If you support Donald Trump as a political leader,  you want to follow someone who has no respect either for your intelligence or for the rule of law,  The American people have created a system of rules by which we have agreed to live in order to maintain a wildly successful national community in an order that benefits the overwhelming  majority of us; and we firmly believe that we are smart enough to adjust that system when it makes sense to the overwhelming majority of us to do so

Petulant three-year-olds may still act in disregard of others’ interests until they learn that a community cannot work that way.  (It is for not teaching that lesson to their son that the parents of the Oxford High School shooter are criminally charged with involuntary manslaughter.)  Trump never grew out of that childish behavior.

Like the bankers and investors who have financed Trump’s fanciful projects, libertarian-leaning voters have elected him President and are on the verge of selecting him as the Republican Party leader for the third time.   All the perpetrators of those delinquencies are also guilty, at least, of facilitating the chaos and destruction he has caused throughout his career.  They may not be criminal, but they surely are irresponsible.

Ms. Keathly’s quote in the 1/14/2024 NYT article by Michael C. Bender, "How College-Educated Republicans Learned to Love Trump Again," nicely encapsulates the thinking of Trump’s loyal MAGA base: “Because they can’t control him.” Donald Trump appeals to a stubborn libertarian less-than-majority of voters who feel they have been prevented from exercising their freedom to do as they please by the “elites” who are responsible for making the rules that keep order in our democratic society.  They regret the lesson that most of us learned as three-year-olds: living civilly together means that none of us can always do as we please.

Because The Donald never has had to abide by that lesson, his term of
office was chaotic, costly, and embarrassingly short-sighted.  It must be demonstrated to all Americans how we have suffered in common from the lapse in our good judgment that elevated him to the White House.  Beyond democracy being at stake in this year’s election, it is self-respect in the intelligence of each of us that is at stake.

Now that the Palestinian National Authority and average Palestinians have demonstrated their inability to control rabid terrorists, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and others, it is up to Israel to couple collaboration with the PNA with a proposal to take control of security in both Gaza and the West Bank, while nurturing the strengthening of the Palestinians themselves ultimately to govern an independent unified Palestinian state at peace with Israel.  That will also require at least the following three additional policy changes:

1)  The Israeli government must refrain from encouraging, if not prohibit, Jewish fundamentalists from increasing or even maintaining their settlements in the West Bank.

2)   Israel’s allies, if not new friendly Arab states, must help it finance the reconstruction of Gaza.

3)  Israel’s allies must also guarantee to aid and assist it with civil and military force, if necessary, if terrorist violence threatens the peaceful coexistence of the two separate states, Israel and Palestine.

K   Kid-glove handling of Jewish and Muslim interests in the Middle East has gone on and jeopardized world economic and human interests long enough.  It is time to hinge further financial and military assistance to both Israel and its Arab neighbors on their joining in a productive collaboration like the one outlined above.  Expressions of dissatisfaction with the religious implications of that material compromise are best left to the ephemeral world of the everlasting.

Donald Trump’s (or his manipulators’) claim that the official, if not all, acts of the President of the U.S. are exempt from compliance with the Constitution, and by extension with the rule of law, is belied by his participation as a respondent to the legal accusations being brought against him in state and federal courts, including the Supreme Court.  He has postulated at his rallies, to anti-establishment public affairs media, and in his social media posts that he embodies the will of the truly rightful arbiters of society’s order.  Not the elite, not the law-writers, not those who have used their ingenuity to legitimize their methods of enterprise; Trump makes his appeal to the self-identified majority of the public who profess they have barely managed to survive within the confines of the social structure erected by gifted and legacy-endowed members of society to defend their superior lifestyle. 

From time to time, a populist demagogue like Trump can tap the resentment that simmers within a significant portion of the public and harness it to take advantage of the hubristic belief of the elite in the virtue of democratic rule, to destroy its good order, and to ensconce himself as the deliverer of libertarian freedom.  Submission by that demagogue to the rule of law, particularly to interpretation of it by a Supreme Court dominated by justices sympathetic to his view, is wildly presumptuous. 

It is reasonable to expect that the Supreme Court will choose not to interfere with the determinations of Colorado and other states on the eligibility of candidates for federal office to participate in primary elections under the U.S. Constitution’s 14^th Amendment.  Unfortunately, this will defer the finding of Trump’s eligibility to run for president until at least close to the Republican convention, if not until after the national election.  The only way to avoid another election result challenge during the period before the inauguration will be a victory by the Democratic candidate; and even in that case, there will be a risk of a violent refusal by the would-be dictator’s supporters to accept his defeat at the polls.  The earlier this eventuality is considered by the Supreme Court will determine the ultimate settlement of the case and the definition of America democracy.

During a U.S. House hearing on antisemitism at highly selective colleges last month, a conservative representative, Ms. Rep. Elise Stefanik, RN.Y., questioned three presidents of elite universities, UPenn, Harvard and M.I. T., on their policies regarding the expression of antisemitism on their campuses.  The performance of those three women has resulted in the resignations of at least two of them.   All three of them denied Ms. Stefanik’s request that they affirm that the recent or any such demonstrations against Israeli policies governing the treatment of Muslim Palestinians were in violation of their institutions’ standards of conduct and were prohibited.

Here is a clear conflict of perspectives on race, politics, and academic freedom.  All these institutions are heavily dependent on financial support from private donors for their large budgets and their diversity programs.   Apparently, the university presidents had been coached by legal and financial advisors to give a common reply to Ms. Stefanik’s pointed line of questioning, viz. “it depends on the circumstances.”  It appears that the private donors, on which the institutions depend, and their Boards of Directors could not accept that legal advice and forced two of them, so far, to resign.  Ms. Stefanik expressed her victory over those women as a shaming of their presumptive sense of superiority over commonly held concepts of nondiscrimination.

It is interesting that the effective use of schadenfreude of the leaders of elite educational institutions in this examination comes at a time of the upsurgence of resentful libertarian national politics.  This trend is also a likely explanation of the popularity of Donald Trump among his solid base of supporters. Both the wide acceptance of Ms. Stefanik’s verbal attacks and the electoral strength of the MAGA right are demonstrations of a growing impatience with genuflecting to the intellectual and entitled elite in our society.  They are thought to be undeserving of special treatment in what is advertised as a “democratic” country. 

Distrust of the principles and institutions of a liberal democratic society can easily be harnessed to pull into power an authoritarian regime of government as soon as a majority willingly acquiesces to the enticements of a demagogue.  It has happened before and through effective manipulation of a content-hungry media industry and an increasingly compliant media audience it will happen again.    Every time it has occurred in the past, the promises of the demagogue eventually fail, usually not without great human cost.  It is, therefore, our mission to forewarn the public that they are in danger of falling into this painful trap.  Many novels and polemics have elucidated this truth; but there can be no substitute for an effective strategy and savvy media campaign if we are to avoid life in a democracy destroyed by uncontrolled populism.

Matthew Schmitz, in the 12/18/2023 NYT, said many voters see the former President as a businessman. It’s important, however, to realize the nature of his business background. He and his father built their fortunes on real estate development. The key to success in that field is not satisfying consumer demand. The real estate developer must convince his investor that his project will find adequate potential occupants by appealing to their dreams.