Please be nice. 

How do we get past this moment?

How do we get past this moment?

Honestly, the same way we've pushed through all the previous ones.

We're going to get up, go to work, take the kids to practice, go to PTA meetings, volunteer every now and then, save a little money, go to church on holidays, watch TV, read a book, and have a beer with friends.

We get on with our lives.

I think it's easy to lose sight of the fact that nothing we're going through today is completely new. 

This isn't our first generation gap.  It's not our first controversial POTUS.  It's not our first politically motivated assassination.  Democrats and Republicans have been bitching about each other for a century or more, and liberals and conservatives longer than that.

I think it's also easy to lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of us live our daily lives grounded in common sense, real life relationships, and the ups and downs of regular people.  Politics is something that happens in the background, changing our actual lives very little.  We're not going to not get through it.

The 'insiders' say, nothing to see here, right?  /s

So your answer to the threat of encroching authoritarianism is to do nothing and to go about our daily lives as if there were nothing wrong? 

I think it's easy to lose sight of the fact that nothing we're going through today is completely new. 

Trump is arguably (but almost certainly) the most corrupt PotUS in our history and has created what is also arguably the most corrupt administration in our history.

These are not normal times and pretending they are is the exact opposite of what the American people should be doing.   We should be recognizing the dangerous inflection point in our history and opposing this corruption, not pretending 'nothing to see here folks'.

The 'insiders' say, nothing to see here, right?  /s

Nothing we haven't seen before, no.

So your answer to the threat of encroching authoritarianism is to do nothing and to go about our daily lives as if there were nothing wrong? 

My answer is to start looking at things objectively and in the context of history.  

Nothing we haven't seen before, no.

True, we did see a lot of this in Germany and Italy from the 1920's through the '40's.

Yeah. I see you now. And, will respond accordingly going forward.

True, we did see a lot of this in Germany and Italy from the 1920's through the '40's.

What, specifically?

Incremental moves intended to consolidate authoritarian rule.   Trump's moves are not at the scale we saw back then, but they follow the same recipe.

I asked ChatGPT to offer the top 10 methods for imposing authoritarian rule focusing on the history of the early 20th century and in particular on Germany, Italy, and Russia:

Totally fair as a 101-level, descriptive (not prescriptive) checklist. Here are the most common steps authoritarian leaders in Italy, Germany, and early Soviet Russia used to consolidate power—useful as warning signs:

1. Exploit a crisis to claim emergency powers. Trigger or seize on unrest/attacks to suspend civil liberties and centralize control (e.g., the Reichstag Fire Decree, Feb 28, 1933). Holocaust Encyclopedia

2. Rewrite the rules. Push through constitutional or electoral changes that sideline rivals (e.g., Germany’s Enabling Act, Mar 23, 1933; Italy’s Acerbo Law, 1923). Encyclopedia Britannica +1

3. “Coordinate” society under the ruling party. Absorb or dissolve independent parties, unions, and civic groups so everything aligns with the regime (the Nazi Gleichschaltung program). Holocaust Encyclopedia +1

4. Monopolize coercion with party militias and secret police. Use paramilitaries and internal-security organs to intimidate and crush opposition (Italy’s Blackshirts/OVRA; Russia’s Cheka). The Guardian +2 Wikipedia +2

5. Neutralize courts and legislatures; create special tribunals. Replace checks and balances with compliant bodies to try “subversives” and rubber-stamp decrees (e.g., Fascist Italy’s Special Tribunal). Encyclopedia Britannica

6. Criminalize dissent and censor the press. Outlaw opposition parties, gag newspapers, and make criticism illegal (Italy’s leggi fascistissime ; the USSR’s Glavlit censorship). Wikipedia +1

7. Capture information and indoctrinate. Build a state propaganda system and mandatory youth movements to socialize loyalty (Hitler Youth/BDM; control of radio/films, school texts). Holocaust Encyclopedia +1

8. Purge the state and security services. Remove non-loyal civil servants, judges, officers; replace them with loyalists to ensure obedience to the leader’s line. Encyclopedia Britannica

9. Stage-manage elections/plebiscites for legitimacy. Keep the rituals of voting while rigging outcomes through rule changes, repression, or one-party dominance (e.g., effects of the Acerbo Law in 1924). Wikipedia

10. Mobilize via scapegoats and a leader cult. Center politics on a unifying myth—race, class enemies, or “internal foes”—and elevate the leader above institutions. Holocaust Encyclopedia6

I think it would be valuable (and instructional) to keep these in mind and categorize Trump moves accordingly.   The USA has, I believe, a stronger institution of democracy than Germany, Italy and certainly Russia did back then so the scale of Trump's success in these areas will be mitigated.   But there is no denying what he is trying to do.

