I know; a hardly original post title.  Also, that you’ve heard plenty from me lately.  Even so, a short one I can’t resist.

Earlier today, I saw a picture of the destruction of part of the outside edifice of the White House, apparently part of President Donald Trump’s plan to alter the structure.  I had been vaguely aware that Mr. Trump had announced White House remodeling plans, but have been so focused on his authoritarian actions that although the notion of his refashioning the structure rankled – in the same manner in which I’m offended that he’s turned the Oval Office into a gold-trinketed stage – it hadn’t really registered with me.  (As to the Oval Office, every new president decorates it a bit differently; I had expected Mr. Trump’s successor – if there was one – to simply get rid of the inappropriate, garish gold).

A picture of the President’s ripping at the outside of the White House – literally, destroying part of the structure – was viscerally jarring to me.  I would submit that it will be instinctively repulsive to a wide swath of Americans, even striking a chord with part of the MAGA base.

If Democrats don’t start running ads displaying pictures of the destruction of the White House edifice with captions such as, “Look at What He’s Doing,” using those as the symbol of authoritarian takeover now being undertaken by Mr. Trump and his minions, they’re even more politically inept than I thought.

We attended the NO KINGS Capitol rally in downtown Madison, WI, this past Saturday.  It was a large, enthusiastic crowd; media estimates place its participants at around 15,000.  With attendant rallies across outlying Madison areas – a close friend at a rally in nearby Stoughton, WI (population 13,000), estimated the crowd there at 500 – the total turnout in our environs probably approximated 20,000.  Probably not enough in our Congressional district to shake the White House, but we’ll get back to that.

There were almost as many clever signs as there were marchers.  A favorite:  a picture of President Donald Trump on a placard bearing the inscription, “Does this ass make my sign look big?”  Another sign with a complementary theme, more poignant:  a picture of Mr. Trump on a placard bearing the inscription, “Does this ass make my country look small?”

There were a number of signs mocking MAGA’s fear and loathing of “Antifa.”  I’m aware that there is a debate as to whether there is or is not an actual “Antifa” organization – Mr. Trump says there is, and has sought to declare it a terrorist organization, while I understand that former FBI Director Christopher Wray has formerly characterized it as more an ideology than an organization – but I believe that the word, “Antifa,” itself, is simply shorthand for “anti-fascist.”  Although no one on any part of the political spectrum should ever resort to violence, or be part of any group that is willing to resort to violence, since the arguably most evil regime in the history of the modern world – responsible for the murder of millions, including millions of Jews – was proudly fascist, these signs seemed to be asking:  What is wrong with being anti-fascist?  Call me dense, but aren’t we still free because Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill led their nations in a world war against the fascist creed?  (Clearly, I’m not consuming enough alt-right media to understand the MAGA angst.)

On to the omens.  A sign I saw during the march that I considered particularly telling and potentially counterproductive (clearly unintended by the wielder):  “Too Many Issues; Not Enough Signs.”  If you’ve read many of these pages, you realize that in the context in which we’re speaking, I’m a one-issue guy:  preservation of our democracy.  I consider all other policy issues we face, no matter how important, subordinate to protecting our way of life.  We heard several speakers and chants yesterday whose point I – and I suspect other moderates — might under other circumstances question or seek to qualify.  I consider NO KINGS to be brilliant branding because it brings all of those who oppose the autocratic inclinations of the Trump Regime under one roof.  To save our way of life they must stay together.  They cannot allow themselves to be divided or distracted by “too many issues.”

Finally, an encouraging omen that I would consider dangerously ominous if I were a MAGA:  the reported 1,000 NO KINGS marchers reported to have demonstrated in Janesville, WI.  Janesville has about 66,000 residents, meaning that about a percent and a half of its people stopped what they were doing on a beautiful Wisconsin autumn Saturday to demonstrate.  I pick Janesville for two reasons:  TLOML and I know it – we lived there for three years when early married – and because it is former U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s hometown and in the WI First Congressional District he represented in Congress.  There were reportedly other significant NO KINGS demonstrations in other Wisconsin First cities.  The Wisconsin First is now represented by Republican U.S. WI Rep. Brian Steil, also from Janesville.  Mr. Steil held his seat by 2 points in 2024.  There were also reportedly notable NO KINGS marches in the Wisconsin Third, currently represented by Republican U.S. WI Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who won his seat in 2024 by 3 points.  

