New Executive Orders, agency actions; A mayhem in government thought experiment

Note: This post is written in deep sadness and real horror about what is now fully underway. A few people seem to be waking up to the reality of what is now upon us. Most still don't grasp the seriousness of our situation. 

The frenzied activity since the swearing-in in Jan. 21 is breathtaking in scope and intensity. Biden's legacy that can be attacked by EOs (Executive Orders) is being obliterated with ferocity. American democracy and the rule of law are under open, full blown attack on many fronts. DJT and his MAGA wealth and power movement are openly expressing anti-democratic sentiment both symbolically and in concrete anti-democratic actions backed by political power. 

I start with this symbolic but blatant attack on the US Constitution by DJT. Various reports indicated that the text of the US Constitution on the White House web page had been taken down shortly after the swearing in. That didn't seem credible. But when I went to the link, https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/,  the Constitution was in fact gone and replaced by a 404 error message. It was still gone as of the time I write this.

Copied 1/24/25, 6:17:13 AM, 

Pacific Standard Time

Obviously, the non-alarmists will say something about like this: "Aw shucks and golly young feller. Hold your horses. Go milk the cows or slop the hogs or something. This is just a computer glitch. It doesn't mean diddly squat. You're overreacting to the point of insanity. Calm down." 

Hm, maybe so. But I don't believe it. This is no computer glitch. In my firm opinion, this is a crystal clear AK (authoritarian kleptocrat) signal.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile over at the presidential actions web page, and in federal agency actions, we are seeing a slew of nastiness gushing out of this AK administration. One crystal clear example of an a move that is both authoritarian and kleptocratic, DJT reinstated schedule F for federal employees. Biden had got rid of it. 

 

The EO reinstating Schedule F for federal employees, titled "Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce," was issued on January 20, 2025. It strips employment protections for federal workers in positions deemed to be of a "confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character." That sounds like it covers just about all federal employees. The order reclassifies these employees into the excepted service, making them at-will employees. They are now easy to fire or any reason or no reason. This action is necessary to get rid of federal employees who are not seen as sufficiently loyal to DJT. They will be replaced by AK people loyal to DJT. This comes as no surprise.

In other action, the Justice Department stopped all civil rights lawsuits. The memo doesn’t say how long the freeze will last, but it essentially shuts down the civil rights division for at least the first weeks of the AK administration. The DoJ cannot not pursue new indictments, cases or settlements related to civil rights. I have warned over and over and over that DJT and MAGA would target civil liberties and move to limit them as much as the authoritarians could get away with. This comes as no surprise. The WaPo commented:

“It’s beyond unusual — it’s unprecedented. We’ve never seen this before at this scale with any transfer of power, regardless of the ideology of any incoming president or administration,” said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “This should make Americans both angry and deeply worried. This is more than just a changing course of philosophy — this is exactly what most people [in the civil rights community] feared: a Justice Department that was created to protect civil rights literally abdicating its duty and responsibility to protect Americans from all forms of discrimination.”

 

A January 21, 2025, EO entitled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” revokes EO 11246, a 1965 order that prohibited discrimination by federal contractors and required affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity. That earlier EO required federal contractors with at least 50 employees and a single contract of $50,000 or more to develop an Affirmative Action Program. This new EO also puts restrictions on the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, prohibiting it from “[p]romoting ‘diversity’ ” or “[a]llowing or encouraging Federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, or national origin.” This is part of MAGA's goal of completely obliterating DEI and anti-discrimination laws that protected various minorities. This comes as no surprise.

Evidence of authoritarianism is in DJT's clemency grant for all ~1,500 rioters charged in connection with his 1/6 coup attempt. 

Evidence of kleptocracy is in DJT's EO that declares a national energy emergency. There is no actual energy emergency in America, but there is a high incentive for DJT to favor fossil fuels in return for massive "gratuities" (bribes) from the fossil fuel sector. The EO covers “energy” or “energy resources”, meaning crude oil, natural gas, lease condensates, natural gas liquids, refined petroleum products, uranium, coal, biofuels, geothermal heat, the kinetic movement of flowing water, and critical minerals, as defined by 30 U.S.C. 1606 (a)(3). Notice that neither wind nor solar are included in DJT's faux emergency. The purpose of this EO is laid out in a pack of insulting lies and slanders:

Section 1. Purpose. The energy and critical minerals (“energy”) identification, leasing, development, production, transportation, refining, and generation capacity of the United States are all far too inadequate to meet our Nation’s needs. We need a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy to drive our Nation’s manufacturing, transportation, agriculture, and defense industries, and to sustain the basics of modern life and military preparedness. Caused by the harmful and shortsighted policies of the previous administration, our Nation’s inadequate energy supply and infrastructure causes and makes worse the high energy prices that devastate Americans, particularly those living on low- and fixed-incomes.

