The rise of global and MAGA kleptocracy

This appears to be a very big deal. For years US companies complained that they could not compete with other countries in international business because US law made bribing foreign officials illegal. That law, the FCPA, was a major bulwark against the rise of kleptocracy in the US and abroad. Now DJT, himself a kleptocrat, is unilaterally killing the law, whether it is legal or not (probably not). The NYT writes: 

President Trump on Monday ordered a pause in the enforcement of a federal law aimed at curbing corruption in multinational companies, saying it creates an uneven playing field for American firms.

The law, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, makes it illegal for companies that operate in the United States to pay foreign government officials to secure business deals. Though the law was enacted in 1977, federal authorities have more heavily enforced it since around 2005, cracking down on bribery, especially in countries where it is a common business practice.

The article goes on to report that companies and billionaires are very angry at being prosecuted for running afoul of the FCPA. The Indian billionaire Gautam Adani (worth ~$85 billion), stands accused of bribing Indian officials (~$250 million in bribes). He is charged with fraud in raising money from US investors. Various companies that have paid fines under the FCPA. The engineering conglomerate Siemens and the Swedish telecommunications company Ericsson have both been fined. In 2020, Goldman Sachs agreed to pay about $2.9 billion to resolve charges that employees at its Malaysian subsidiary had paid $1 billion in bribes to foreign officials. 

DJT justified letting vast bribery run free, wild and butt naked in international commerce like this: The law has been “abused in a manner that harms the interests of the United States.”

So what's wrong with kleptocracy?

Now that bribery is significantly legalized in US governments and commerce, one has to take a hard look at how kleptocracy plays out for regular people. Corruption expert Sarah Chayes takes a very dim view of it. In her book, Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security, points out that (i) vast amounts of money that are subverted from public works, and (ii) once kleptocracy is sufficiently settled and powerful, it is essentially impossible to get rid of. Chayes learned first hand about kleptocracy and its staying power while working with NGOs in Afghanistan.

She argued that corruption leads to a breakdown in economic and social structures: "Corruption, it made plain, was not solely a humanitarian affair, an issue touching on principles or values alone. It was a matter of national security—Afghan national security and, by extension, that of the United States. And if corruption was driving people to violent revolt in Afghanistan, it was probably doing likewise in other places." Chayes described corruption in some countries as a vertically integrated criminal organization, where corruption flows from the bottom up, making it deeply entrenched and practically impossible to dislodge. 

In the US, corruption seems to mostly flow from the top down, so it may not be too late to combat the plague. In the US, major corruption usually manifests through the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations over government decisions. This includes "pay to play" politics.

In terms of governance, kleptocracies are characterized by a high degree of authoritarianism. The ruling elites typically use state institutions to shield and enable their corrupt activities. That empowers and maintains personal enrichment and political control. Kleptocratic authoritarianism is not just a byproduct but a core feature of kleptocratic governance. Kleptocracies usually show a profound lack of concern for the common good or the general welfare. Since the primary focus is on personal enrichment and maintaining power, public services, infrastructure, and economic development suffer. Corruption in kleptocracies leads to inadequate resources for public services, and often repression of dissent, which fuels radicalization, state fragility, and conflict.

So, kleptocracy is bad governance. But it looks like the US is moving briskly in the direction of kleptocracy, whether we want it or not. 

Michel argues that the US as not just a participant but a leader in the global offshoring of illicit wealth, facilitated by its own legal and financial structures, which have been exploited by some of the world's most corrupt individuals and regimes

Looks like things will get a whole lot worse real soon!

