Frank's Musings

Tariffs were the most common source of government revenues before the liberal enlightenment that motivated many democracies in the nineteenth century to use tax receipts to correct obvious inequities between the lives enjoyed by wealthy and poorer citizens. Now that social welfare programs have become popular and expensive, raising enough tax revenues in socially equitable ways would impose more of the burden on the class of high income-earners who support the current President and his collaborators.

President Trump has often stated that he’s a lot smarter than most others. That arrogance has led him into numerous bankruptcies. It has also made him an avatar of people who think they have been unfairly deprived of their deserved recognition or reward. Sometimes, however, even they cannot deny he has gone too far.

Trump uses immigration enforcement to captivate a large group of resentful political supporters. Indeed, they are susceptible to his message of retribution. After all, it is mainly wealthy industrialists or other entrepreneurs who are dependent on the labor and energy of refugees.

However, the domestic workers displaced by immigrant laborers often are abandoned by their employers or by new capital-strapped entrepreneurs who forsake an opportunity to build on the experience of legacy workers by investing in upgrading their skills. This simplistic definition of our democracy, that its goal is to let the majority rule, can result in the perceived discrimination against less motivated residents whose jobs and expertise are threatened by talent imported from abroad.

The definition of democracy which characterized the Weimar Republic was that same simplistic replacement model. When Hitler and his cohorts recognized an opportunity to manipulate that foundational political principle and then repress and eliminate Jews and other non-Aryans, they were able to capture control of the government and conduct the Holocaust.

Beside other measures harassing immigrants, for example, the administration now is using the processing delay for green card applications as another excuse for detaining and deporting even legal immigrants. In fact, this is only a way further to discourage any “undesirable” immigration. The whole policy smacks of ethnic cleansing.

Trump’s successes, like those of P.T. Barnum, are based on the misperception that a sucker is born every minute. In Trump’s case, those suckers are those who believe they will be better off if they are left to their own devices and continue to be exploited by snake-oil salesmen like the Donald.

Overthrowing a dictator has been shown to have occurred non-violently several times in history (cf. "Strategic Nonviolent Conflict,"1994, by Peter Ackerman and Christopher Kruegler).  It should be simple, therefore, to use the same tactics to prevent another one from emerging.

Obviating tyranny was the leading objective of the founders of the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, the provisions of that document also provide a pathway for an authoritarian to capture control of the government.  He or she can legally establish an administration that parades as a democracy while appealing to most voters’ regret of having historically submitted to the better judgment of a select class of elites.  In their minds, that seems to be no better than a dictatorship.

If a written democratic constitution can be manipulated to facilitate a dictatorship it should also enable a determined group of restorationists to return power to the people. For that to happen, however, requires (a) a leader unreservedly dedicated to inspiring voters’ self-confidence and (b) funding to purchase sufficient media access to advocate and instruct voters to assert their political power rather than passively do what they’re told.

Until that leader is found, Congress can, at least, limit the demolition of America's democracy if opponents of an authoritarian presidency overwhelmingly win the 2026 mid-term election.  Perhaps that campaign will result in identifying likely 2028 presidential candidates from one or both political parties who would restore our liberal democracy.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     

Donald Trump’s Greenland Episode isn’t only the latest demonstration of his total detachment from reality; it shows how vulnerable our republic has become to the talents of a determined, wealthy, and deluded carnival barker.  We ought to have expected  him to act within his own twisted concept of reality, in which nothing of any importance exists other than himself.  However, we must recognize that he has been able to manipulate our democratic system of government to respond to insistent declaration of falsehoods instead of to our own critical analysis.

Oh, how we have fallen prey to our reliance on professionally designed media presentations for trusted commercial information and highly esteemed entertainment!  It may not require a real security threat for so vulnerable an electorate willingly to abdicate responsibility for protecting its self-interest if it allows civil society to be “run” by a single person.  Certainly, its elected representatives have already shown themselves to be much less inclined to protect the electorate’s welfare than their own.  Indeed, that is probably the main reason for the ambivalence that twice put Mr. Trump in office.

Both national political parties have decayed into mere career paths for glad handers.  The public apparently has wizened up to this, as evidenced by the growing number of independents.  Therefore, to serve the public’s true welfare and avoid the chaos of fashion, congressional Democrats and Republicans both need to remove or, at least, confine the rambunctiousness of our 47^th President.  It’s hard to believe that so unfocused and ignorant a leader could restructure our government; but his administration could seriously harm our liberal democracy, even before the end of his current term in office.  That damage must be limited to give his successor a chance to restore America’s pride.

Most of the public believe what they are told entertainingly instead of what they have figured out for themselves.  They feel they are alive only by accident with no purpose but to minimize their and their loved ones’ pain of existence.  The messages that most effectively motivate them are those that help them achieve that goal.  Entertainment is a relief from their daily drudgery and therefore adds an incentive to paying attention to the message’s content.

The entertainment goal of most religions has been to convince people that there is a more important world that exists, either supernaturally or intellectually, that everyone enters spiritually upon death and that rewards them for conducting themselves according to certain tenets of faith.  Those principles of life are usually intended to facilitate the mutually beneficial coexistence of society, although how that society is defined often determines how peaceful it is. 

A smaller portion of the public have concluded that they are individually capable of satisfying their craving for relief from life’s vicissitudes.  This can result in mindful domination of others or in the search for mutually beneficial solutions to existential problems.  Ironically, some of those solutions are also mutually contradictory.  For example, the democratic organization of society usually results in a government that favors the desires of those most influenced by information presented in an entertaining and appealing way.  It is challenging for liberal democratic leaders to advocate for the general welfare when it involves personal sacrifice.  The Ancient Roman answer to this quandary—bread and circuses—is not obsolete; rather, it has been updated—debt and distraction.

This model cannot last.  But to avoid an inevitable collapse, critical Democratic thinkers must master modern communications techniques.  They must make a compelling as well as entertaining presentation of how a reformed government will guild the future of the lower and middle classes and stop funneling the fruits of their labor into the pockets of the wealthy.  More to the point, the Democrats must commit their own futures to the public’s response to their arguments beyond large donors’ gratuities.

The U.S. government “Army Talk” pamphlet for March 24, 1945, titled “Fascism!” clearly describes its sociopathic features.

President Trump and his Svengali, Stephen Miller, seem to think the Danes will shrink from sovereignty over Greenland just in response to threatening language. In fact, the White House is trying to do the same thing in Venezuela, Iran, Mexico, Cuba, and Nigeria. All without congressional approval.