...there is no denying what he is trying to do.

It needed to be said again.

Cowboys and Indians

North vs South

Cops and Robbers

The country literally started over Loyal Tories vs Tax Rebels.

We have always been a war with ourselves except when we fight some other country.

I said the other day that 551 registered firearms plus millions of unregistered WWII souvenirs aren't the problem.

The 333 active cell phone accounts, not counting burners, have created millions of zombies, who, like the current POTUS cannot function without expressing themselves on mostly anonymous social media.

Where are these shooters and bombers radicalized?  The internet.

Now we have AI, just months old being hijacked to create false content for phishing and criminal activity.

Thanks Al Gore /s

So, in a search for a way to move forward are you saying that we are screwed?  Or maybe that we will find our way through it or not and it is left up to fate?

You seem to be a bit cynical. 

Or maybe that we will find our way through it or not and it is left up to fate?

Evolution is chaos.  Some brilliant species have been wiped out by the Ice Ages, volcanoes and Tsunami's.  The survivors are not necessarily the fittest, just the luckiest.

You seem to be a bit cynical. 

Then I must make more of an effort to be more so.

We are not facing ice ages or other calamitous natural disasters (though one could occur). What we are facing, I feel, is a man-made disaster that is occurring while we watch.

And it's happened untold times throughout written human history, enough humans always survive to reset the cycle.

We must break the cycle.

I have only watched the first video by Heather Cox Richardson so far  All I can say is anyone who believes Richardson is a voice of reason is a HUGE part of the problem.  Richardson was insulting, dismissive, and, for lack of a better term, elitist.  At times Richardson sounds like Hillary Clinton.  Richardson recites the delusions of a status quo conventional wisdom that was overturned in 2016.

Richardson ignores that Donald Trump was elected, not coronated.  Trump had to defeat the Republican Party during the 2016 primaries before he could run against Clinton.  Trump was an unpopular candidate.  Trump has never been a popular President.  Trump's unpopularity does not mean anything.  That conventional wisdom hasn't worked for the last decade.  

Richardson ignores that Barack Obama insulted those to the right of Che Guevara.  That's not ancient history or a deflection since Trump was Obama's successor.  Was the election of Trump a response to Obama's autocratic, divisive politics and policies?   How else could an unpopular candidate win an election?

No, Richardson is just regurgitating the same talking points of a failed conventional wisdom.  Richardson advocates resistance to Trump and revolution.  But Richardson fails to understand that Trump's election was an act of resistance and revolution.  Richardson only blames Trump.  But Trump wouldn't be in the White House if he hadn't won elections.  Richardson refuses to even acknowledge that fact.  That's why Richardson is being insulting, divisive, and elitist.  That's why anyone who believes Richardson is a voice of reason is a huge part of the problem.

Well, those are some thoughts.

Richardson was insulting, dismissive, and, for lack of a better term, elitist.

I didn't find her so at all. She is grounded in a great deal of history and I tend to agree with her on many aspects. So I guess you could call me one of your "problems". 

Richardson ignores that Donald Trump was elected, not coronated.

That is just flat out hyperbolic nonsense. You say

Trump's unpopularity does not mean anything.  That conventional wisdom hasn't worked for the last decade.  

So, in your opinion, what is the new paradigm? It looks to me like Trump is working his way towards rigged elections. As long as we're waxing hyperbolic, maybe elections where the Dear Leader wins 99% of the votes counted....?

Richardson ignores that Barack Obama insulted those to the right of Che Guevara.  That's not ancient history or a deflection since Trump was Obama's successor. 

More hyperbolic commentary. Obama was center left in outlook but was also pragmatic and 

Was the election of Trump a response to Obama's autocratic, divisive politics and policies?   How else could an unpopular candidate win an election?

