democratic impasse.com

It's hard to believe where we are. Not that long ago, contemporary American politics was not quite as twisted as today. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party had competing agendas, but (mostly) agreed about the rules of engagement and the arena where the give and take of politics took place. Small-d democratic norms went unchallenged. Both sides accepted the results of free and fair elections. Republicans and Democrats embraced the rule of law at home and America's leadership abroad.

No longer. Not in 2024. Not with Donald Trump and the MAGA GOP. Consider these headlines and subheads:

Trump compares undocumented migrants to trash at insult-fueled rallies: The Republican presidential nominee compared the United States to “a garbage can for the world” because of illegal border crossings.
Remember when an iconic Republican president praised the USA as a Shining City on a Hill? Four years after his American Carnage inaugural address (courtesy of Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon), Trump has become even more negative, sounding as much like an insult comic as a past president. Speaking of insults, see the item below.

Trump rally speakers lob racist insults, call Puerto Rico ‘island of garbage’: Later, Trump took the stage at Madison Square Garden and called the GOP “the party of inclusion.” His campaign issued a statement disavowing the “garbage” comment.
There was also misogyny galore at MSG. Tucker Carlson on Kamala Harris: “She’s just so impressive as the first Samoan, Malaysian, low-IQ former California prosecutor ever to be elected president.” Ha ha. From Elon Musk's PAC: "Harris is the C-word." Sly.
A sociologist points out on Bluesky the significance of joking in communicating. She notes, "jokes are more effective than serious messaging when it comes to normalizing sexism and misogyny." This is true for both men and women listeners.

Only a third of Trump supporters say they’ll accept a narrow loss: Whatever the outcome of the election, Trump has already deeply damaged democracy.
The Big Lie, that Trump won the 2020 election, is foundational to his campaign. Trump, other GOP leaders, and conservative media trumpet the falsehood. The MAGA base, unsurprisingly, accepts the fabrication. If Trump loses in 2024, he has primed the base to reject the loss. His folks rioted on January 6, 2021. If he loses again, there is likely to be violence this time around as well.

They tried to prove Trump’s fraud claims. They failed — and got in trouble: Trump’s voter-fraud push has led to increasing legal jeopardy, but largely for those who flouted the law as they tried to substantiate it.
From deep inside the bubble the tale looks so real. Each of these attempts to prove the system is rigged, instead demonstrates that it works. Voter fraud is rare. Elections don't turn on it.

Once Top Advisers to Trump, They Now Call Him ‘Liar,’ ‘Fascist’ and ‘Unfit’: Many of those who served in former President Donald J. Trump’s administration — especially his generals, ambassadors and other national security officials — have since turned on Mr. Trump.
A critique such as this one, from among a president's closest advisers, is without precedent. But here we are.
And the scariest thought of all on this Halloween: at this stage it appears that the man whose advisors fear his return to power has even odds of winning next week.

In an earlier post, I suggested that Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong were hedging their bets by prohibiting the editorial staffs at their newspapers from endorsing a candidate for president. Other critics have also weighed in.

Jeff Bezos defends his integrity and his determination to increase the credibility of the Washington Post. Of newspapers, he writes, "We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased."

Bezos believes that declining to endorse a presidential candidate in 2024 is a step in ensuring that the Post is regarded as "a credible, trusted, independent voice." He pledges to "exercise new muscles," with both unspecified new inventions and returns to the past. Uh-huh.

Let's grant this: there is ample evidence that there is much mistrust of the media.

But mostly, overwhelmingly, it is Republican partisans who mistrust mainstream news sources. Whatever "new muscles" Bezos decides to exercise to get FNC-addicted MAGA true-believers to believe whatever the Washington Post has to say, I'll believe it when I see it. We have every reason to doubt that the failure to endorse Kamala Harris in 2024 will boost MAGA acceptance of WaPo as a reliable source. More likely that it generates the smug feeling that the left-leaning Post has capitulated to Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Patrick Soon-Shiong's daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong, told the New York Times, “Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a Presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process. As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”

Mr. Soon-Shiong replied to the Times:

“Nika speaks in her own personal capacity regarding her opinion, as every community member has the right to do,” the owner said, according to a spokeswoman. “She does not have any role at The L.A. Times, nor does she participate in any decision or discussion with the editorial board, as has been made clear many times.”

