Category: Right Mindset

Posts that focus on the mental tools that will help us fight the good fight

Posted on

Donald Trump Can Be Stopped: Words of Great Wisdom from Jonathan Chait

Jonathan Chait (The Atlantic), Donald Trump Can Be Stopped: The president’s retreat in Minneapolis is a stinging defeat for the national conservatives:

Of the many lessons to be drawn from the administration’s retreat in Minneapolis, the most important is that Donald Trump can be stopped.

He spent his first year acting as though the 2024 election were the last time he would ever have to give a thought to public opinion. Now the myth that Trump is invincible has been exploded.

After federal agents killed Alex Pretti, Trump-administration figures including Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller described the victim as a terrorist, indicating their desire to ignore or intimidate all opposition. But other Republican sources signaled their discomfort, and some called for an investigation—a routine step for a normal presidency, but a daring breach of partisan discipline in an administration that shields itself from accountability and tries to put itself above the law.

During yesterday’s White House briefing, when a reporter asked if Trump shared Miller’s belief that Pretti was a domestic terrorist, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt replied that she hadn’t heard him use that term. Trump also sent out conciliatory messages on social media indicating that he’d had productive talks with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. And he dispatched Tom Homan, the border czar and a more traditional immigration hawk, to replace Gregory Bovino, the commander at large in Minnesota. Bovino has justified his agents’ misconduct with transparent lies.

Trump’s retreat in Minneapolis is a stinging defeat for the national conservatives, the Republican Party’s most nakedly authoritarian faction. The NatCons believe American liberalism cannot be dealt with through normal political methods such as persuasion and compromise. Speakers at the National Conservatism Conference have described the American left as “the enemy within” (Senator Rick Scott of Florida) and “wokeism” as “a cancer that must be eradicated” (Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute). NatCons also maintain that immigration poses a mortal threat to the United States. These two strands of thought are intertwined; NatCons consider immigration a weapon employed consciously by the left to assume permanent power, via manipulating elections and creating government dependency, a conspiracy that can only be reversed through the kind of ferocious operation on display in Minneapolis.

The NatCons, whose ranks include powerful administration figures such as Vice President Vance and Miller as well as members of Congress (such as Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri) and activists (such as Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts), have wielded profound influence. They have rarely, if ever, lost important struggles to steer Trump’s strategy.

For the NatCons, the mass-deportation scheme overseen by Miller is an existential priority. Vance once claimed that immigration levels “would mean we never win, meaning Republicans would never win a national election in this country ever again.” Ten days ago, Miller explained on Fox News that Democrats were resisting ICE in Minneapolis because “this mass-migration scheme is the heart of the Democratic Party’s political power.” Miller sees his crusade not merely as a matter of relieving the burden on public services or raising wages, but as a final chance to stop permanent left-wing tyranny. Thus Miller’s immediate, fervent insistence that Pretti and the other Minnesotan recently killed by federal agents, Renee Good, both deserved their fates, a line the NatCons repeated vociferously through Monday.

The NatCons have attained their sway by positioning themselves as the vanguard of Trumpism in its purist form. Other conservative factions, such as social conservatives, libertarians, and foreign-policy hawks, supported Trump reluctantly in 2016, and backed away after the January 6 attack on the Capitol, hoping Florida Governor Ron DeSantis or some other rival could displace him. The NatCons never flinched in the face of Trump’s failed autogolpe, or any other actions that made other Republicans nervous. They won the loyalty contest—which, in the second Trump administration, is the only currency of influence.

Calls for Trump to stand firmly behind Miller had a desperate yet vague tone. “Leftist protestors who shut down streets, destroy property, refuse lawful orders, and physically assault federal officers cannot be rewarded with veto power over public policy,” beseeched the Manhattan Institute activist Chris Rufo, employing the passive voice. In response to a liberal observing yesterday afternoon on X that Trump was backing down, Will Chamberlain, a national conservative affiliated with numerous right-wing organizations, replied, “This isn’t happening, and it’s very important that it does not happen.”

Nevertheless, it was happening.

The reason it happened is that, although Trump listens to the NatCons, he has no deep grounding in their theories or, for that matter, any theories. The president’s despotism is not ideological but instinctive. He cannot tolerate criticism and he deems any process that embarrasses him, including a critical news story or an election, illegitimate, even criminal.