Referring back to my observation above, I truly doubt that the Regime cares about the Madison NO KINGS turnout; if there were only 50 Democratic seats remaining in the U.S. House of Representatives, Madison’s would be one.  At the same time, I am confident that the Regime does care about holding the Wisconsin First and Third Districts in 2026.  I don’t know whether political voter science has yet evolved to the point that analysts can project a candidate’s or issue’s overall popularity – or unpopularity – based upon the numbers of citizens who turn out at a rally, but clearly for every demonstrator who turns out at a rally, there are “X” more who don’t turn out but agree with – and will vote in accord with — the demonstrator.  If I were Mr. Steil or Mr. Van Orden – or any other MAGA member of the House of Representatives across the country who won his/her office in 2024 by less than 5 points in a district where there were notable NO KINGS rallies last Saturday – I’d be feeling a wee bit insecure in my seat today.

On we march (figuratively as well as literally  😊).

As all who care are aware, the federal government will shut down on October 1 unless Congress passes the appropriate funding measures.  The first time the government faced such a deadline during President Donald Trump’s second term, a sufficient number of Democratic Senators, led by Senate Minority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer – to the extreme irritation of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party — supported Republican, Administration-supported measures to keep the government open.  (I agreed with Sen. Schumer.)  Now, understandably even further inflamed by Administration policies that are increasingly autocratic and clearly favor the interests of the well-to-do over the impoverished, and frustrated with their own glaring political impotence, many on the left are urging that unless the Administration provides certain concessions to Democrats (which I understand primarily involve ensuring against the loss or maintaining the continued affordability of health care for millions of Americans of lesser means), Senate Democrats should withhold the votes needed to continue to fund the government, thus forcing a shutdown.

All who read any of these notes are well aware that I am appalled by the Administration’s priorities and terrified by the direction our country is heading.  While I acknowledge that Democrats’ choice has moral as well as policy dimensions, I nevertheless submit that causing a government stoppage would be an egregious political blunder for Democrats.  Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the next time that Americans ultimately blame a government shutdown on the party in power … will be the first time.  In these sorts of conflicts, the MAGAs have proven to be as savvy as they are ruthless.  They don’t care if the government shuts down.  One can easily anticipate that the Trump Administration will continue to pay federal debts, military defense costs, and immigration enforcement expenses, while laying off federal workers, trimming support for state services, Social Security benefits, Medicare reimbursements, and FEMA (remember, we’re in hurricane season).  Timing is everything.  The dangers to Americans’ health care costs that Democrats are seeking to avoid won’t meaningfully occur for months.  On the other hand, how long will it take for those being laid off or on Mainstreet America to decide that Democrats are to blame for the jobs, benefits and services they’re losing now?

I’ll take this one:  Democrats might be able to hold favorable public sentiment for about a week if they were skillful publicists.  Unfortunately, Mr. Schumer and House Minority Leader U.S. NY Rep. Hakeem Jeffries couldn’t rally a class of kindergarteners to an ice cream stand.  Democrats are seemingly expecting centrist voters, some of whom clearly either couldn’t discern or forgot that Mr. Trump incited an insurrection, ignored Mr. Trump’s 34 felony convictions, presumably believed that Mr. Trump would lower inflation while imposing tariffs, and were apparently confident that Mr. Trump would conclude the Russian/Ukrainian and Israeli/Hamas conflicts in one day, to look beyond the ends of their noses and grasp Democrats’ nuanced justification for bringing about a shutdown.  I give the Democrats three days before they are publicly overrun by MAGA propaganda.  The fact that Mr. Trump and Republican Congressional Leadership cancelled a negotiation session with Congressional Democrats scheduled for this week indicates that they agree with me.