Well, yeah. She speaks for herself. She has no role at the LA Times. She participated in no discussions with the editorial board. But did the family have a discussion? Did they reach a consensus? Was the war in Gaza a consideration in killing an endorsement of Harris? Mr. Soon-Shiong doesn't deny any aspect of his daughter's explanation of how the decision to scotch a Harris endorsement came about.

It sure looks like he's not being candid, much less transparent. I'll also note that, according to the Los Angeles Times, "Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong said that his decision not to offer readers a recommendation would be less divisive in a tumultuous election year." I guess we can conclude, though the publisher says, “I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,” that his political instincts are abysmal. A Harris endorsement would have created hardly a ripple of attention, while his decision created a firestorm of controversy, with the Trump campaign chortling about it and thousands of LA Times readers cancelling their subscriptions. What a miscalculation.

In his op-ed, Bezos acknowledges "the appearance of conflict" with his many financial ventures. That would be hard to deny, though he dismisses the view that they are "a web of conflicting interests," because he is a man of principle. I'm sure Soon-Shiong also regards himself as a man of principle. And who's to say they're not?

But the country's billionaires have an awful lot to lose. Another massive tax cut skewed to the richest among us means a lot more to them than to most Americans. That's the carrot. The stick: from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, there are lots of billionaires whose fortunes could be severely impacted by a vindictive president who has boasted of his willingness to go after his enemies.

While a billionaire might have principles and, so, might find grounds for withholding support to Donald Trump -- billionaires are generally pragmatic men (mostly men) where their money is concerned. We can expect them to have a measure of common sense, to be protective of their wealth, and to weigh a number of diverse considerations, beyond disdain for a petty tyrant, in their decision-making.

The more billions, the more likely that disdain for a petty tyrant (or any other factor) is outweighed by financial prudence.

Polarization, division, vilification -- all hallmarks of current American politics. Newt Gingrich, Fox News Channel, and the contemporary Republican Party are among those individuals and institutions we must credit for where we find ourselves. Donald Trump rode a wave going back decades.

But there is a sine qua non mischief-maker we should not overlook: the Republican-appointed majority on the United States Supreme Court. The Roberts Court has inexorably moved, step by corrupt step, to advance the political interests of the Republican Party in several related areas. This lurch has been highly consequential.

Voter suppression: the decisions undermining voting rights, the 14th Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 hark back as early as Shelby County v. Holder (2013) with a 5-4 divided opinion. There have been many cases since then. Republican-led states have put up obstacles for voters (aimed at voters in Democratic areas), created fraudulent narratives about ineligible immigrants voting, and (a lie going back decades, but amped way up since Trump) alleged voter fraud in Democratic cities without a modicum of evidence.

Gerrymandering: a string of decisions that invite state legislatures (most notoriously Republican-led states, such as Wisconsin) to remain in power, even though clear majorities of the states' voters cast ballots for the opposing party. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), decided 5-4, the court's Republicans declared gerrymandering claims "nonjusticiable," forbidding federal courts from resolving such cases. Henceforth, no one could claim (under the Constitution, the Voting Rights Amendments, or federal law) that any gerrymandering (no matter how extreme) had gone too far, never mind the rights of American voters. The mischief continues, such as in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP (2023), decided 6-3 (with Trump/McConnell's three new justices forming a Republican supermajority).

Campaign finance: another string of decisions that have opened the floodgates for big money into our elections. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is the most notorious example. The 5-4 majority opinion of the court assured us that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."

The Roberts Court can be counted on, in each of these areas, to advance the interests of the Republican Party. Never mind the Constitution, federal legislation enacted by Congress and enforced by the Executive Branch, or the rights of American citizens to vote, to have their votes apportioned fairly, and to expect reasonable limits on the corrupting influence of big money in political campaigns. (Elon Musk can thank SCOTUS for permitting his massive contributions into 2024 campaigns, from Trump to Republican Congressional candidates.)

We could not have arrived where we are, in 2024, without the active engagement of the partisan Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. With a different agenda, focused on conservative judicial principles, adherence to the Constitution, and respect for the rights of American voters, the court would have ruled differently. And then the Republican Party would not have found the same measure of electoral success in peddling division, hatred, anger, and lies. Instead, the party would have had to be responsive to majority opinion. We would still have red states, but the anti-democratic (small-d) cheating would be rarer, and nationally things would look different. The MAGA playbook works best with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and corrupt dollars in place. The Roberts Court has methodically, with malice aforethought crafted the conditions that have sabotaged democratic guardrails and produced our dysfunctional political system.

