s win as legitimate.”

Notice what radicalized the right into an authoritarian monster, i.e., the legitimate election of a black president. Consider the implications of that.

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

From my cognitive biology and social behavior-colored view of politics, it has seemed to me that for years, the ARR (authoritarian radical right) has figured ways to slowly force the two dominant authoritarian ideologies into power (aggressive Christian nationalist theocracy and brass knuckles (unregulated) capitalism). The workings of this kind of authoritarian politics strike me as sometimes akin to a one-way ratchet that inches closer and closer to the goals of killing democracy and establishing some form of kleptocratic authoritarianism.

The Hill published an article that exemplifies the one-way nature of anti-democracy politics designed to force pro-democracy forces into losing situations: 

GOP sets political trap for Democrats with Israel bill

House Democrats will face a tough vote this week when Republicans, led by newly minted Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), consider a $14.3 billion Israel aid bill that includes cuts to IRS funding to pay for the package but no assistance to Ukraine.

The vote is sure to highlight the long-standing chasm between Israel’s staunchest Democratic allies, including President Biden, and pro-Palestinian liberals who have accused Israeli leaders of human rights abuses and war crimes in Gaza. Illustrating that divide, 15 Democrats last week declined to endorse a nonbinding resolution proclaiming U.S. support for Tel Aviv following Hamas’s deadly attacks last month.

But Republicans’ inclusion of the IRS cuts adds an additional complication, forcing the bulk of Democrats into the no-win scenario of sacrificing one priority in defense of another.  

If one looks at the tactic here, it is clear that the ARR can keep setting up loser scenarios for Dems on many occasions, maybe most of the time. All the ARR forces need to do is package something they like or are neutral to with something they dislike. By forcing Dems to save one thing they want by being forced to sacrifice another, the ARR ratchet takes another step toward its ultimate goals.

 

Sure, one can argue that the Dems would then need to restore what was lost to reverse the original sacrifice. But as we know, the American federal government was set up for it to be hard to do much of anything. The ARR has the powerful advantage of it being far easier to block or kill something than it is to build and then maintain it. When one want to get rid of a democratic government and regulations, the defenders are in a much weaker position and in the long run, they are likely to lose.

Q: Is the one-way American ratchet to kleptocratic tyranny (theocracy, autocracy, plutocracy) something mostly real, or is it mostly a mirage in Germaine's mind?