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.