Did you ever consider that people believed Trump when he said, "I am going to drain the swamp"? Or maybe his replacement for the ACA? Maybe they tuned in to his racist and xenophobic dog whistles? He may have drained the swamp but he replaced it with a shark tank. All of his rhetoric left gaps for the individual to fill in their own personal boogeyman. 

Richardson fails to understand that Trump's election was an act of resistance and revolution.

I don't think that anybody fails to understand that, because this is what the folks to the extreme right have been saying , at least since the election, some of them before. Why do you think that Trump ran away from Project 2025 and lied about knowledge of it? Because the majority of the people who knew about Project 2025 thought it was a shitty way to run a country. 

I didn't find her so at all. She is grounded in a great deal of history and I tend to agree with her on many aspects. So I guess you could call me one of your "problems". 

A highly selective and near sighted telling of history. 

So, in your opinion, what is the new paradigm? It looks to me like Trump is working his way towards rigged elections. As long as we're waxing hyperbolic, maybe elections where the Dear Leader wins 99% of the votes counted....?

Richardson doesn't entertain any thought that what is happening now is a direct response to the autocratic and dictatorial government created by both Obama and Biden.

Obama had wielded autocratic power with implementation of Obamacare, measures to address the Great Recession, the DACA immigration program, clean electricity initiatives, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, imposed equity reforms onto law enforcement, signing on to COP21, and other examples of Obama bypassing Congress to unilaterally impose his dictates onto the country.  Trump was elected to dismantle the autocratic government that obtained considerably more power under Obama.

Biden's response to the pandemic four years ago was to use government power to shut down all aspects of public life except protests, border crossings, and international travel.  The autocratic bureaucracy had begun wrecking the economy during Trump's last six months of his first term.  But it was Biden who began issuing mandates, creating social prohibitions, and censoring dissent.  

Trump was first elected to dismantle Obama's illiberal and autocratic dictates.  Trump's reelection was to dismantle the bureaucracy that wrecked the economy using autocratic power.  

Did you ever consider that people believed Trump when he said, "I am going to drain the swamp"? Or maybe his replacement for the ACA? Maybe they tuned in to his racist and xenophobic dog whistles? He may have drained the swamp but he replaced it with a shark tank. All of his rhetoric left gaps for the individual to fill in their own personal boogeyman. 

Congress doesn't do a damned thing.  Congress is not the swamp.  The swamp is the institutional autocracy, sometimes referred to as the Deep State.  Those who shout about racist and xenophobic dog whistles represent the institutional autocracy of the Deep State.  The institutional autocracy uses those dog whistle claims to impose illiberal dictates onto the country.  DEI, CRT, and left wing ideology has not been imposed on the United States through any sort of democratic process.  That's the swamp.

 I don't think that anybody fails to understand that, because this is what the folks to the extreme right have been saying , at least since the election, some of them before. Why do you think that Trump ran away from Project 2025 and lied about knowledge of it? Because the majority of the people who knew about Project 2025 thought it was a shitty way to run a country. 

But people like Richardson, who are vested in the swamp of institutional autocracy, attempt to redefine and rewrite history to mischaracterize what is being resisted.  Richardson is not engaged in honest discussion.  

Are you suggesting the proper way to run a country is to allow autocratic institutions to bypass democratic processes and simply dictate how the country should be run?  That's the narrative Heather Cox Richardson is presenting as history.

Your comment strains credulity.

Are you suggesting the proper way to run a country is to allow autocratic institutions to bypass democratic processes and simply dictate how the country should be run?  That's the narrative Heather Cox Richardson is presenting as history.

You are quite obviously either gaslighting me or having trouble understanding the materials presented.

You are quite obviously either gaslighting me or having trouble understanding the materials presented.

Well, then, what is your take on what Heather Cox Richardson presented?  Since I am having trouble understanding the material then why don't you provide your understanding?

I would like to know what you heard Richardson say.

In a nutshell, she said that Trump and acolytes are using the friends/enemies way of dividing the powers in the world (a political strategy expressed by a Nazi) which extends down to the political level. We don't have to play according to that paradigm.