This morning the Republican supermajority, with an order that revealed the three Democratic-appointed members "would deny the application," overruled a federal court that blocked Virginia Republican Governor Glenn Younkin's purge of the voting rolls -- much more likely to purge eligible voters, than ineligible -- with an election less than a week away. All par for the course with the Roberts Court.

[Photo of the webpage of the Washington Post, which reported on this story.]

This morning the Washington Post, which has endorsed presidential candidates for three and a half decades, announced that the paper will not endorse a candidate for president in 2024 (or in the future). William Lewis, Washington Post publisher and CEO, in a lame defense of the decision, appealed to the "strong reasoning" from Post editorials in 1960 and 1972. Daniel Drezner, who wrote the Spoiler Alerts online column for the Post for eight years, pens a Substack today ("The Cowardice of the Washington Post") criticizing the editor's reasoning:

The most absurd part of Lewis’ explanation is, well all of it — because the Post’s own reporting make it clear that Lewis did not make this decision for high-minded reasons — it was Bezos’ call! And it seems pretty clear that Bezos is fearful that Trump, who exacted vengeance on Bezos-owned firms during his first term, will do the same if he is re-elected. Baron’s condemnation is a tell that there was nothing noble about Bezos’ decision.

Earlier this week, we learned that the Los Angeles Times, at the direction of its billionaire owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, had axed his paper's endorsement for president. Apart from Soon-Shiong's tweet (which purports to "clarify how this decision came about," but sheds no light on what prompted Soon-Shiong to overrule the editorial staff), the LA Times hasn't offered an authorized explanation. While Soon-Shiong hasn't bumped heads with our vengeful past president, an angry Donald Trump, if victorious, could undoubtedly find a way to do him harm.

In both instances, absent the intervention of the billionaire owners, we could anticipate endorsements of Kamala Harris for president. The editorial pages of both papers have been consistently pro-democratic, and thus anti-Trump ever since he rode down the golden escalator. But less than two weeks from the presidential election, two billionaires have decided to block endorsements by their editorial staffs.

In both instances, unless and until an explanation that no one has offered yet comes to light, these decisions to block Harris endorsements would appear to be what Timothy Snyder has called, "anticipatory obedience." Trump may win in 2024. If he does so, he can do both men (and their business interests) harm. And he has pledged to go after his enemies. The raw calculation is pretty hard to overlook.

The first lesson Snyder offers in On Tyranny is this:

Do not obey in advance.

Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.

Anticipatory obedience is a political tragedy. Perhaps rulers did not initially know that citizens were willing to compromise this value or that principle. Perhaps a new regime did not at first have the direct means of influencing citizens one way or another. After the German elections of 1932, which brought Nazis into government, or the Czechoslovak elections of 1946, where communists were victorious, the next crucial step was anticipatory obedience. Because enough people in both cases voluntarily extended their services to the new leaders, Nazis and communists alike realized that they could move quickly toward a full regime change. The first heedless acts of conformity could not then be reversed.

"Follow the money," which guided two famous investigative journalists at the Washington Post in uncovering political corruption, suggests a reasonable explanation of editorial interference at two prominent newspapers. But whether Bezos and Soon-Shiong were fearful for their fortunes, or their liberty more broadly, or perhaps their families' well-being -- by their highly visible bows to Trump at this stage, they reinforce the evidence of the threat he poses.

If two of the world's richest men can't stand up to an authoritarian Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican Party, what does that mean for the rest of us? An awful lot rides on the November election for folks who value freedom.

In American history, before Trump, there has never been a president who had so many fierce critics from within his past administration warning that he posed a danger to the country. That should get our attention, shouldn't it?

A year ago, CNN reported, "24 former Trump allies and aides who turned against him." (The Washington Post made a list last April.) The CNN list isn't 'current' in that a number of scathing critics from a year ago are now supporting Trump's 2024 candidacy. For instance, one of Trump's greatest enablers, Bill Barr, who was quoted as saying, “Someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.” Like many Republicans (Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, JD Vance), Barr has shrugged off his concerns in time for the November 2024 election. But what Barr (and other GOP critics who have since shifted their stances to optimize partisan advantage) have had to say earlier is confirmation that Trump is a danger to the Republic.