I could go on and on. People either see serious anti-democratic threat in all of this or they don't.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

THINKING INSIDE THE DJT BOX:

A MAYHEM THOUGHT EXPERIMENT

What could a lying, naughty, authoritarian US president with a short temper, absolutely no morals other than self-interest and a profoundly kleptocratic personality do? Specifically, DJT thinks to himself, what can I do and how much can I get away with? The thinking might go something like this:

DJT thinking to himself: US presidents now have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions that are within the president's "core constitutional powers." Ha! That was Trump vs US. I beat US in that one by God. My core constitutional powers include commanding the armed forces, granting pardons, dealing with foreign relations and executive power to appoint and remove executive officers, issue executive orders, and manage national affairs. For actions that are within the "outer perimeter of my official responsibility", an undefined concept but not part of the core constitutional powers, I get at least presumptive immunity. This means that the government must show that criminalizing such an act poses no "dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch" to overcome this immunity. A president has no immunity from prosecution for any unofficial actions, which are acts not taken in his official capacity as president, but those actions are also not defined. 

In civil lawsuits, a president is absolutely immune from actions for civil damages for all acts within the "outer perimeter of his official duties", as established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

In terms of bribery, heck, the USSC legalized it in June 2024 in the case Snyder v. United States. The only wrinkle is that the payoff has to come after a president has done something that someone is willing to pay enough for. That's no big deal. A wink, wink, nudge, nudge before I act is a no-brainer. Everyone knows how the power and money game is played.

Hm, the USSC is itself pretty much authoritarian kleptocrat. It is very much on my side. I put them there, so they owe me bigly. If there is doubt of criminal or civil liability, the USSC will resolve it in my favor. After all, they protected me from prosecution for my 1/6 coup attempt, they gave me a huge amount of new immunity and they legalized bribery. Geez, what more could I want? My back is covered on the legal front. 

Hm, I can also order my people to break laws and take money for their own benefit, provided they cut me in. I can pardon them if they get caught, so no big deal there.

What about the billionaires? Me and Musk are tight. We're good for now. I scared Bezos into shutting WaPo up about Harris before the election. I scared Zukerberg into stopping that fact checking nonsense on Facebook. Ha! That one was really great! Zuckerbucks, what a wuss. Now the lies and slanders are gonna flow fast and furious. I love it! 

The American people? Nah, they won't wake up in time to do diddly. Me, MAGA and our huge demagoguery machine can keep them distracted and at each other's throats for a long time. Maybe they'll never wake up. 

. . . . . . . Fuck, I'm golden! I can get away with just about anything and no one can touch me. This is gonna be fun. And, it's my last, best chance to just be me . . . . . . 

Q: Is that a plausible approximation of DJT's thinking?

Who’s gonna stop Trump?

Seriously, who really is gonna stop Trump?  

• Senators and congresspeople?  

• The “law.”  

• The military?  

• We the People? 

• One Big Mac too many?

• Other?

I ask in earnest.  Is there anyone out there who could and will stop Trump from his dream of being a dictator?  Explain your choice and back it up with data.

(by PrimalSoup)

Book review: Free Thinking

Some commenters here indicate that various modern technologies are mind traps, or something akin to that. The 2023 book, Freethinking: Protecting Freedom of Thought Amidst the New Battle for the Mind by Simon McCarthy-Jones. McCarthy-Jones, an Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, argues that we are in the midst of a full-blown war for mind control. he focuses on the issue of freedom of thought, where new technologies and scientific advances are significant threats to mental autonomy. The idea may strike some as nuts, but mind control is real and powerful, but usually very subtle.

McCarthy-Jones points to the use of subliminal advertising, online platforms employing "dark patterns" to influence behavior, and the potential for thought manipulation by both states and corporations. At present, legal and ethical considerations about freedom of thought have not been significantly developed or used. Many or probably most people when first faced with the concept of "freedom of thought" would probably react with skepticism. The obvious initial thought is that it is not possible to externally exert any significant control over one's own thoughts. That is a false belief. 