We as American people have the choice of playing his game by his rules of us vs them or by not letting his false dichotomy of us vs them divide the people but changing it to the We the People against him. She has stressed that in past moments of crisis the people, by a great variety of methods, have expressed their displeasure with the government, most importantly people in positions that were associated power, and we are seeing this very thing happening right now. So, now is the time to push because the cracks are starting to show.

She used the analogy of a fourth grade classroom. If the teacher has control of the classroom they rarely need to raise their voice. Contrast that with the classroom in which the teacher has lost control. The teacher has to yell at the students more and more until the teacher has no control over the class and is disregarded.

That is the point that she says we are nearing. The lawsuits, the protests, the minor incidents at the local,  county, state and regional level are building towards the "uncontrollable classroom " precisely because the rhetoric from the President and administration is becoming so shrill and discordant with the basic American value of "Don't tell me what to do."

LOL.  

The biggest problem in this country over the past 10 years IS the fact that Trump won an election. When the most unfit and unqualified candidate in history wins a presidential election you have instant crisis. 

Winning the election does not validate Trump, simply because nothing can. 

His winning calls the electorate into question. 

The biggest problem in this country over the past 10 years IS the fact that Trump won an election. When the most unfit and unqualified candidate in history wins a presidential election you have instant crisis. 

Oh, yeah, too much democracy.  The American people are too fucking stupid to allow democracy.  We better let Harvard decide what should be done and ignore the results of elections.

You cant possible seriously believe that the best candidate always wins. 

You cant possible seriously believe that the best candidate always wins. 

You can't possibly believe that people voted for someone they didn't want to be President.  Trump didn't win reelection by accident.  And since Trump had already served one term as President, it seems highly unlikely the electorate didn't know who they were voting for.

Not only did Trump win reelection, his party was handed control of Congress.  Trump and his party was not coronated by the press and public institutions.  Trump and his party won in spite of resistance, protests, public disclosures, and legal actions.  With all of that stacked against Trump and his party, it does seem that the electorate voted for who they considered the best candidate.

Trump didn't win reelection by accident. 

He has never hit 50% of the national vote, in three elections. The idea that there is consensus demand for Trump is laughable. 

No, Nerm is saying that Richardson wants autocratic government because that is what Obama represented, and because the people didn't like autocracy, they believed that the best thing to do was to elect Trump. (The incongruity of the statement almost stops your brain)

If you have been alive and cognizant over the past two decades, you will realize that something is wrong with his reasoning. 

The reasoning that is suspect is the young male who gets their news from podcast because all of the fluff about their reclamation of their manhood and Trumps demonizing of the media. Or the people who believed that Trump was somehow going to make the economy better. The list goes on and on.

He cobbled together just enough votes to Win the election between his rabid base and the willing fools, which added up to a little less than 30% of the registered voters. A lot of these voters are now looking at what he is doing to the government and the country and saying "Stop! This is not what i voted for." DJT does not care. He is all in and running the true autocratic leader's handbook, while Nerm is out in left field somewhere.

He has never hit 50% of the national vote, in three elections. The idea that there is consensus demand for Trump is laughable. 

Donald Trump was not a popular candidate and has never been a popular President.  Other than Fox, the domestic and international press reporting on Trump has been generally negative since 2015.  There have been nationwide protests during Trump's time in office; both the first term and now the second term.  IMO the public knows more about Trump than they do about any other public or political figure.

So, how do you explain Trump being elected twice?  There aren't enough Republicans in the country to elect a President on their own.  Only one news network has been consistently supportive of Trump.  Overall press coverage of Trump has been negative.  

No, Nerm is saying that Richardson wants autocratic government because that is what Obama represented, and because the people didn't like autocracy, they believed that the best thing to do was to elect Trump. (The incongruity of the statement almost stops your brain)

Are you attempting to refute that Obama's Presidency was autocratic? 

Richardson clearly states that Trump is attempting to divide the county.  But Richardson doesn't say Trump is creating new divisions.  Richardson ignores that the divisions existed before Trump was elected.  Trump's rhetoric has been about attacking Democrats and attacking liberals.  Trump hasn't stoked racial, gender, or class divisions.  Trump highlights supporters from the Democrat's status quo base.  Democrats are the ones who divides the country over race, gender, and class distinctions.