John Kelly, who served in the White House as Trump's Chief of Staff opened up about his concerns with the former president in two interviews this past week. His remarks included a response to Michael Schmidt's question about whether Trump is fascist:

Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy. So certainly, in my experience, those are the kinds of things that he thinks would work better in terms of running America.

Mark Milley, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump, regards Trump as "fascist to the core," asserting, "He is the most dangerous person to this country.” Military officers, as well as officials in the Pentagon and the Defense Department who have served with Trump, have been among his most prominent critics.

Avoiding the f-word
Never mind uttering the word, 'fascist,' if it offends or needlessly distracts. Some critics, such as Mark Esper, Trump's former Secretary of Defense during the Black Lives Matter protests in summer 2020, have declined to use such charged language. Esper resisted Trump's wish to deploy the military against peaceful American protesters and his suggestion to shoot them in the legs, incurring Trump's wrath (and eventually getting fired as a result). This morning, NPR played this exchange from an interview with Esper:

Mark Esper: My concern has always been in a second term that Trump and those around him learned a lesson that you have to get the right people in, people who will be loyal to you and what you want to do in your policy. People who aren’t necessarily loyal to the Constitution, but to the president. And that is a big distinction. It’s certainly a significant one when it comes to the oath of office to the Constitution that we all swear, but particularly, the military.

A Martinez: Secretary, do you agree with John Kelley, Trump’s former chief of staff and a former Marine general, who has said that Trump meets the definition of a fascist and quote, “prefers the dictator approach to government”?

Mark Esper: You know I’ve said what a terrible thing that’s happened  over the last several years is that public discourse has gotten too angry, too mean. There’s too much name-calling, ad hominem attacks, etc. etc. So, I’m not going to put labels on this right now.
But what I said the other day was this: If you go open up a dictionary, look at how fascism or a fascist is described, there are certain elements. And as you pick through that, you can’t help but see where John Kelly is coming from and agree with some of the descriptions. And so I think that each person should make their own judgment.
I am concerned, and I’ve put my caution out there to others as a warning.

Here's the point -- putting the 'fascist' language and comparisons to the world's most notorious fascist, Adolf Hitler, aside: Trump's approach to combating American critics, as observed by those closest to him in the White House, and in 2024 campaign rallies and interviews, is to employ the United States military to strike back at Americans he regards as enemies. We've seen this. We've heard this. It is undeniable.

The Enemy from Within
The former president has threatened more than 100 times to prosecute or punish his political enemies. As he has become bolder in recent weeks, he has charged that "the enemy from within" -- including, among others, Democratic members of Congress mentioned by name -- is a greater threat to the country than our foreign adversaries. Moreover, he has declared that he would use the national guard and the United States military to go after them. This is plainly authoritarian, whether or not we agree with Trump about the wisdom of this approach.

I'm no historian; I'm in no position to make definitive judgments about 18th or 19th century America. But certainly no president in my lifetime (since the middle of the 20th century) has voiced, again and again, authoritarian rhetoric in office or in a political campaign. This isn't the way presidents (going back at least three-quarters of a century) speak. Our presidents have been -- in recent history with the exception of Trump -- small-d democrats. If they've occasionally veered from democratic norms, that has been an aberration. (Or they've hidden their breaches from public view.) They haven't celebrated democratic departures across the board with clear, plain authoritarian threats, as Trump has.

This is something new. It's a dangerous difference. It's a threat to American democracy. As we approach November 5, the stakes couldn't be higher for those of us who embrace the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the commitment to equal justice for all.

In less than two weeks, the American people will have spoken.

Jeffrey Goldberg relates a visit that President Donald Trump made with his Chief of Staff John Kelly to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day 2017:

The two men visited Section 60, the 14-acre section that is the burial ground for those killed in America’s most recent wars (and the site of Trump’s Arlington controversy earlier this year). Kelly’s son Robert, a Marine officer killed in 2010 in Afghanistan, is buried in Section 60. Trump, while standing by Robert Kelly’s grave, turned to his father and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?” At first, Kelly believed that Trump was making a reference to the selflessness of America’s all-volunteer force. But later he came to realize that Trump simply does not understand nontransactional life choices. I quoted one of Kelly’s friends, a fellow retired four-star general, who said of Trump, “He can’t fathom the idea of doing something for someone other than himself. He just thinks that anyone who does anything when there’s no direct personal gain to be had is a sucker.” 