If one reflects a moment or two, it is obvious that external influences often or usually do influence thinking, often by limiting the scope of thoughts. What external influences? Demagoguery and dishonest speech generally, TikToK, Facebook, Faux News, The Federalist, tribalism, Christianity, brass knuckles capitalism, party loyalty, etc. All kinds of people really are trying to control your thoughts

Although the freedom of thought concept is in international human rights law, McCarthy-Jones argues for a clearer definition and better protection of thought freedom in light of modern threats. He emphasizes the importance of mental autonomy, which involves the ability to control one's attention, engage in reflective thinking, and not fear punishment for one's thoughts. McCarthy-Jones argues that the right to freedom of thought should protect both internal thought processes and external actions like internet searches and diaries that are constitutive of thought.

McCarthy-Jones cites Curtis Yarvin to highlight the potential dangers of ideologies that seek to control thought. Yarvin, discussed here a few days ago [2], is currently a MAGA elite darling who proposes authoritarianism and thought control by a dictator in place of democracy. He critiques the notion that any form of thought control, even if proposed under the guise of efficiency or order as Yarvin does, fundamentally undermines the essence of free thought.

A major problem in all of this is the messiness of defining "illegitimate" manipulation versus "legitimate" persuasion. Given human cognitive biology and social behavior, there is no readily apparent practical way to dissect those two messy concepts. Both of may be essentially contested concepts, but they are at least seriously contested. This point is a major problem in terms of trying to enshrine freedom of thought into law.

And that is why I keep pointing to personal good will and good faith in politics and rhetoric as core moral values. What is the only at least semi-objective difference between manipulation and persuasion? The speaker's state of mind. How can that state of mind be observed and practiced? One tactic that comes to mind is to be aware of and adherent to is the Principle of Charity in rhetoric.[1] That requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. But what if the listener does not also adhere to the Principle of Charity? In that case, the cognitive playing field is tilted heavily in favor of the bad faith player.

Being honest alone is hard, often unpleasant and less persuasive. Being dishonest is much more fun, easier and often more persuasive.

A couple of quotes from the book:

• Page 18,  quoting from a 1901 article in Banker's Magazine, making the point that both government and business are in the mind-control game: The businessman seeks to shape politics and government in a way conducive to his own prosperity. As the business of the country has learned the secret of the combination, it is gradually subverting the power of the politician and rendering him subservient to its purposes. That government is not entirely controlled by these [business] interests is due to the fact that business organization has not reached full perfection.

• Page 92: Writing in 1913, the historian J.B. Bury believed the freedom of thought had been secured. In his view, a hopeful person could view this victory as permanent, with "intellectual freedom assured to mankind as a possession forever." But Bury was trained in history, not hope. Was there, he queried, a possibility of "a great setback"? For him, Christianity has "laid chains on the human mind." Bury worried that a new force emerging from the unknown could cause something similar to happen again. A century later, we see his fears realized. The cause of this setback is corporate power.

Footnotes:

1. Another way to distinguish good faith rhetoric from bad is to look for open-mindedness. Good faith players approach discussions with an open mind, willing to consider alternative viewpoints and adjust their stance based on the merits of the presented arguments. Bad faith players generally refuse to accept that they could be wrong or they might not be genuinely interested in understanding opposing viewpoints, focusing mostly or entirely on pushing their own narrative

2. Yarvin has coined the term "The Cathedral" to describe a set of institutions, including the press and universities, that he believes work in tandem with the federal bureaucracy to control thought. He argues that these institutions, despite having no central organizational connection, behave as if they were a single organizational structure, projecting illusions that keep American democracy running. He posits that the professors and journalists have sovereignty because final decisions are entrusted to them, and there is no power above them. He believes that only professors can formulate policy, and only journalists can hold the government accountable, effectively giving them control over strategy and tactics, which he equates to control over society. 

Yarvin's advocacy for thought control is rooted in his critique of modern democratic institutions and his vision for a more authoritarian form of governance where a strong leader, the "CEO of America", unencumbered by democratic checks and balances, could use technology to manage society's affairs more efficiently. He believes that this centralized control would bypass the inefficiencies and thought control mechanisms he sees in democracy, effectively replacing them with a different form of thought control under a single, powerful executive.