And while he has embraced a restrictionist immigration agenda, he has vacillated between endorsing mass deportation and allowing exceptions for categories of laborers he considers necessary. As Trump told The Wall Street Journal editorial page before the 2024 election, “I mean, there’s some human questions that get in the way of being perfect, and we have to have the heart, too.” If that has ever occurred to Miller, he has hidden it well.

Whether or not Trump’s intermittent expressions of human feeling for the immigrants his administration has abused is heartfelt, his desire to maintain his political standing most certainly is. Trump appreciates the power of imagery. It does not take a political genius to understand that, if Americans were repulsed by the sight of a Vietnamese man being executed in 1968, an American being shot in the back, facedown on a midwestern street, would not go over much better.

Trump’s capitulation would never have occurred if not for the heroic, disciplined resistance in Minneapolis. Faced with something like an occupying army that was systematicallyflouting the law, the people of Minneapolis thrust its abuse into the public eye, raising the political cost of Miller’s war until enough Republicans decided that they couldn’t bear to pay it.

Political theorists have long debated whether Trump and his movement should be described as fascist. On an intellectual level, the answer depends largely on which definition of fascism you choose (there are several). I have generally resisted the term because the definition I prefer, and the one most Americans probably think of when they hear the term, is not mere political oppression but a form of it so extreme that opposition becomes impossible.

That may be more or less Trump’s aspiration, and possibly our destiny. But this is not a fascist country, at least not yet.

Posted on

This is Democracy in Action

Here’s Rachel from last night:

I applaud her analysis and agree with much of it, though I think the optimism is premature. Let’s see what happens today. Let’s see what happens in the coming days on the streets of Minneapolis. Let’s see what happens in Congress with funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

A Signal Achievement

As Rachel emphasizes, Democratic pushback will be responsible for whatever good comes out of this disaster. That said, be it remembered that the Stephen Miller/Kristi Noem/Kash Patel/Greg Bongino team’s clusterfuck represents a signal achievement on their part—and a big reason why things are looking up today.

The progressives are riled up.

Lots of ordinary people are riled up.

Not only that: big business is riled up.

With big business riled up, the Republican empty suit politicians are beginning to speak up. 

Even the Second Amendment wingnuts are fit to be tied, because of the suggestion that folks lawfully carrying a firearm deserve to be mowed down with impunity.

Thank you, Miller, Noem, Patel, Bongino. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 

“Trump Will Own This Now”

One of the early morning talking heads pointed out that, with Homan in Minneapolis allegedly reporting directly to Trump—thus, allegedly, bypassing and cutting the Miller/Noem gang—“Trump will personally own whatever happens next in Minneapolis.” 

That sounds right. And I would add this: to get out of this mess with some dignity, Trump would need to be a Washington or a Lincoln or a Roosevelt. 

Trump is not a Washington or a Lincoln or a Roosevelt. Instead, Trump is best compared to Jubilation T. Cornpone.

Posted on

“I do not yet know what UUCA will be asked to risk”: A Pastoral Message from the Senior Sabbatical Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Atlanta

Dear Members of the UU Congregation of Atlanta,

Yesterday, in broad daylight, Alex Pretti was executed.

Let’s be clear. What killed this poor man was not law enforcement. It was lawlessness.

The problem is not whether or how Alex Pretti complied with the law.

The problem is that federal agents, sent to sow chaos, are out of compliance with our Constitution.

Are out of compliance with the scope of their role. And are out of compliance with principles of public safety.

So, the question I’m asking is why don’t these agents comply with the law?

Any narrative that suggests that Alex Pretti was anything other than innocent is pure fabrication. The Administration is lying. But you can trust your friends. You can believe your own eyes.

What happened is horrifying. And, of course, it’s not new. This country has a long memory of Jim Crow terror, night patrols, and violence carried out with the blessing—or the silence—of those in power.

Still, many of good conscience this weekend are rightly feeling heartbroken, furious, helpless, and confused.

If you are scared, that makes sense.

If you are angry, you have a right to be.

If you are not sure what to do next, you are not alone.

I’m deeply grateful for, and inspired by, UUCA Associate Minister Rev. EN Hill, who stood in the cold in Minneapolis this past week, alongside hundreds of clergy, representing the body of holy love in the streets. Church people know simple, ancient good things–like that showing up matters. Especially when so much is at risk and the stakes are so high.