Phase 2: An authoritarian MAGA attack on separation of powers

CONTEXT

Item 1:

There are at least two possibilities here: Vance is just blowing off steam, or he is

signaling a plan by the administration to take the step of defying federal 

court orders, creating a constitutional crisis

Item 2: The Hill reports that some federal judges have temporarily blocked some of DJT’s executive orders (EOs). Dozens of lawsuits have been filed that challenge the EOs. Musk called for impeaching the federal judge who decided the Treasury Department should not allow anyone other than civil servants to have access to the federal payment system. He posted several times online, calling the judge corrupt and saying he “needs to be impeached NOW.” Musk repeated and expanded his threat online, saying that “it’s time” to impeach judges who rule against DJT.

  

The authoritarian threat

Here, both Vance and Musk are openly and unquestionably attacking the separation of powers. DJT and MAGA elites want to obliterate federal court jurisdiction to review and restrain certain presidential powers. That is the clear goal. By attacking and denying the kinds of actions that federal courts have power to review, DJT and MAGA elites seek to vastly expand presidential power by taking power from federal courts. In normal times with a normal GOP and generally pro-democracy politics, this would be an ongoing but relatively tame problem.

A major problem here, as is often or usually the case, there is significant ambiguity in the law. Not surprisingly, the problem is that what is considered to be off-limits to federal review and what isn't is bitterly contested. Another major problem is the unprincipled nature of the current authoritarian, radical right USSC. Long standing court decisions and mainstream constitutional interpretation has found that some presidential actions are off limits for federal court review. This USSC shows little respect for precedent or legal principle. Instead, the rule of law for this court is a means to an end, not a fair system that applies equally to everyone.

The Constitution vests the President with some inherent powers, such as the authority to execute the nation's laws, command the military, and conduct foreign affairs. These powers are often seen as beyond the direct control of the federal judiciary, particularly when they involve national security or foreign policy decisions. Also, there is the Executive Privilege doctrine that allows a president to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts. This is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but it is generally recognized as an inherent executive power. The big power in play right now is the president's authority to remove executive officials is another area where judicial review is limited. Congress can impose some restrictions on firing of federal employees, but the Supreme Court has upheld the a president's power to remove employees at will, particularly for principal officers, as part of the executive power. That is what DJT's Schedule F is all about, i.e., firing thousands of federal employees or any reason or no reason at all. Other explicitly stated constitutional powers are the power of a president to veto legislation, appoint and remove executive officers, make treaties, grant reprieves and pardons, convene or adjourn congress, receive ambassadors, issue executive orders, and a few other things. The big ones in play now are issuing EOs and firing federal employees.

On top of all of that, there is the July 1, 2024 Trump v US USSC decision that presidents have (i) absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview (whatever that means), and (ii) at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility (whatever that means). Neither core constitutional purview nor the outer perimeter of their official responsibility are clearly defined. Precedent, which is fragile, defines core power, but the outer perimeter of official responsibility is as clear as mud. That decision is solid evidence of the authoritarian sympathies of this USSC.

 
Long, complex story short: The exact scope of executive power that is beyond the reach of federal courts is not well-defined. It is a subject of intense debate. Scholars and jurists differ on how broadly or narrowly to interpret the President's inherent powers. There are major concerns that DJT's actions, particularly his executive orders and the statements from his administration, are an authoritarian attack on our constitutional separation of powers. DJT is challenging the judiciary's authority to review and potentially block some of his executive actions.

Before this gets to be TL/DR, end of post

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️

For wonks:

A legal analysis on JD Vance saying DJT can ignore the courts:

The relevant language from the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision is as follows:

“By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.

In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive . . . The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the Courts.

But when the Legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law, is amenable to the laws for his conduct, and cannot at his discretion, sport away the vested rights of others.

The conclusion from this reasoning is that, where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.”

In short, what Marshall says is the following:

• If the power is discretionary or political in nature (for example, the pardon power or the prosecutorial power), then the courts cannot examine it. A similar principle is expressed in Trump v. United States.

• But if the power is prescribed by law (such as Congress authorizing spending or saying that an action must be taken), then courts can order it to be taken. Another way of expressing such a power is characterizing it as “ministerial” power. The executive actor is nothing more than a messenger in that act, and the executive discretion does not control their actions there.