Meeting someone with this frame of mind, or coming to the realization that a friend or neighbor had such an attitude, would be disconcerting in the best of circumstances. Not everyone is a hero, but most of us understand that not every choice in life is coldly transactional. Even a modicum of virtue demands more of us than this. Not everything we do, not every good deed, is calculated to generate a profit. Sometimes the good to be done demands a higher level of grace and generosity than many folks could muster. But it's not a mystery for us why a soldier might make this choice without regard for self-interest.

It is genuinely shocking to have a former- and possibly a future-Commander in Chief who doesn't get it.

Service to one's country may require sacrifice. For the men and women who volunteer for military service, the sacrifice may include their deaths. Regardless of their individual motivation or life circumstances or philosophical perspective, these folks have chosen to do something that benefits a greater good than self. They are serving their country, defending the national interest, protecting their fellow Americans. That's a fundamental aspect of their service in uniform.

The payoff, in Trump's view, couldn't possibly be high enough to get killed for. The man is clueless about what would prompt someone to enlist in the United States military. To have a president, with the power and authority to send men and women into battle, who doesn't get this -- who regards Americans in uniform as losers and suckers -- is appalling.

Donald Trump is unfit to lead this nation. He is so full of himself, so consumed by self-interest, so blind to considerations broader than personal ego that he is incapable of weighing moral and strategic considerations and coming to reasonable judgments. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Yet the contemporary Republican Party, including many who know full well who Trump is, is foursquare behind him. That represents a disgraceful, inexcusable failure of the Grand Old Party.

Goldberg's full account ("Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’") is in the Atlantic. Kevin Drum has helpfully gathered all the quotes ("Donald Trump’s contempt for the military, quote by quote").

After days of refusing to say whether he believed that Donald Trump had lost the 2020 election (five times in a single New York Times interview, as captured in the screengrab above), including when questioned directly about it in his debate with Governor Tim Walz, Senator JD Vance finally vocalized the MAGA party line: “Did Donald Trump lose the election? Not by the words that I would use.”

We'll take that as an unsurprising, No. Vance added, “But look, I really couldn’t care less if you agree with me or disagree with me on this issue.”

Why should "focusing on 2020" matter? Because it's the Big Lie on which Donald Trump has based his 2024 campaign. Trump has repeatedly asserted, and continues to insist, that he didn't lose the 2020 election. (He's no loser. The election was rigged! He would win even in California -- where Trump lost to Biden in 2020 by 5 million votes -- "if Jesus was the voter counter.") No one left in the party, who has thoughts of facing voters or finding employment in the second Trump administration (if he wins), will contradict the MAGA leader.

After losing the presidency and leaving the White House, Trump campaigned against Republicans who supported his 2021 impeachment -- and he beat them. His critics have been drummed out of the party. In 2024, he defeated a string of Republican challengers to win -- handily -- a third GOP nomination for president. The man dominates the Republican Party. With everyone in a position of leadership falling into line, the former president has convinced a majority of the base that he didn't lose in 2020. Virtually no one with any stature within the Republican Party dares to confirm that Trump lost a free and fair election in 2020.

Senator Vance pretends that he's focused on the future. Nonsense. The Big Lie matters in 2024, because it is a promise that if Trump loses, he will deny it. Count on it. Nothing could be more certain. Trump has primed the Republican Party, including officials at all levels and the MAGA base, that the only way he loses in 2024 is if the election is rigged. His folks ("We" in his telling) rioted at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Does anyone doubt that Trump would incite them to violence again?

Trump stands by 'the enemy from within'
Trump has pledged to go after "the enemy from within" -- his Democratic political opponents -- several times. When Howard Kurtz, on Fox News yesterday, provides Trump an off-ramp to moderate his comments or claim he has been misinterpreted, Trump reaffirms his views.

Kurtz says, "The 'enemy from within' is a pretty ominous phrase." Trump responds, "I think it's accurate. I mean, I think it's accurate." Trump goes on to call out two Democratic members of Congress, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

As Trump describes "Adam Shifty Schiff," Kurtz interjects, "But, again, he's a political opponent ...," not "an enemy." Trump responds, "Well, of course he's an enemy. He's an enemy."