We are now in a moment when political violence is being normalized. When cruelty is defended as order. When fear is being weaponized in American streets. Today, it is Minneapolis. Tomorrow, it could be Atlanta. That is sobering to say out loud. It is also necessary.

I do not know what the future holds. I do not know how all of this will unfold. I do not yet know what UUCA will be asked to risk, or where solidarity will require us to stand. I do not know what our most vulnerable neighbors will need, or how they will call on us for protection and partnership.

But here is what I do know.

UUCA is not a bystander congregation.

UUCA is not a silent congregation.

And UUCA is held and fueled by a Love that our Universalist ancestors claimed never quit and left nobody out!

UUCA, you are powerful beyond measure—because of your history, your relationships, your commitments, and your hard-won wisdom. You have not been caught off-guard. You have been watching. You’ve been strengthening networks and joining Signal groups. You’ve been weaving strategic ties across difference. You have been preparing.

And you are not alone. You have neighbors. Partners. Shoulder-to-shoulder companions.

With strong UUCA Board leadership, with long-time movement veterans among you, with the boundlessly deep resource of music and joy, with Rev. EN’s steady courage, and with Rev. Taryn returning next week, this congregation is well-resourced—not only spiritually, but strategically.

We are a people of tenacious hope. Of stubborn, resilient love. We won’t back down. Nor will we be hardened or embittered or cornered. We will sing. We will rest. We will rise.

Let me say this, my sibling Unitarian Universalists: this engagement, ahead of us, is going to cost something. It may cost comfort. It may cost convenience. It may cost reputation. It may cost time and money and the illusion that someone else will handle it.

And still, we are called.

Some of you will offer care and compassion.

Some will show up on front lines.

Some will make sure things at home are steady and strong so others can do what they need to do on the streets.

All of it matters.

In the coming days, there will be opportunities to gather, to pray, to listen, and to discern concrete next steps together. Watch for those invitations. Bring your whole self. Feel it all.

Thank you for the discernment you are already doing about the part you will play.

Thank you for the preparation you are undertaking for UUCA to be a force for the Beloved Community—not in abstraction or in theory, but in neighborhoods, households, and in real lives.

Gratefully, mournfully, and with resolve,

Rev. Jake Morrill
Senior Sabbatical Minister
UU Congregation of Atlanta

Posted on

The Minneapolis Massacre is Going to be about as Effective for Trump as the Boston Massacre for the British Occupation Forces

http://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/365208

“Not the Battle of Lexington or Bunker Hill, not the surrender of Burgoyne or Cornwallis, were more important events in American history than the battle of King Street on the 5th of March, 1770,” said John Adams.

The soldiers were obviously acting in self-defense, and it will all blow over soon, said the British command occupying Boston. 

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” wrote the philosopher George Santayana.

Trump and his goons cannot remember the past, because they never knew history in the first place. But they are bloody well condemned to repeat it. 

Posted on

“I Smell, On the Other Hand, a Stench of Desperation”

Today, Jamelle Bouie, N.Y. Times opinion columnist, compares the Trump occupation of Minneapolis to the British occupation of Boston in the 1770’s. His concluding observations resonate with me:

One way to read the occupation of Minnesota is as a flex — a demonstration of the government’s power and authority. That, perhaps, is how Miller and Kristi Noem see the situation. I smell, on the other hand, a stench of desperation, an attempt to do with force what they can’t accomplish through ordinary politics. Faced with an angry public but committed to a rigid agenda of nativist brutality, the president and his coterie of ideologues are playing the only move they seem to have: wanton violence and threats of further escalation. They think this will break their opposition.

But looking at the ironclad resolve of ordinary Minnesotans to protect their homes and defend their neighbors, I think the administration is more likely to break on their opposition and learn, as the British did in Boston, that Americans are quite jealous of their liberties.

Posted on

Waiting for the Supreme Court Decision on the Tariffs

On November 5, the Court heard oral argument in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections (litigation sponsored by a libertarian foundation) and other cases challenging Trump’s attempted usurpation of tariff setting powers in purported reliance on the International Economic Emergency Powers Act. The decision should come soon. (There was a rumor that it would come yesterday, but that did not happen.

How to Predict the Outcome of a Case

For best results, you want to ask two big questions—one ruthlessly objective and the other relentlessly subjective. 