While Marbury only extends to the Heads of Departments in its analysis, NTEU v. Nixon (DC Circuit) extended this to the President as well. As far as I’m aware, the Supreme Court has never explicitly addressed this question.

Vance seems to be arguing, in effect, that either the President is exempt from court orders on ministerial acts (the narrow interpretation of his statement), or that no such ministerial acts exist and that the courts cannot order the executive to do anything (the broad interpretation of his statement). It’s certainly not helped by his inapposite analogies to examples of purely political/discretionary power.

Either way, that’s certainly not an argument with any real merit unless and until the Supreme Court grants certiorari on the very question. Given that the DC Circuit is seen as the “leader” of the circuit courts, I find it highly unlikely that any circuit except perhaps the 5th Circuit would decide to create a split. And I think it even less likely that the Supreme Court will willingly strip their own power to order the President.

All that to say, the precedential and constitutional backing to this statement is certainly lacking.

Perplexity explains that: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/explain-the-following-analysis-0fNHjXquSImUIs.o9z5WGQ:

Q1: Explain the following analysis of JD Vance's recent comments on X that judges are not allowed to control a president's "legitimate power": The relevant language from Marbury v. Madison is as follows: “By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, . . . . . (reddit comment above) ....

A1: Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in this case laid out the distinction between political/discretionary acts and ministerial acts of the executive branch.

Discretionary Acts: These are actions where the executive uses their judgment or discretion, such as the pardon power or prosecutorial discretion. Courts generally do not interfere with these acts as they are inherently political 1 10.

Ministerial Acts: These are actions prescribed by law where the executive has no discretion, and the law mandates a specific action. Here, the judiciary can intervene if these acts are not performed, as they involve individual rights and legal obligations 1 10 37 40.

Judicial Review: The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the law, including the Constitution, and to ensure that all branches of government act within their constitutional bounds. This includes the power to issue writs of mandamus to compel the performance of ministerial duties 1 3 10.

Interpretation of Vance's Comments

Narrow Interpretation: Vance might be suggesting that the President is exempt from court orders concerning ministerial acts, which contradicts established legal precedents. This interpretation would imply that even when the law mandates a specific action, the President could ignore judicial orders, undermining the separation of powers 16.

Broad Interpretation: If Vance means that no such ministerial acts exist for the President, this would effectively argue that the President is above judicial oversight in all executive actions, a position that directly challenges the foundational principles of checks and balances and judicial review 16.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

Precedent: The Supreme Court has not explicitly addressed whether the President is subject to judicial orders for ministerial acts, but lower courts, like the DC Circuit in NTEU v. Nixon, have extended the principles from Marbury to the President 16.

Separation of Powers: Vance's comments could be seen as advocating for an unchecked executive power, which would disrupt the balance of power established by the Constitution. This view is at odds with the judiciary's role as a co-equal branch of government 2 5 8 9.

Potential for Constitutional Crisis: Critics argue that such a stance could lead to a constitutional crisis by setting a precedent where the executive branch could ignore judicial rulings, thereby weakening the rule of law1 2 5.

Conclusion 

JD Vance's comments challenge the established legal framework where the judiciary has the authority to enforce laws through judicial review, particularly concerning ministerial acts. His assertions lack substantial legal backing unless the Supreme Court explicitly revises its stance on judicial oversight of executive actions. Given the current legal landscape and the historical precedents set by cases like Marbury v. Madison, Vance's position appears to be more of a political statement than a legally sound argument. The judiciary's role in checking executive power remains a cornerstone of American constitutional democracy, and any significant alteration to this balance would require a profound shift in legal interpretation, likely through Supreme Court intervention.

Q3: What are the historical examples of executive branches defying judicial rulings?