Richardson ignores the Great Recession, ignores the pandemic, and even ignores Trump's first term.  Toward the end of the video Richardson clearly states she is attempting to reframe the narrative.  Trump has never, ever been popular so Richardson has separated herself from reality by attempting to highlight a shallow narrative about popularity.  Trump was not elected to be a rock star President.  

It is important to note that Dr. Heather Cox Richardson doesn't object to autocratic use of government.  Richardson is complaining about the anti-Democrat and anti-liberal rhetoric and policies Trump has pursued.  Richardson is not griping about Trump being autocratic.  Richardson is trying to reframe a narrative that separates Trump from voters.

That's what Dr. Heather Cox Richardson actually said.  What do you think was the point of the video?  Trump will not run for another election.  Trump is essentially a lame duck now, before the midterms.  Richardson has separated Trump from party and from voting base.  So what was Richardson trying to accomplish?

Are you attempting to refute that Obama's Presidency was autocratic? 

 Trump hasn't stoked racial, gender, or class divisions.  

I am struggling to maintain the belief that your argumentation is made in good faith. Aquaint yourself with what autocracy is. 

Just as a check to make sure that I hadn't slipped into an alternate reality I pasted into goggle and this was the AI's response:

Your question contains a false premise: the notion that Barack Obama's presidency was autocratic is not supported by mainstream, credible sources. Instead, it was an accusation primarily made by political opponents and has been widely refuted by analyses of his actions and use of power. 

Here is an analysis of the arguments surrounding the claim:

Context for accusations. Critics, largely Republicans, accused Obama of overreach for his use of executive orders. Examples include actions related to gun violence, environmental regulations, and immigration programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which were implemented after legislative efforts failed.

Executive order comparison. Despite these accusations, a review of historical data shows that Obama issued fewer executive orders on average per year than many of his modern predecessors, including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Systemic checks on power. The U.S. system of checks and balances provided restraints on Obama's power, as it does for all presidents. Many of his executive actions faced legal challenges and could be, and sometimes were, reversed by future administrations, demonstrating the limits of his authority.

Scholarly analysis. Academic and non-partisan analyses of the Obama presidency generally do not characterize it as autocratic. A 2018 assessment by the Miller Center at the University of Virginia, for instance, ranked Obama 12th among all U.S. presidents for overall performance. Other evaluations describe his approach to power as more complex, noting his "energetic use of executive power" while also acknowledging his respect for the rule of law.

Separation of powers. Institutions like Congress and the courts continued to function and exercise their constitutional roles throughout Obama's presidency. For example, legislative attempts to counter or block executive actions were common, and some of his actions faced legal challenges that went before the courts. 

Ultimately, the claim that Barack Obama's presidency was autocratic is not supported by a broader analysis of his time in office, which shows his actions were subject to the normal checks and balances of the U.S. political system.  

Was the election of Trump a response to Obama's autocratic, divisive politics and policies?   How else could an unpopular candidate win an election.

No, but calling Obama autocratic and divisive is a tell.

How else could an unpopular candidate win an election (in 2017)

Simple racism.

How else could an unpopular candidate win an election ( in 2021 )

Racism and misogyny, easy peasy.

Occam's razor. 

Occam's razor. 

The simplest explanation, that requires no assumptions, is that a woman cannot be elected President by the Democratic Party.

Sorry, nerm, that is still an assumption. At least the Democratic party will nominate a woman...

The second video with Brooks and Capehart illustrates why the PBS News Hour has become a venue for political propagnda rather than news reporting and journalism.  The segment opens with a falsehood and both Brooks and Capehart fabricate a political narrative based upon the falsehood.

ABC does not need an FCC license to produce the Jimmy Kimmel Live! program.  ABC does not need an FCC license to stream the Kimmel program.  The Kimmel program could be disseminated on YouTube without an FCC license.  The FCC cannot threaten ABC's license because there isn't one.  Jimmy Kimmel is not a private citizen speaking on the public square.  Kimmel is an employee of ABC and Kimmel's speech is regulated as a condition of employment.  

Jimmy Kimmel may have been deplatformed but he was not censored.  Since Brooks and Capehart began their discussion with a falsehood, the entire segment is really nothing more than fabricated political talking points.  Nothing Brooks and Capehart presented is fabrications derived from a falsehood.  As a result Brooks' and Capehart's talking points created an 'us versus them' narrative that was deliberately divisive.  