I consider the October, 1974 Heavyweight Championship Title Bout between Champion George Foreman and Challenger Muhammad Ali to aptly fit the Democrats’ current situation.  In the fight’s early rounds, Mr. Ali, the heavy underdog then well past his prime, let the younger, at that point stronger and more able Mr. Foreman punch himself out in the African heat before coming back to knock Mr. Foreman out.  Mr. Ali understood that he had to absorb the punishment until the time was right to respond.  If Mr. Ali had come out swinging too early, he would have lost.

The only way to win back America is to win at the ballot box.  With all the obstructions I expect that MAGAs will institute to free and fair voting in 2026 and 2028, achieving electoral victory is going to be hard enough.  Although it may be natural to focus on the 2028 presidential election, the Administration has moved so quickly to install an American Apartheid that the democratic aspirations of those who oppose its efforts may rest on Democrats’ ability to secure control of Congress in 2026.  While premature gallant gestures will make some feel good, I would submit that Democrats cannot provide MAGAs with any pretexts that will enable them to shift blame for Americans’ difficulties elsewhere.  I fear that progressives and liberals are living in their own delusional bubble as to how “the people” will ultimately attribute responsibility for the impending government stoppage.  The time still isn’t right for a showdown.  The one positive that could result from millions of Americans being callously deprived of their health care in 2026 is that no one – not even MAGAs – will blame Democrats.  Democrats are so viscerally associated, across the political spectrum, with efforts to expand American health care that the coverage losses and degradations credibly predicted to occur in 2026 will be rightly blamed on the Trump Administration.  If Democrats prematurely distract and inflame members of potentially decisive voter segments who may be having qualms about Mr. Trump’s leadership by forcing a government shutdown now, they may make their path to a 2026 electoral victory even harder than it already will be.

But what about the Comey indictment, you ask?  I just added this reference to former FBI Director James Comey’s indictment yesterday to this previously-scheduled note to show you that I was still awake.  While it remains important to note that the Administration was able to obtain an indictment from a panel of citizens who believed that there was probable cause, based upon the evidence presented to them by the Administration, that Mr. Comey had committed the crime for which he is charged, it is beyond any doubt that the United States Department of Justice is prosecuting Mr. Comey at President Donald Trump’s instruction because Mr. Trump hates him.  The Administration’s action provides as clear a basis as we’ve had to date for the autocratic dangers I alluded to above.  Frankly, although you have enough to worry about with your own psyche without hearing about mine, what surprised me most about the news of Mr. Comey’s indictment was that I received it with such equanimity.  Then, I understood:  the day this man was reelected, I knew what was going to happen.  I already knew.     

The title of this post is drawn from a 1986 book of the same name by David Stockman, most of which I’ve reread during the months since President Donald Trump began pushing the passage of his now-enacted “Big Beautiful Bill” (sometimes referred to as the “BBB”).  For those with shorter memories, Mr. Stockman was the Reagan Administration’s first Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and probably the most responsible Executive Branch official, aside from President Ronald Reagan himself, for Americans’ initial plunge into our current escalating deficit-financed maelstrom.  The tag line to Mr. Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics was, “Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.”  I expect to refer to Mr. Stockman’s book in future posts; although the federal budget numbers and the ratio of budget deficit to GNP with which he was dealing over 40 years ago are incredibly small compared to those we now face, his book is a useful primer on the innards of the federal budget (with one exception:  Medicare is now a much larger percentage of federal spending than it was in the early ‘80s).  In 1981, the newly-elected Reagan Administration got its tax cut – those with the lowest incomes received a 14% rate reduction, those with the highest incomes as much as a 28% rate reduction — in large part because Mr. Reagan put all of his political weight (at its zenith, given his then-recent survival of an assassination attempt) behind the cut, since he believed, based upon his years in the movie industry, that the tax rates existing when he took office were an impediment to productivity. 