A3: Marbury v. Madison (1803): Although not a direct defiance, President Thomas Jefferson threatened to defy any judicial order instructing his secretary of state to install William Marbury as justice of the peace in Washington, D.C. This case established the principle of judicial review, but Jefferson's stance highlighted the potential for executive resistance 5.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832): President Andrew Jackson's alleged statement, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" reflects his refusal to assist with enforcing the Supreme Court's order to release a state prisoner. Georgia's governor also defied the Court's decision, and Jackson did not intervene, maintaining that Georgia had the right to apply its laws within its borders 3 6.

Ex parte Merryman (1861): President Abraham Lincoln authorized the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which Chief Justice Roger Taney declared unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored Taney's ruling, continuing to suspend habeas corpus without congressional approval 4 6.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): President Harry Truman ordered the seizure of steel mills during the Korean War, acting without congressional authorization. The Supreme Court struck down this executive order, but Truman's initial defiance of Congress's authority set a precedent for executive overreach 1.

United States v. Nixon (1974): President Richard Nixon initially claimed executive privilege to withhold recordings from investigators. Although he eventually complied with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision to hand over the tapes, his initial resistance and the potential for defiance were notable 4 7.

Korematsu v. United States (1944): While not a direct defiance, President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066, which authorized the internment of Japanese Americans, was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, Roosevelt's suggestion to try German saboteurs in military tribunals, regardless of the Supreme Court's stance, indicates a willingness to challenge judicial authority 9.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Southern states' "Massive Resistance" to the Supreme Court's decision declaring racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional led to widespread disobedience. Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had to use military force to enforce court orders in some instances 6.

Executive Defiance in Immigration Context: Recent examples include the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) failing to follow federal appeals court remands and deportations that violate federal-court orders, indicating a pattern of executive defiance in immigration enforcement 2.

These historical examples illustrate that while direct defiance of judicial rulings by the executive branch is rare, there have been significant instances where presidents or executive officials have challenged or ignored court orders, often in times of national crisis or when asserting broad executive powers. The judiciary's ability to enforce its rulings often relies on the cooperation of the other branches, particularly the executive, which has the power to enforce or resist judicial mandates.

Musings: Should I abandon this blog and replace it with another?

As rational, justifiable distrust rises in the land, a dart recently flew into my in-box. This one came out of nowhere. Well, out of my curiosity first, and then Google. Years ago, when I Google searched the exact phrase "Dissident Politics" this blog came up in the top three hits on the first page. Out of curiosity, I recently asked Perplexity why, when I search "Dissident Politics" now, it doesn't show up in the top 13 pages (130 hits), or at all as far as I can tell. 

After that, things went to hell. 

Perplexity listed a slew of things that could knock me out of Google search results. I understood basically none of it. But one thing that popped up was that I needed to look at the Google Search Console, whatever that is. Not knowing what it was or how to access it, Perp told me how to get there. So I did. 

That's when I found that Google was blocking all of my blog pages from Google searches because of alleged phishing malware buried somewhere in my blog. 

Perp tole me how to find web sites that would scan my blog and find the malware. I did two scans at two different sites. Neither found anything wrong. I then told Perp to scan my entire blog from the first post in 2015 until now. It found nothing alarming, stating that my blog doesn't raise any red flags, e.g., no malicious ads, not violent content, etc..

Then things got very complicated, and I got very confused. It's a very long, very complex story. I checked to see when I installed Disqus on my blog. That happened in 2019, about two years after Disqus changed its install software to eliminate a security issue that Google could have flagged as phishing malware. So Disqus, the only thing external to Google I have installed on my blog was not the issue.

So then I went to the Google Search Console to root around for answers. All the info it gave was incomprehensible to me. It would refer to computer thing X, but when I asked what X was, I was referred to Y, and when I asked what Y was, I was referred to Z, and when I asked what Z was it referred to A, . . . . . and so on, endlessly as far as I could tell. I was in a doom loop of computer gobbeldygook, none of which I understood. 