Trump makes it abundantly clear that he means exactly what he has said. Members of the Democratic Party elected into office are bigger threats to the United States than are Russia or China or ISIS.

Unlike JD Vance, or Mike Johnson, or Glen Younkin or any number of elected Republicans who dodge and weave or pretend not to understand, Trump is speaking without constraint: He means what he says about the enemy from within. We have no reason to doubt him when he says he would use the national guard or the nation's military to oppose his political enemies. He wanted to do this in his first term. No one will be there to stop him if he lands in the White House again in 2025.

Trump is convinced he will win
Trump's age has briefly appeared on the media radar (with reports of him being exhausted). And, while I recently downplayed the suggestion that Trump has experienced significant mental deterioration since 2020, I can't be certain. One sign of age-related decline is that folks lose their filters. Trump appears to be losing his -- at a recent charity banquet and at a Pennsylvania rally, for instance. He called out Kamala Harris: "You're a shit vice president." He also spent ten minutes at the birthplace of Arnold Palmer speaking about how well hung the late golfer was. That's unfiltered.

Is Trump losing it? Or is he just being more open about who he is and saying just what he thinks? I believe he is convinced that he is going win this election, so he sees no reason to moderate or shroud his views. Trump feels unconstrained. That's enough to make a judgment about him and his fitness for public office. With an abject, unprincipled political party at his back, surrounded by sycophants who wish to serve a strongman, and emboldened by a disgraceful, partisan supreme court inviting a lawless second term -- Trump is confident that he needs no filters.

Whether in decline or not, the man is a threat to the country. He doesn't belong anywhere near the Oval Office. Back in 2020, after Trump lost the election, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said that Donald Trump was ‘“stupid as well as being ill-tempered,” a “despicable human being” and a “narcissist.”‘

Privately, he said in his oral history that “it’s not just the Democrats who are counting the days” until Trump left office, and that Trump’s behavior “only underscores the good judgment of the American people. They’ve had just enough of the misrepresentations, the outright lies almost on a daily basis, and they fired him.”
“And for a narcissist like him,” McConnell continued, “that’s been really hard to take, and so his behavior since the election has been even worse, by far, than it was before, because he has no filter now at all.”

For Trump's party and the MAGA faithful, that doesn't matter. It's clear that this will be a razor close election.

Authoritarianism is not just something that appears in history books or crops up somewhere far away. It is, in 2024, right on our doorstep. American democracy is at risk. But for most of the country (regardless of who wins in November), it's not top of mind. A subset of the voters -- but not all -- who are prepared to reject Trump regard their choice as embracing democracy and rejecting authoritarianism. While, on the other side, Republican leaders and the MAGA base overwhelming wish to follow a strongman, even if it means rejecting democratic norms. Moreover, among the ranks of intellectuals who have attracted JD Vance and the white evangelicals in positions of authority, many straightforwardly declare that they prefer a nation dominated by their version of Christianity to a country where majorities with whom they disagree are permitted to rule.

Fifteen days to go for a decision.

Kamala Harris has said of Trump: "He is someone who will stop at nothing to claim power for himself" and "... a second Trump term would be a huge risk for America -- and dangerous." A considerable number of the people who surrounded Trump in his first term agree.

Harris added: "Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged." On that point, it's not clear that the critics who served inside the Trump administration would agree. Why not? Because they spoke with him in the White House in private: they heard then what Trump is only now saying in public. The Trump they saw in private is the man now emboldened to reveal himself in public.

In an interview with CNN's Kaitlan Collins, former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper affirms that he takes Trump's threats against "the enemy within" seriously and reminds her that last year the former president spoke about a second term being about retribution. Collins asks if he fears that Trump would use the military against U.S. citizens. Esper responds:

Yes, I do. Of course, because I lived through that. And I saw over the summer of 2020 where President Trump and those around him wanted to use the national guard in various capacities in cities such as Chicago and Portland and Seattle. And of course there was a moment in time, as you just described, where he -- on that early date in June where he wanted to bring in active military as well. . . .