Interestingly, in his initial chapters Mr. Stockman described how intense a political struggle it was to get the tax cut through Congress.  Members of Congress of both parties initially opposed the drastic revenue reduction; they didn’t believe (as it turned out, obviously correctly) the claims of some Reagan Administration economists that the tax cuts would “pay for themselves” through increased economic growth.  Mr. Stockman related that he himself never believed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves; his conception of the “Reagan Revolution” included tax cuts and a corresponding reduction in federal spending.  His mistake, as he ruefully acknowledged in the book’s concluding chapters, was that he didn’t realize until too late in the process that members of Congress didn’t have the political stomach for spending cuts, so Mr. Stockman’s envisioned complete overhaul of the New Deal federal funding framework was left to drown in red ink.  (Even Mr. Reagan, despite his rhetoric, was never as committed to spending cuts as he was to tax cuts.)  It was … the triumph of politics. 

Let’s move to the BBB.  (I have it on highly credible authority that Brazilians following American political affairs were confusing the bill with an apparently-oft-performed Brazilian surgical procedure, the “Brazilian Butt Lift,” commonly referred to as, the “BBL.”  Perhaps they think Americans will apply whatever tax relief they receive from the law to the adjustment of our … er … booties.  😉 ) All who care are already aware of the law’s primary components; it is generally undisputed that the law will increase our burgeoning federal debt by trillions due to its extension of Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which disproportionately favor the well-to-do, while at the same time it cuts about 1 trillion dollars in Medicaid and other food and health care benefits for millions of impoverished. There are certainly circumstances that warrant affirmatively increasing our deficit spending – COVID a recent example – but we are not currently facing such a challenge.  (To be fair, until we have the opportunity to right-size our taxing scheme – perhaps, I say Pollyannishly, under our next president — I would have favored extending the Trump tax rates for the first $100,000 of household income, which as far as I can determine through clumsy internet searching, would completely cover the majority of American households but affect less than 20% of overall U.S. income tax revenue.)  The law is cruel and stupid.  It is clear that a substantial majority of Congressional legislators knows it.  Many Medicaid recipients projected to be adversely affected voted for Mr. Trump.  The increasing deficits will seemingly ultimately result in higher U.S. treasury interest rates that impede our real estate sector and overall economy and perhaps hasten the need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits beloved by seniors, the majority of whom voted for Mr. Trump in 2024.  Any such accelerated permanent reduction in these benefits could in retrospect make many voters’ extended tax breaks a painfully poor exchange.

The BBB’s passage was, as in 1981, the triumph of politics; what I find intriguing is the shift in political dynamic over the last 40+ years.

In 1981, the Reagan Administration couldn’t get its spending cuts through Congress because legislators wouldn’t risk invoking the wrath of their constituents by depriving them of cherished programs.  This month, the Trump Administration was able to obtain passage of its welfare cuts – although they will adversely affect a significant segment of Mr. Trump’s 2024 voters – because Congressional Republicans feared invoking the wrath of Mr. Trump.  Put another way:  their constituents now follow and accept what Mr. Trump wants – i.e., tells them what is good, what is in their interest, whom they should vote for, whom they should not vote for – without critical assessment.  In 1981, Reagan voters supported the President, but members of Congress understood that these citizens would still independently determine whether a law was in their best interest; in 2025, members of Congress have come to understand that a significant segment, perhaps a significant majority, of Trump voters have outsourced their thinking to Mr. Trump and alt-right media.  It is a stunning demonstration of the power of decades of propaganda.  Arguably the most insightful assessment of the Republican – now, very largely MAGA – base was a comment reportedly made by former Republican Senate Majority Leader U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell in reassuring his Republican Senate colleagues concerned that Medicaid cuts would outrage their supporters:  “They’ll get over it.”