Then, this morning I found an email from Google with an ominous threat, none of which I understood.

So I clicked on the Open Indexing Report Button. I got this:

As far as I can tell, Google blocks  

all of my blog pages from its search engine results

Well, that being as clear as mud, I went back to Perp. Things got more complicated real quick. Perp explained that Google is saying it can’t index my blog pages because I need to alternate pages with proper canonical tags. In Blogger, not WordPress, what is a proper canonical tag and what does alternate pages mean? The canonical tag is this in HTML language:

<b:if cond='data:blog.pageType == &quot;item&quot;'>

  <link expr:href='data:blog.canonicalUrl' rel='canonical'/>

</b:if>

<b:if cond='data:blog.pageType == &quot;index&quot;'>

  <link expr:href='data:blog.homepageUrl' rel='canonical'/>

</b:if>

Well, you know. Clear as mud. But at least I know how to insert that code into my blog. That is how I installed Disqus in 2019. But If I do insert that code, I don't know if it will blow the whole blog up, and if it does, whether I can fix it by deleting the code. 

A huge issue that Perp mentioned is Google's Blogger rules. If a blogger violates one or more Blogger rules, and Google chooses, it can delete an entire blog without telling the blog owner why. I asked what the killer rules are so I could see if I was violating any.

Two that popped up and scared me were (i) fair use doctrine under copyright law, and (ii) "deceptive content". I studied fair use in law school and several professional legal education meetings. I had a reasonably good understanding of the legal doctrine. Fair use allows someone like me to copy copyrighted content from other places, e.g., the NYT, WaPo, The Hill, etc. Does my use fall under fair use doctrine? Hard to tell. Deceptive content, impossible to tell.

What about "deceptive content" in politics? Perp tried valiantly to explain it, but it was clear that the concept is subjective. Perp and I were locked in intractable disagreement.

Here's the problem with fair use. The analysis is complex and has significant subjectivity in it. My blog has indicators of fair use, e.g., (i) I do not allow ads and thus make zero money from the content I copy and paste, (ii) I use the copied material to inform and educate, (iii) I often add my own original commentary, and (iv) my blog is too small to cause any economic damage to the sites I copy material from. Those are major indicators that what I copy is fair use. But some of what I do copies a fair amount of material, arguably copying the "heart" of copied content. That edges close to or beyond the limits of fair use. The legal call based on all the factors is more subjective than objective.

So now here I sit, unsure of what to do. In these times of MAGA thuggery and sleaze, it is easy to see some MAGA thug doing a wink, wink, nudge, nudge with Google and my entire blog instantly disappearing with no reason given. On the other hand, if I abandon Dissident Politics and try to be even more conservative about not running afoul of one or more of Google's killer rules, the same thing could still happen.

I'm inclined to stick with this blog, but if it disappears, you'll know why.

We live in exciting times for sure! 

Global warming update: Killing a major environmental research report

The NYT reports (not paywalled):

Trump Killed a Major Report on Nature. 

They’re Trying to Publish It Anyway.

The first full draft of the assessment, on the state of America’s land, water and wildlife, was weeks from completion. The project leader called the study “too important to die.”

The draft was almost ready for submission, due in less than a month. More than 150 scientists and other experts had collectively spent thousands of hours working on the report, a first-of-its-kind assessment of nature across the United States.

But President Trump ended the effort, started under the Biden administration, by executive order. So, on Jan. 30, the project’s director, an environmental scientist named Phil Levin, sent an email telling members of his team that their work had been discontinued.

The article reports that Levin wrote to other authors, asserting that “the country needs what we are producing.” The key experts who worked on the report, called the National Nature Assessment, are planning to finish and publish without government involvement. One can only assumed that Levin IS FIRED!! for such insubordination.

One of the experts, Rajat Panwar (Oregon State University) who lead the chapter on nature and the economy said the team he recruited sees the work as a calling to help solve one of its generation’s most pressing problems, the loss of nature and biodiversity. According to Panwar, “the dependence of the economy on nature is understated and understudied and underappreciated.” 