From Einstein to Musk: The Narrowing of American Achievement

 

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, marking his controversial return to the White House. The ceremony, held inside the US Capitol Rotunda, became a showcase of America's new power brokers. In the front row, a who's who of Silicon Valley sat shoulder to shoulder: Elon Musk, fresh from pumping over $275 million into Trump's victory, Mark Zuckerberg, who had just gutted Meta's fact-checking system at Trump's behest, Jeff Bezos, and other tech titans, their combined net worth exceeding an astonishing $1 trillion.

The irony of this scene was palpable. Trump, who has long positioned himself as a populist champion of the "forgotten" rural Americans struggling with stagnant wages and rising living costs, surrounded himself with the ultra-elite oligarchs of the tech world. The stark contrast between Trump's rhetoric of being the voice of the common people and the reality of his billionaire-studded inauguration highlights the bizarre nature of his populist claims – claims that somehow survived even as Musk doled out million-dollar daily "prizes" to voters in swing states through his PAC, a brazen scheme that distributed  $17 million by Election Day.

This gathering of tech moguls at the inauguration reflects a broader shift in our cultural values and the figures we choose to lionize. Nothing illustrates this transformation more clearly than examining who our leading biographers deem worthy of chronicling. When Walter Isaacson, perhaps America's preeminent biographer, looks to history, he finds subjects of profound humanistic impact: Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein – figures who not only innovated but wrestled deeply with the moral implications of their work, contributing to human understanding far beyond their specific fields.

Yet when Isaacson surveys our present era for subjects of similar stature, he finds science and tech titans, and venture capitalists: Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Jennifer Doudna. This absence of contemporary figures whose impact transcends biotech, ai and market disruption speaks volumes about our cultural priorities. That his collection marketed as "The Genius Biographies" places Jobs alongside Einstein, Franklin, and da Vinci reveals how thoroughly we've narrowed our vision of meaningful achievement. Where are today's philosophers? Poets? Composers and artists? Our culture seems to have lost interest in contributions that don't translate directly to big tech and market capitalization.

Isaacson's "The Wise Men" chronicles how figures like Dean Acheson, George Kennan, and Averell Harriman shaped the post-World War II order through careful statecraft and long-term thinking. The absence of such figures in his contemporary works reflects how thoroughly we've replaced patient diplomacy and institution-building with technological disruption and profit-seeking. The architects of the Marshall Plan worked to rebuild and stabilize the world; today's tech titans make grandiose claims about "saving civilization" while spending hundreds of millions to influence elections and erode democratic safeguards. Indeed, on inauguration day itself, Musk declared, "My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured. Thanks to you, we're going to have safe cities, finally. Safe cities, secure borders, sensible spending, basic stuff."

The absurdity of this rhetoric – equating campaign donations and voter incentive schemes with "saving civilization" – is matched only by its widespread acceptance. Right-wing activist wing activist Charlie Kirk, citing Isaacson's biography as authority, celebrated Musk's political machinations as equivalent to his business achievements on the PBD podcast: "When you have that kind of focus from obviously the highest capacity person on the planet coupled with Donald Trump, you're talking about a force multiplier that literally, in my opinion, saved civilization."

This new paradigm, which romanticizes rule-breaking and profit-making, has sidelined the importance of patient ethical inquiry, statecraft, and the humanities that have traditionally helped to balance and manage technological innovations. We see this playing out in real time: Meta dismantled its fact-checking system in response to presidential pressure, while Zuckerberg dined at Mar-a-Lago and appointed UFC chief Dana White to Meta's board. These are not mere business decisions but represent a fundamental realignment of power, where tech leaders actively participate in dismantling the very safeguards they once championed.

The scene at Trump's inauguration, with its congregation of tech billionaires, serves as more than just a symbol – it represents the culmination of a profound transformation in American values under the neoliberal paradigm. As political scientist Brendan Nyhan observed regarding Meta's recent changes, we are witnessing "a pattern of powerful people and institutions kowtowing to the president in a way that suggests they're fearful of being targeted." This very dynamic threatens not just the independence of American enterprise that has historically set it apart from more authoritarian systems, but the very notion of what we consider valuable in human achievement and worthy of celebration. In our rush to embrace technological disruption and market dominance, we have lost sight of the broader spectrum of human accomplishment – the kind that seeks not merely to innovate, but to improve the human condition through ethical reflection, artistic expression, and thoughtful governance.