Your first big question is, Which side should win the case? Gather the fact and take a rigorously objective view of them, study applicable legal principles, and ask how an intelligent, diligent, and utterly fair-minded court would apply the relevant principles to the relevant facts.

Your second big question is, Which side does the court want to win the case? Consider the judge’s (or judges’) political ideology, legal ideology, prior rulings, class interests, friends, and anything and everything else you know about the court’s leanings. 

Obviously, if the party that should win the case is also the party that the court wants to win the case, then it’s easy to predict that that party is probably going to win the case.

What Factors Apply Here?

Here is how I see it.

1. This is a case of statutory interpretation. Pretty much all the traditional canons of statutory interpretation point toward the conclusion that Trump does not have the statutory power he claims to have.

2. Taking a textualist and originalist view of the matter, one reaches the same conclusion.

3. Prudential considerations go the same way: the tariffs are harming almost all segments of the economy.

4. Because the tariffs are creating broad economic harm, they are hurting Republicans politically, and will probably play an important role in the 2026 elections.

5. Trump will scream like a stuck pig when he loses the tariff cases, but, even if he doesn’t know it, a negative decision would tend to save him from his own misjudgment.

6. Liberals don’t like tariffs, and would applaud a decision against Trump.

6. Conservatives don’t like tariffs, and would applaud a decision against Trump.

Conclusion

A decision against Trump on the tariffs would be thoroughly unsurprising.

A decision the other way would mean that something very, very odd had happened. 

Posted on

On Fascism: Some Comments on MacWilliams and Goldberg

This follows up on the immediately preceding post. Some comments below.

1. What one key thing explains the rise of Trump? It’s a great question. I’ve been asking it for a decade, and so, very probably, have you. 

In my opinion, this onion has a whole lot of layers, but if you’re looking to identify the essence of the matter, I think MacWilliams—he’s a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts—has as good an insight as any: (a) Always and everywhere, there are a goodly number of people with authoritarian tendencies. (b) Trump found a way to trigger these folks’ natural inclination toward authoritarianism. (c) The triggering process was greatly facilitated by the rise of the internet and of social media. 

2. Some more layers to the onion, you said? Yes, I did say that. Here are some of them:

Point: with the rise of social media, a whole lot of our fellow citizens have detected a permission structure to joyfully embrace their inner asshole. One of these ways, but only one, is saying hello to the Nazi side of their personality.

Point: although I don’t believe either Goldberg or MacWilliams mentions racism by name, I think a large part of Trump’s attractiveness is the fact that he is both a stone cold racist and a wealthy celebrity. It gratifies his unwashed followers that a person of such wealth and celebrity will openly share their racism.

Point: I strongly suspect that, when a definitive history of our era is available, we’ll find it wasn’t just underlying racism, it wasn’t just the malign ability of one man to appear charismatic, and it wasn’t just the rise of social media as such. I think we’re going to find there was a whole lot of conscious, clever, compensated manipulation of social media by intelligent people in the pay of some of our economic overlords. 

3. Always look on the bright side of life. Trump is not Machiavelli. His fundamental problem is that he believes a lot of his own bullshit—not all of it, but a whole lot of it, and a lot of it that is relevant to pursuing his fascist agenda. In consequence, he is forever misunderstanding key facts about the politico-economic environment. He lacks, moreover, the ability to gather, evaluate, and apply important information. He regularly fails to predict how key actors will respond to his lies, his bluster, his threats, and his bullshit. And when people do not respond as he might wish, his severely limited skill set handicaps him in reacting to an unfavorable situation. He cannot, for example, construct a rational argument or distinguish between a plausible lie and an implausible lie. 

4. A lot of people think that things have changed in the past month. Are they right? Yes, I certainly think so. Michelle Goldberg identifies some key factors, and I agree with her. 

Trump dimly perceives (a) that L’Affaire Epstein is a serious challenge to his continued popularity among the one third of the country who are his core supporters, and (b) that his standing with his own people is further threatened by the economic chaos caused by his policies on tariffs and immigration. 

In response, Trump is trying both to appease and to distract the worst of his own supporters with military aggression, domestic and foreign. Because if the worst of the worst desert him, who will he have left?

5. What is the best advice for decent progressives? When your adversary is screwing himself, hold his beer, and let him get on with it. 

We must oppose fascist aggression. And we must be mindful that Trump’s gross incompetence is helping him to dig his own political grave.