The second video with Brooks and Capehart illustrates why the PBS News Hour has become a venue for political propagnda rather than news reporting and journalism.  The segment opens with a falsehood and both Brooks and Capehart fabricate a political narrative based upon the falsehood.

Prove it. 

Nothing Brooks and Capehart presented is fabrications derived from a falsehood.

At least you got that accidentally right.

Prove it. 

I already proved it.  ABC doesn't need an FCC license to produce Jimmy Kimmel Live!  There's nothing the government can take away. Brendan Carr's political rhetoric is an empty threat.  You'd think two people in the info-entertainment business would understand that.

What you said is totally beside the point. Trump>FCC Chairman>Threat> Broadcast Distributers>Disney>ABC cancellation.  There is your straight line of corruption. It does not matter that there are other ways to reach the public, it was a direct abuse of power by the FCC per DJT. 

What you said is totally beside the point. Trump>FCC Chairman>Threat> Broadcast Distributers>Disney>ABC cancellation.  There is your straight line of corruption. It does not matter that there are other ways to reach the public, it was a direct abuse of power by the FCC per DJT. 

Where did Brendan Carr threaten Nexstar or Sinclair or any of the other two thirds of ABC affiliates?  The FCC is going to pull 234 broadcast licenses over 1 hour of the daily programming schedule?  

It seems more likely that Disney was concerned they'd receive the Bud Light treatment.  The Dylan Mulvaney incident demonstrated that the political right can unify and boycott but can't be appeased like the political left.

Where did Brendan Carr threaten Nexstar or Sinclair or any of the other two thirds of ABC affiliates? The FCC is going to pull 234 broadcast licenses over 1 hour of the daily programming 

Here

youtube

I hope we are all going to tune in to jimmy Kimmel live tonight and at least leave it on in another room for the duration.

Ratings rule.

The FCC is going to pull 234 broadcast licenses over 1 hour of the daily programming 

Typical knee jerk autocratic decision making when fawning over the dear leader and what they think he wants to hear.

Trump has divided this country and a manner he thinks he can use to conquer it. 

Trump has divided this country and a manner he thinks he can use to conquer it. 

So, do we acquiesce to his distinction or do we try to assert our own?

Of course not. I have been wondering why this is allowed to happen in the first place. Liberals love their freedoms as much if not more than conservatives, so I am totally perplexed that it appears, and appearances can be deceiving, that liberals can go along to get along (oor have no 'true' answer) with conservatives pushing them out of the public marketplace!

 I have been wondering why this is allowed to happen in the first place.  

The short and somewhat snarky answer is that this is what the people voted for. I would contend that answer only services one part of the explanation.

• The Senate districts that were on the ballot and were mostly Republican, so the Republicans were seen even before the election as gaining control of of the Senate which they did, barely.
• In the House elections, the Republicans eeked out a majority, once more by a few seats.
• These majorities gave the complete control of the congressional branch to the Republicans, albeit by the slimmest of margins. 
• Trump was elected by a plurality of voters, which is to say that he was elected by less than 50% of the voters (and also less than 30% of registered voters). 
• Trump ran on platform of verifiable lies that he told the voters that only he could fix. One of the only parts that he was truthful about was "I am your retribution" but that was kind of a lie too because it was inferred that this was merely hyperbolic rhetoric. 

Over the course of his 8 months in office, he has signed more than 200 executive orders all on a pell-mell trip to his authoritarian wonderland. He has made the Congress basically rubberstamp his legislation that will remove millions of Americans from the insurance rolls to give billionaires a tax break, as well as sit back and abrogate their constitutional authority of "power of the purse" to restrain his illegal,  extraordinary and maleficent destruction of the institutions that were created and financed by Congress. 

Liberals, at least the ones with the "D" in front of their names are in the minority in both houses of Congress and have no real power to stop the carnage. If they exist on the other side of the aisle, they are hiding their true identity. Why? I could only speculate. 

Thomas, thank you for the explanation. For my part, my comment is more about the lack of appropriate OUTRAGE from liberals losing rights 'wholesale' and the apparent 'suffering' from a lack of creative fight-back imagination.

I kind of guessed that was the case.