They will.  By the time the BBB’s provisions adversely impact the MAGA base, they will be convinced by alt-right media either that the losses they are feeling are caused by something former President Barack Obama did in 2010, or they’ll be distracted by some provocative fable about immigrants.  At the time this is typed, I understand that many MAGAs are incensed at the Trump Administration for declaring that it has no client list of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier child sex trafficker, after being told for years in their media silo that the government was staging a cover-up to protect Epstein’s powerful (whom they presumably believe to be left-wing) clients.  Although in recent days I’ve developed a better understanding why MAGALand is so obsessed with the Epstein case, I still consider it ironic that while MAGAs bellow about Epstein – a matter which, no matter how evil the truth, has absolutely no bearing on their wellbeing – and revel in the Administration’s implied if not explicit promotion of their “freedom” to disdain vaccines and fluoride, they utter not a murmur of protest about the BBB’s Medicaid cuts that will hinder or preclude their access to health care — including that they’ll need to treat the diseases and cavities inevitably resulting from the exercise of their “freedom.”

As legendary CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite used to say:  That’s the way it is.

[Two introductory notes:

The first observations in this long post are blatantly obvious to anyone closely following our public affairs; I chose to keep them in because they weren’t that blatantly obvious when written – the Trump Administration moves faster than this old blogger can type — and for anyone who hasn’t had the life space to dwell on the wide range of the untoward acts of President Donald Trump and his acolytes.

Second, an insightful friend once remarked to me that I often try to end a post with some hint of optimism — and sometimes conclude on a happier note than I actually feel.  He was right.  Viewer Discretion Advised:  If you’ve already reached the limits of your emotional endurance at Mr. Trump’s and his minions’ destruction of the American way of life, click out NOW.  There is little reassurance in what follows.]

President Donald Trump recently declared to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, “You don’t have the cards right now.”  Putting the unfolding Ukrainian travesty aside, I would submit that right now, Americans who love true democracy don’t have a strong hand.  Although Mr. Trump has been in office only two months, I think we’ve already entered the final countdown.  Before contemplating where we may be headed, let’s consider the guardrails now tottering, tattered or demolished:

Through his aberrant behavior Mr. Trump has laid bare that the Founding Fathers, notwithstanding their attempt to design a constitutional system of checks and balances, were at bottom assuming that Americans would elect presidents who were, in the words of Alexander Hamilton writing as “Publius” in Federalist No. 68, to “an eminent degree endowed with … a different kind of merit, to establish … the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.”  In the past, we’ve unquestionably had some storied presidents who did what they thought was  necessary to protect the nation without fussing over the limits of their own Constitutional authority:  Franklin Roosevelt’s 1942 Executive Order was the basis for the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans; Theodore Roosevelt made clear in his autobiography that when he felt it was necessary, he would take any action that he did not consider specifically prohibited to him under the Constitution; and Saint Abraham Lincoln arguably skated over the Constitutional line a few times during the Civil War.  In retrospect, these proactive presidents were sometimes misguided, sometimes clearly morally wrong.  Even so, what protected our republic overall in these instances was that these presidents were, although far from perfect, “endowed … with a different kind of merit.”  Mr. Trump’s own narcissistic insecure vindictive amorality has vitiated this guardrail.

Presidents have generally surrounded themselves with Cabinet and other advisors who were accomplished in their own right, respectful of the president they served without being sycophantic.  President George Washington appointed Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State and Mr. Hamilton as Secretary of the Treasury, each of whom advised the president loyally while having visions for the nation very different from each other and sometimes at variance from those of Mr. Washington himself.  Now, we have the likes of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  So much for that guardrail.

The Legislative Branch was not only supposed to be the co-equal of the Executive Branch in our government; the Founding Fathers arguably intended the Congress to be the preeminent Branch, which they established through the First Article of the Constitution.  The envisioned that Senators and Representatives would be estimable individuals who would zealously maintain their own Constitutional prerogatives.  Today, in addition to largely impotent Democrats wailing and gnashing their teeth, Congressional Republicans clearly don’t go to the bathroom without the approval of Mr. Trump and his co-President, Elon Musk.  Until they receive the okay, these legislators sit there and hold it.  This guardrail is not only gone; it’s vaporized.