“Yes, I think we should take those words seriously,” former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper says after Trump suggested using the U.S. military against the “enemy from within.” pic.twitter.com/rVAjQgjR60

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) October 15, 2024

Carol Leonnig, who co-wrote I Alone Can Fix It with her Washington Post colleague Philip Rucker about Trump's final year in the White House, also pushes back on the idea that Trump has significantly changed in the past four years ["Deadline: White House," MSNBC, October 15, 2024]:

I look back on his first administration and see all of the ways that he said exactly the same things he’s saying now.
He just said them privately. You know, he wanted – Let’s go back in time a little. . . . In 2018, 2019, and 2020 he was pressing his military officials to let him use the U.S. military, the national guard against the public. Most notably in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the protests that rose up from that Minneapolis man’s death at the hands of police.
He wanted to use the power of the Department of Justice and the FBI to target people who had been political and policy enemies of his. For example, Mr. Comey, the FBI Director; Andrew McCabe, the Deputy FBI Director. Other individuals who had pressed for an investigation of his campaign – he wanted them audited, he wanted them investigated, he wanted them indicted.
And in some respects, he was lobbying all of this privately. Now he is just saying it a lot more out loud. And he’s no longer hemmed in by a White House Counsel, or a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or a Secretary of Defense who told him, No.

Mark Esper, Mark Milley, Don McGann, and others all told Trump, No. Those folks will not be part of a second Trump administration.

Leonnig continues, "But what you see, Nicole, and what you are amplifying and giving a spotlight to is how Donald Trump believes he will get his way on those questions and those orders as the president if he elected in November. He is saying out loud that he will use the government the way he sees fit, the military, the Justice Department. And people who are on the wrong side of him will be the targets."

Chris Hayes reviews General Milley's judgment that "Trump is fascist to the core" in assessing the possibility of a second Trump presidency. How, Hayes asks, could half the nation be poised to elect such a man? He answers: first, because tens of millions of Americans, after decades of far-right programming, are primed for an authoritarian leader. They want a strongman.

Second, the press has proven incapable of conveying just how perilous our situation is. "In part, somewhat understandably, because Donald Trump is in fact the world's most famous liar. He is such a liar that even many of his biggest supporters simply think he'll never do the things he says he'll do."

The people who worked closely with Donald Trump know that this isn't true. Trump tried (out of sight) to use the levers of power, to employ the military and the justice department against his enemies. He was stymied during his first term by advisors and appointees who pushed back. In a second term, he will choose men and women (mostly men) who are willing to do his bidding.

JD Vance is the first up. Many more Republicans, as we have seen, are primed to step up and serve Donald Trump. Some are eager to embrace a strongman; some prefer religious zealotry to majority rule; some just seek lower taxes and less regulation; some are simply ambitious individuals indifferent to the cause that advances their careers. All are hostile to democracy.

Authoritarianism or democracy. That's the choice we face.

Donald Trump is amplifying his authoritarian message in the final weeks of the campaign. Kamala Harris, appealing to Americans who revere the Constitution and the rule of law, is making sure that Americans (few of whom attend Trump's rallies) understand their choice in 2024. The vice president played video clips of Trump speaking his mind at her rally Monday.

"You heard his words, coming from him ... Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged" -- oh wow -- Kamala Harris at her rally in Erie, Pennsylvania, plays the clip of Trump telling Maria Bartiromo that he would use the military against his domestic foes pic.twitter.com/nLKxyhoq4U

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 15, 2024

Trump expounds on "the enemy from within," people who are "more dangerous than Russia or China." He says, "These people should be put in jail ..." Regarding urban policing, he suggests, "Now if you had one really violent day ... one rough hour. And I mean real rough..." And then the former president adds, regarding his domestic political foes (after mentioning Congressman Adam Schiff by name):

I think the bigger problem are the people from within. We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical-left lunatics. And I think they’re the — and it should be very easily handled by — if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

In the past half century, this country has had its share of demagogues, but mostly sheriffs, governors, senators -- never a president. Until Newt Gingrich and FNC emerged on the scene and the GOP began to change, neither the Republican Party, nor the Democratic Party would have tolerated an openly authoritarian president or presidential candidate. But in 2024 Republican leaders are either openly onboard with Trump's authoritarianism, they pretend not to see it, or they intone that the policy preferences of Democrats are more dangerous to the republic than Trump's lawless, reckless worldview.

Trump vs. Harris. The contrast between authoritarianism and democratic governance couldn't be more stark. In three weeks, Americans will decide which future they prefer.

One month ago, Trump exclaimed in his debate with Harris:

In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country.