 

--PD 1/22/25

 

Here's The Guardian's Owen Jones responding to the Inauguration. Worth watching:  

Plato and Aristotle on demagoguery & democracy

In many posts and comments here I've mentioned how Plato and Aristotle viewed demagoguery and the threat to democracy it constitutes. I don't recall doing a post dedicated to this critically important political issue.

Some people believe that the re-election of DJT is evidence that the American Republic no longer working. Exactly, what that means isn't clear to me. Maybe it's an implicit justification of people voting for a corrupt demagogue like DJT. Maybe it is an implicit criticism of the Democratic Party and/or liberalism generally that it failed. Maybe is justifies burning everything down because its all broken

But why doesn't the American Republic work any more? Lots of people believe that.

In my opinion, there are two main reasons. First, decades of demagoguery, propaganda, dark free speech, lies, slanders and crackpot "reasoning" from ruthless, radical right American authoritarian elites. Second, weakening and corruption of government, democracy and the rule of law by tens of billions of special interest dollars spent over decades. That is why our government arguably is broken, corrupted and subverted. That, plus some significant false beliefs by demagogues, is mostly why a lot of rank and file MAGA are really pissed off and voted for a deeply corrupt, authoritarian monster.  

From what I can tell, this weakness to demagoguery in democracy has been known for millennia. Plato was critical of democracy , viewing it as inherently flawed due to its susceptibility to mob rule and the manipulation by demagogues. He believed that democracy would inevitably lead to tyranny because the masses could be easily swayed by charismatic leaders who promise to fulfill their desires without regard for the common good. Plato described demagogues as individuals who gain power by claiming to be champions of the people, making wild promises, and exploiting the populace's fears and desires. He saw them as leading democracy into tyranny by manipulating public opinion and undermining democratic institutions.   

Aristotle emphasized that in a well-functioning democracy , laws should govern, not the decrees of the assembly influenced by demagogues. He warned that when demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, democracy devolves into a form of tyranny.  No one has ever figured out a democratic way to stop charismatic, ruthless demagogues. That is what American democracy and its rule of law are falling prey to right now, in real time before our eyes.

Both philosophers focused on how demagogues manipulate public opinion through rhetoric, appealing to emotions rather than reason, which leads to the degradation of public discourse and the undermining of democratic principles. Both saw a pathway from democracy to tyranny facilitated by demagogues who, once in power, could become tyrants by exploiting the very system that allowed them to rise.
Both believed in the importance of education and virtue in political leaders. They argued that only those with the proper training and moral character should govern, contrasting sharply with the idea of rule by the many, which they saw as prone to demagoguery.

So neither believed that pure democracy was a good way to go because demagoguery would cause it to degenerate into tyranny. In the Republic Plato suggested there five basic forms of government, with his ideal seen as either royalty or aristocracy, where carefully trained guardians or "good authoritarians" are in power. 

By contrast, Aristotle favored a form of government he called "polity." He described this form of government as a mixture of oligarchy and democracy. The intent was to balance the interests of both the rich and the poor while incorporating elements of virtue from aristocracy. He envisioned the middle class playing a crucial role in maintaining stability and balance. Virtue is seen as a necessary moral value to balance excess and defect in both democracy and authoritarianism. His idea was that the best life and the best constitution are those in a middle ground, avoiding the extremes of both democracy and oligarchy or authoritarianism generally. 

His polity is thus characterized by a balance of power between the rich and the poor, with the middle class holding significant power. Aristotle intended this balance to prevent the excesses of both oligarchy (rule by the rich) and "excessive" democracy (rule by the poor). Aristotle's polity concept arguably leans more towards democracy than oligarchy.

Plato's reasoning sounds strange to me. He advocates for good authoritarians to have power to prevent bad authoritarians from rising to power out of a democracy. In view of the human condition, the concept of such a "good authoritarian" sounds like nonsense. 

Obviously, both Plato and Aristotle were uncomfortable with both bad authoritarianism and democracy. Plato given up on democracy and called for a benign philosopher king or good authoritarian ruler. That's not going to happen. By contrast, Aristotle tried to figure out a middle way to deal with the mess inherent in the human condition. 

Qs: Is the rise of DJT back into power something that both Plato and Aristotle were arguing against, assuming DJT is seen as a "bad authoritarian"? Or, is DJT's character and behaviors consistent with a "good authoritarian" or is he not any kind of an authoritarian at all?