As to the Judicial Branch:  while there are partisan MAGA hacks and toadies on the various levels of the federal bench such as Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and US. District Court FLSD Judge Aileen Cannon, I maintain that the vast majority of federal judges administer the law fairly and accurately.  That said, we have already seen multiple instances of the Trump Administration’s willingness to skirt and perhaps outright defy judicial rulings.  Now we have the President of the United States calling for the impeachment of a federal circuit judge because he didn’t like the judge’s ruling – which won’t happen, but serves Mr. Trump’s larger purpose:  to discredit the judiciary in the eyes of his willingly gullible base.  What is a federal court going to be able to do if/when it’s clear that Trump officials are simply disregarding its ruling?  You can take this one:  Zip.  Zilcho.  Nada.  Guardrail down.

Let’s look next at the so-called “Fourth Branch of Government,” the free press (I still like the old-fashioned phrase 🙂 ).  Put aside the Fox News and alt-right propaganda machine and consider the broader picture.  The White House is now limiting access to Mr. Trump, punishing transgressors for coverage it doesn’t like.  CNN has reordered its lineup in a way that unseated an anchor, Jim Acosta, whom Mr. Trump detests.  MSNBC (which has also reorganized its lineup) is being spun off by NBCUniversal.  Other news organizations are seemingly altering their commentary.  From one perspective, one can sympathize with the challenge credible news organizations face; they have only so many minutes and column inches to address the avalanche of Administration machinations.  At the same time, I am increasingly angered with the modulated manner in which media is reporting the Trump Administration’s actions.  I believe that if Mr. Trump did shoot five people on 5^th Avenue in New York tomorrow, some of the outlets we listen to would report it in subdued tones, and move on.  (I can hear the late Comedian George Carlin as The Weatherman, intoning, “A meteor is now crashing into the earth, so tomorrow it’ll be a bit cloudy.”)  We are not transitioning from chocolate to strawberry but from chocolate to strychnine.  They should say so.  Guardrail – if not destroyed, certainly no bastion.

One might have assumed that the views of the leaders of America’s business community might be a check on the President’s behavior, at least on economic issues such as tariffs.  Wrong.  These leaders are cowed.  Mr. Trump has proven that he will move unscrupulously to crush or cripple any interest that he perceives to disagree with him.  CEOs of crushed and crippled companies don’t get to stay CEOs, with their multi-million dollar salaries and corporate perks, for very long.  Big business won’t stay boo no matter what Mr. Trump does.  Guardrail – if this, indeed, ever amounted to one – gone.

The financial markets remain one intriguing guardrail for which Mr. Trump’s reaction cannot yet be assessed.  They are faceless, can’t be bullied, and reassuring them was a priority for Mr. Trump during his first term.  That said, while the Administration clearly was at first a bit unnerved when the stock market dropped 10% when Mr. Trump imposed his tariffs, it has since seemingly become more indifferent to the market’s concerns.  (It remains to be seen how Mr. Trump will react if the markets drop another 10% or more.)    

There was another guardrail that I thought might hold:  Mr. Trump’s own insecurity.  What seemingly hasn’t yet penetrated the consciousness of average MAGAs is that Mr. Trump doesn’t need their votes anymore.  (I suspect the President views his own undeniable physical degradation a greater impediment to a third term than a mere Constitutional prohibition.)  I have previously noted my belief that the speed at which the Trump Administration curtailed government benefits and services relied upon by Trump voters would be an indicator whether it intended to subject itself to free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028.  I thought the President’s continuing need for his supporters’ adulation might stay his hand from adversely impacting programs they valued, but if reports that the Administration is advising Congressional Republicans to avoid town hall meetings are accurate, it is a telling sign that the Trump Team no longer cares about its supporters’ concerns.  (Despite its protestations, the Administration is certainly aware that many irate attendees are Trump voters, not nonlocal crashers.)  At present, the sturdiness of this guardrail remains unclear.

The foregoing may have been as tedious as it was demoralizing, but perhaps served to highlight both how quickly we’ve advanced toward authoritarianism and that we’re going way too fast to expect the MAGA Administration to voluntarily apply any restraint.  As I said in a note about a month ago, the efforts of Messrs. Trump and Musk couldn’t suit Russian President Vladimir Putin’s purposes any better than if the Russian President had specified them himself.  That said, Americans who believe in democracy still have cards to play; how highly one values their hand depends upon how one thinks Mr. Trump will respond when it is played.