JD Vance, who made the same false claim earlier that day and who knew the story was a lie from the beginning, justified telling the tale again and again: "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm gonna do, Dana."

In Aurora, Colorado last week Trump's fabrications and rhetoric grew more frenzied, this time about Venezuelan gangs taking over the city. The Republican mayor dismissed Trump's slander just as the Republican mayor of Springfield, Ohio had repudiated the lies Trump spread about his city. But, as I suggested recently, in escalating racist rhetoric and lies, Trump is hitting his stride. Peddling fear, Trump persists in vilifying immigrants:

At the rally, Mr. Trump continued to use dehumanizing rhetoric, referring to violent immigrants as “animals,” “barbaric thugs” and “sadistic monsters.” At one point, he falsely claimed that Ms. Harris had “infested” buildings in Aurora with gang members.

In December in New Hampshire, Trump declared:

“They’re poisoning the blood of our country. That’s what they’ve done,” he said in New Hampshire. “They poison — mental institutions and prisons all over the world. Not just in South America. Not just the three or four countries that we think about. But all over the world they’re coming into our country — from Africa, from Asia, all over the world.”

Racial animosity in American politics
The campaigns of Southern Democrats during the Jim Crow era were transparently racist; the language openly employed was vile and degrading. Republicans, as the party of Lincoln, stood apart from those Democrats who demanded all-white rule. After passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act during the Johnson Administration, the parties began to switch sides. When Nixon launched his Southern Strategy, the message had become (mostly) coded in whispers and dog whistles (as Lee Atwater, a master of racist campaigns, explained). The language was veiled. Plausible deniability required a respectable veneer (most of the time).

By 2024, after Trump's MAGA takeover of the Republican Party, the message is no longer a whisper or a whistle. Although Trump sneers at majority-Black cities and denigrates Black public officials, he has directed his wrath primarily at immigrants, most especially those from "shit-hole countries" (in contrast to, for instance, Norway).

After gliding down the golden escalator, Trump telegraphed the louder, harsher change in rhetoric with his 2015 campaign launch. Now, an even less restrained Trump is shouting the message -- with a torrent of lies -- before raucous crowds. Moreover, he has often veered into darker territory, articulating his campaign pitch with straight-up fascist language, echoing Nazi Germany.

The 1950s and '60s were too near to World War II to make the white supremacist parlance of the Third Reich acceptable. Three-quarters of a century later, the same Donald Trump who scorns NATO is borrowing Hitler's rhetoric. A diminishing handful of Americans experienced WWII; even the Cold War, started after the armistice, is a mere memory. The election of the nation's first Black president in 2008, and a more highly diverse America, initiated with passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (LBJ again), have brought us into a new era.

Native-born Americans: the enemy from within
Over time, Trump has widened the scope of his attacks, from undocumented immigrants, to legal immigrants, and more recently to his political opponents: native-born Americans who comprise "the enemy from within."

Pledges of violence
Hateful rhetoric and lies -- directed at Black Americans and immigrants from nonwhite countries -- have been followed with explicit threats of violent repression of his political enemies writ large, even Americans whose families immigrated generations ago (as the vast majority in this country of immigrants have done).

There has been speculation recently about whether Trump is becoming less coherent because of his increasing age. He would be the oldest president ever elected in our history. One age-related analysis noted his appeal to violence: the suggestion that police to exact punishment on shoplifters on "one really violent day."

But put age aside, Trump may have simply become angrier, or convinced that this is the most strategic path to victory in the final weeks of the campaign, or perhaps SCOTUS's immunization decision has freed him to lash out less cautiously. Whatever the cause, the violent rhetoric and threats to employ the military to go after his perceived enemies is a flashing red light to anyone concerned about the eroding guardrails of American democracy. How far we've come since 2015.

Unmistakable authoritarianism
Trump has become more openly authoritarian. The vitriol, vilification, and lies have become more incendiary. The breadth of his ire, with an expanding list of enemies, has increased. The invocations of violence come much more frequently. We have witnessed this in plain sight. It couldn't be clearer, which makes General Mark Milley's assessment that Trump is "fascist to the core" much more difficult to dismiss as overstatement.

Trump has wagered that an over-the-top authoritarian campaign will return him to the White House. I have often articulated my faith that American voters will reject this man this time around. But I must acknowledge, the odds look even at this stage, barely three weeks from election day.