Authoritarian and kleptocratic intent roam free, wild and

butt naked within the confines of our democracy and the rule of law

Hiding inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning from the public is a key indicator of authoritarian and kleptocratic (A&K) intent. Just because A&K rhetoric and action are legal under existing laws, does not negate blatantly anti-democratic A&K intent. A&K intent here cannot be much clearer.

What about A&K motive? There's plenty of motive to stop all federal efforts to deal with global warning and all public communications related to it. First, there the cash, a/k/a, free speech. For example, Politico wrote last Sept., Trump pressed oil executives to give $1 billion for his campaign, people in industry say. It was legal, if the fact that there was and will be no prosecution for that request for a bribe.

Also, there is plenty of motive to keep the public as ignorant, disinformed and deceived as possible about the seriousness of global warming. As a rule, As&Ks routinely try to hide as much inconvenient fact, true truth and sound reasoning from the public as their power and circumstances permit. They capture and manipulate government institutions to kill their independence and convert them to propaganda operations. The overarching strategy is to establish and maintain asymmetry of information. They control what the public knows, how they perceive it, and what they can discuss. They do this by a combination of censorship, disinformation, repression, and the manipulation of both domestic and international perceptions.

Poll data makes it clear that most Americans are concerned about global warming. A Gallup poll from December 2024 indicated that nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults (61%) are concerned about global warming or climate change, with 40% worrying about it "a great deal" and 21% "a fair amount". 34% of Americans believe that government climate policies help the economy, 34% think they hurt it. Among Republicans, 56% believe climate policies usually hurt the economy, while 52% of Democrats think they help. Analyses suggest that despite a significant amount of ambiguity, the economic benefits of climate action might be undervalued due to uncertainty. 

The bottom line: American As&Ks are highly motivated to hide, deny and distort all inconvenient climate science. They are equally motivated to use demagoguery and deceptive propaganda to deceive, divide and sow confusion among the public. That is crucial to keep public opposition to climate science denial manageable. 

What's next?

This is what's next, Phase 2: 

We've been warned.

MAGA bits: Poetry; The chaos strategy; Unseparating church & state; Attacking the church!; Heretic pastor!

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;

Surely the Second Coming is at hand….

A "gyre" in W.B. Yeats's philosophy is a spiral or vortex, symbolizing the cyclical nature of history. The phrase "widening gyre" says the cycle is expanding, moving further from its center, which implies a loss of control or order. The falcon metaphor, is society or humanity that has flown so far from the falconer (authority, tradition, or divine guidance) that it can no longer hear or follow the commands. This symbolizes loss of direction and disintegration of established norms.

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold speaks to the collapse of societal structures, moral values, and traditional centers of power or belief. The center here can be interpreted as the core values or the established order that once held society together, now failing to maintain its grip. Anarchy loosed upon the world with the loss of the center refers to unleashed anarchy, or a state of serious disorder.

Are we facing that, or something about the opposite, where authority is taking control of our disordered democracy with its messy civil liberties and messy rule of law? 

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Salon writes about the chaos strategy:

Donald Trump's chaos strategy: Why Americans 

continue to fall for his game of distraction

Be very wary of any political observer or other public voice — or anyone else — who suggests that Trump and his MAGA movement are losing, in disarray, ineffective or somehow confused or weak. Such people are seeing what they want to see and not what is actually happening. Donald Trump and his MAGA movement’s strategy is chaos. Moreover, that chaos is in service to their shock and awe strategy to end America’s pluralistic democracy and to replace it with a form of autocracy if not outright fascism modeled on Viktor Orbán’s Hungary or Vladimir Putin’s Russia with Trump as de facto leader for life. As Harold Meyerson observes in The American Prospect, “As to the wider world, if we ever sought to be that beacon on the hill, we’re now the bully on the hill. America, Trumpified.”  