As the Trump Administration’s cuts to Medicaid, Veterans Benefits, the IRS, federal emergency services, state and municipal funding, farm aid, in the offing Social Security and Medicare, etc., etc., increasingly ripple through the economy, they will cost additional federal public sector jobs, further limit or withdraw federal services, cascade into state and local public sector jobs and services, affect the private sector, and diminish or eliminate benefits to which Trump supporters consider themselves entitled.  Watch a Wyoming farmer losing subsidies or a Mississippi senior citizen losing Medicaid.  Wait until Bird Flu or Measles outbreaks decimate less vaccinated (i.e., MAGA) areas.  Wait until a major hurricane hits the southern Atlantic or the Gulf (of Mexico 🙂 ) coasts and FEMA has no resources to help devastated citizens.  2024 Trump voters will no longer be distracted by inane diversions; a pivotal segment will feel betrayed.  They won’t be sad; they’ll be mad.  They will join the 49% of the citizenry who already bitterly opposes the Trump Administration.  It’s already starting. 

(An aside:  I completely agree with U.S. Senate Minority Leader U.S. NY Sen. Chuck Schumer’s tactical decision to capitulate to the Republicans’ one-sided Continuing Resolution to fund the government rather than shut the government down.  At that juncture it was too early to make a stand; the bulk of our citizens had not yet begun to experience the full consequences of Republicans’ initiatives.  Shutting the government down would have simply made it appear to many Americans that any ensuing loss of government services was the Democrats’ fault.  By acquiescing to the Republican bill, Democrats have ensured that Mr. Trump will own any pain voters hereafter feel due to Republican initiatives.  If democracy is saved, Mr. Schumer’s maneuver may in retrospect be seen to have played a significant part.)

As the effects of the Administration’s actions become ever more apparent – just as the weather warms – the number of demonstrations (which are already occurring) could well grow.  They could well be large, raucous, and widespread.  If Mr. Trump comes to confront a people in which over 60% bitterly and vociferously oppose him, he will have a challenge not faced by Adolf Hitler in Germany in the 1930s or Putin in Russia in the 2000s.  Neither of these countries had deep democratic roots when Hitler and Putin respectively took power.  Their citizens, accustomed to centuries of autocracy, had no visceral belief that what they thought mattered.  On the contrary, after 250 years of democracy, Americans across the political spectrum inherently expect their leaders to listen to them.

[Another aside:  at this point in the Trump term, U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, currently conducting rallies across the country (sometimes accompanied by U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), is the perfect spearhead for the anti-Trump movement.  He has credibility across the political spectrum as an advocate for working people and the disadvantaged, while clearly being too old to still entertain presidential aspirations.  I am guessing that Mr. Sanders has determined that his last great service to America is to inspire the resistance to MAGA until the Democratic Party coalesces behind its next leader.]

Confronted by widespread discontent in their countries, the response would be simple for either Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping:  you send your military out, shoot some demonstrators, throw a thousand others in jail, and everybody else will get in line.

What will Mr. Trump do if the protests envisioned here do materialize?  I would suggest that the best result that Americans who love democracy can expect is that Mr. Trump will back off, at least to a certain extent (to the extent he can; I think a lot of what he has already broken can’t be easily reconstructed).  But how strong a hand is it?

I have seen it reported that Mark Esper, the last Secretary of Defense in the first Trump Administration, related in his memoir, A Sacred Oath, that when demonstrators protested in Washington, D.C., after the murder of George Floyd, Mr. Trump asked authorities, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?”

I leave it to you to decide how you think Mr. Trump will respond if he ever feels truly threatened by widespread rallies and demonstrations.  Although I am confident that today, U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins would say, “President Trump would never deploy our armed forces against American citizens,” to any realist, concerted anti-MAGA activism will not be without risk.

Still, at this juncture, those who believe in the American way of life as it has existed for the last quarter of a millennium still have cards to play. 

(I guess I did end with a slight note of optimism, after all 😉 ).

We’ll see what happens.