America’s center is rapidly collapsing, and it has not been very difficult for Trump and the MAGA movement and the other fascists and authoritarians to break it.

That sounds right to me. Salon gets it. Well, at least that writer gets it.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Above the Law writes about unseparating the state from the church: 

Folks who were paying attention didn’t really need Project 2025 to know the direction Trump and the far right were planning to take the country in. Back in 2022, it was obvious theocracy was approaching.*** And whether it was labeled Integralism or White Christian Nationalism, it was pretty clear that conservative Christianity would be taking a hold in the White House under a Trump presidency. The only real question was how strong the hold would be. Considering Trump just casually mentioned a Christian task force housed in the White House, it’s gonna be pretty strong. 

*** FWIW: It was obvious to me back in 2017. Harumph!

It's too early to predict how much impact American Christian theocracy have. There will be some impact on society and individuals and groups that God says need to be re-educated, oppressed or more vigorously put in their place. It will probably take 6-8 months before the scope, depth and grasp of the Christian nationalist wealth and power movement comes into reasonable focus. One needs to keep an eye on changes in the the rule of law and more Christian access to tax dollars.  

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Deployment of power by DJT and MAGA seem to be fragmenting in the American Christian world. The WaPo writes: 

High-level members of the Trump administration and allies of the president are leveling attacks on religious groups, including Catholics and Lutherans, who do the same work Bush praised [in 2001], questioning their efforts to help migrants. These attacks may signal a new political approach toward religion, some experts say, one comfortable belittling faith groups — despite DJT’s self-described brand as a champion of Christians. More broadly, it has aligned some Republicans against religious groups that in some cases propelled their rise to power, Trump’s included.

“This is just a complete reversal” of the Bush-era goal of bringing faith groups into public works and elevating their role in American life, said Melissa Deckman, a political scientist focused on religion and politics in America and chief executive of the polling firm PRRI. These actions are “a total abandonment of faith-based groups,” Deckman said.

On Sunday, on the social media site X, right-wing Trump ally Mike Flynn accused Lutheran organizations that receive federal grants to help the needy of committing “money laundering.” Flynn put quote marks around the word “Lutheran” — one of America’s largest Protestant groups — in the post. Billionaire Elon Musk’s then shared Flynn’s post, calling “illegal” multiple Lutheran organizations that work in the United States to provide health care to homeless people, run food pantries, and help migrants and refugees.

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

The Daily Beast writes about the heretic in the White House: 

Trump Enrages Christian MAGA By Naming ‘Heretic’ Pastor to White House 

DJT angered some of his Christian supporters on Friday when he named a televangelist who even some conservative evangelicals have labeled a “heretic” as part of his White House administration. The president signed an executive order establishing a White House Faith Office and chose Pastor Paula White-Cain, his ally and spiritual advisor, to lead it. White-Cain, 58, is a megachurch preacher from Florida who has endorsed biblical interpretations that some evangelical Christians believe go too far. She is a proponent of “prosperity theology,” which teaches that God rewards the truly faithful with material wealth and personal success. 

Scott Ross, a Texas-based leadership coach and self-described “Orthodox Christian,” called the move “an abomination.” “Paula White, head of Trump’s White House Faith Office, is no Christian leader,” he wrote. “She preaches the heresies of Word of Faith & Prosperity Gospel, both utterly opposed to authentic Christianity. Worse, she has lived a life of scandal, with multiple husbands, twisting the Gospel for profit.” .... “Arguably, this is the worst and most dangerous thing President Trump has done—putting a false teacher at the helm of faith outreach. Lord, have mercy on our country and this administration,” Ross added.  

Conservative commentator Jon Root, who typically posts in support of Trump, wrote, “This is the worst decision President Trump has made since taking office… Paula White is a heretic, who pedals the prosperity gospel. Plus, women should not be pastors according to The Bible.”

Putting White-Cain in the White House Faith Office is the worst and most dangerous thing?? Women should not be pastors according to The Bible?? 

Well, what can I say? Maybe Ross and Root are right. Who knows? We're in uncharted waters. The ship of state just might hit rocks and sink into only Christian God knows what. Knowing God stuff is waaaay above my pay grade. 

Q: Are splits among Christians and bickering Christian nationalist splinter groups a sign of Yeats' widening gyre?   

American Legal Realism, Legal Formalism, and MAGAism compared

American Legal Realism

American Legal Realism (ALR) is a legal ideology or doctrine that emerged in the early 20th century, primarily in the United States, as a reaction against the prevailing legal formalism of the time. It arose when there were major social and technological changes underway in the US. ALR drew heavily from pragmatism, a philosophy that emphasized practical consequences and real-world effects over abstract principles. ALR emphasizes the actual behavior of judges and the social, economic, and political factors influencing legal outcomes. Realists argue that legal rules and principles are not fixed or objective. Instead, they are often ambiguous, contradictory, or incomplete, leading to multiple possible interpretations in judicial decision-making. Under ALR, the law is seen as an instrument for achieving social ends, reflecting the belief that judges should consider fairness, public policy, and societal needs in their decisions. Here, there is an understanding that judicial decisions should be influenced by more than just legal doctrine, including social norms and empirical realities. 

Legal formalism

Legal formalism posits that law is a set of rules and principles that are independent of other political and social institutions. Formalists believe that by applying a consistent set of legal rules to a given case, sound legal decisions will be the outcome of logical deduction. The law is seen as a rational, scientific system where judges merely apply existing laws without considering external factors like social interests or public policy. Here, judges are expected to align their decisions with current laws without alterations. The role of the judge is to interpret the law, not to analyze or change it. This approach assumes that common law can only progress by following a specific set of principles drawn from legal authority, leading to predictable outcomes

MAGAism

MAGAism does not strictly adhere to either legal realism or legal formalism. Instead, it exhibits characteristics that align more closely with authoritarianism. The MAGA movement has been described as authoritarian, with tendencies towards nativism, opposition to pluralism, and a focus on maintaining power through various means, including undermining democratic institutions (1, 2, 3, 4). The movement's approach to the rule of law appears to be more about using legal mechanisms to achieve political ends rather than adhering to a specific legal philosophy. This includes threats to prosecute political opponents, invoking the Insurrection Act, and plans for mass deportations. The influence of the Federalist Society, which promotes originalist interpretations of the Constitution, suggests a formalist approach in judicial appointments. However, this formalist stance is often used to advance a political agenda rather than a pure commitment to legal formalism. For MAGA, the law is a means to desired ends.

The problem with writing laws

During Brett Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing, senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) made these comments, which reflects a major problem with many important American laws:

“. . . . . the people don't have a way to fire the bureaucrats. What we mostly do around this body is not pass laws. What we mostly decide to do is to give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy X, Y or Z to make law-like regulations. That’s mostly what we do here. We go home and we pretend we make laws. No we don’t. We write giant pieces of legislation, 1200 pages, 1500 pages long, that people haven’t read, filled with all these terms that are undefined, and say to secretary of such and such that he shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That’s why there are so many fights about the executive branch and the judiciary, because this body rarely finishes its work. [joking] And, the House is even worse.”

Here, Sasse a MAGA extremist was voicing criticism of the evil deep state, the damned bureaucrats. He wanted congress to do it job. That is something that congress is not competent to do because congress does not have the expertise that those hated federal bureaucracies have. MAGA got rid of Sasse because MAGA wants DJT to do congress' job. Sasse criticized that. That criticism made DJT angry and MAGA drove Sasse out of the Senate. 

See the problem? Which legal doctrine would you want, assuming competent judges acting in good faith, not Trump judges, ALR, legal formalism, or MAGAism?