Friday, February 14, 2025

AMERIKA J'ACCUSE

How Did We Get Here?  
I Simply Drove Mindlessly Forward

February 13, 2025
Facebook

Sometimes when you drive in a certain direction for long enough, something amazing happens. You arrive in just the place that you were heading. It is quite an ability to be able to deny the consequences of straight lines, movement and time. Those who speak of such unavoidable destinations earn names like Cassandra and are very unpopular at parties. This seems to be just such a time in history.

Now this will be the last time I give any lengthy discussion as to how I consider we had multiple waypoints to diverge from this path; at some point this becomes navel-gazing. Looking above your own abdomen is now a quite necessary thing, but I do think a quick glance in the rear-view mirror is necessary to avoid repetitive mistakes. This one last time I’m gonna air it out.

We are dealing with the fruition of so many toxic decisions– so many steps along the way that could have been averted. An accumulation of terrible concessions and outright ignoring of evil. If we don’t like where we are at, we do need to consider how long this has all taken and how many times mitigation might have been possible.

There is a lot of liberal level hatred going on right now towards those they feel are to their left—they consider the current administration to be the fault of those individuals due to their perceived inelasticity in regard to issues such as……. genocide. But this has been going on much longer than recent atrocities—there’s been a very long history of reality being pointed out by leftists and being ignored by liberals.

Many on the left were pointing out that the Democratic Party was dangerous, due to their mendacity and hollow promises. The voicing of this concern was not to enhance the reactionary right but to save any shreds that could keep fascism at bay. The concern was that we would land exactly where we are, whether in this election cycle or the next. It could have happened after any neo-liberal administration, and the left was warning of this very salient fact. And it’s not like the left were magically prescient, no—this is what always happens when a party like the Democrats offer no significant push-back to the rhetoric of the right or any improvement in quality-of-life issues for the masses. It’s almost worse that they dangle improvement, but do not deliver. A portion of the masses will accept and embrace darker, ill-advised options when this occurs. For the left to have been pointing this out was like being on a street corner with a sign proclaiming 2+2=4 and receiving pushback from neo-liberal Democrats saying, “I don’t think you understand how numbers work, it’s simply more sophisticated than you can grasp.”

The Democrats dropped promises in regard to quality of life/wage issues—they did not pursue codification of important social issues even in times of democratic supermajorities—they did not add justices to the Supreme Court when this looked like a necessary option given the psychotic make-up of the current court. This type of behavior delivered us to this very dark place in history we now find ourselves staring at.

The executive order zeal that Trump has exhibited shows how it was probably available in some form many times during Democratic administrations as well. The Democrats had the option to come down with quality-of-life decrees. If the orders were popular but rescinded by Republicans then that would have fallen on them. Their popularity would have taken a nosedive, but things of this nature were not attempted. Biden would put out multiple strings attached “debt relief” that was shut down and did nothing but infuriate those who were tricked into thinking they might have a chance at clawing out of debt servitude. Can you imagine if truly New Deal type program attempts were made? Anything! Drop credit card interest rates allowable and say it’s because the bible is against usury. Let the Republicans play with that fire. Of course, the man from Delaware wouldn’t do that, but I say this to illustrate that there were ways to fight back if the Democrats were remotely who they said they were. If the result of executive orders really did improve lives–even the Trump followers would probably stay shut up about them. If you successfully implemented an order that would alleviate the pain from our healthcare system, can you imagine the unmitigated love you’d receive? From everyone? Look at what happened with the UHC shooter. You had sympathetic people on every side of the aisle over that due to the inherent cruelty of the system. All along the way there have been issues that could bind rather than divide this country. The Democrats simply opted to ignore that. You can say they followed the rules…. but they followed “rules” because they didn’t want to materially change life for the vast majority of Americans. Some of the rules they made up for themselves such as– we have the right to pick our candidates without voter input. That’s quite a rule. It’s such a tragedy because I believe even slight course corrections at pivotal moments could still have changed this nation.

When those on the left brought up options that could earn support and help fellow citizens it was considered to be accomplice behavior aiding the reactionary right. Instead of listening and processing the validity of the concerns, the energy of many liberals was to blame all the wrong people, that is to say the ones who were telling the truth. As I’ve said, there were crucial moments there to stop or slow this slide. One example, of course, would have been to allow an organic primary. But the selection of even a milquetoast social democrat type like Sanders was marketed as a bridge too far and most Democrats eventually swallowed that nonsense up. They were told a candidate like that would never be able to win despite the man having much higher favorable among the right than their handpicked neo-liberal candidates. It was considered to be a mark of maturity to simply acquiesce to “this is how things are” and “we can’t do better”. Quite the motivational stuff, that. Yes, every year gets harder, there’s more homelessness, more suicides, more misery, but we are the adults in the room and you are to accept this as your lot in life. Of course, we end up with fascists. That’s the damn formula for it that history has proven time and time again.

Then we move to a point where full-on genocide isn’t even considered to be a deal breaker with Democrats. When a party falls to that depth, it’s very difficult to see how it can play out in any other manner. Even now, you see liberals gloat in regard to those who didn’t vote at all or voted third party because they couldn’t morally support the Democrats. They say, “are you happy now? Trump wants to move everyone out of Gaza!” As in ha, ha– stupid leftists see how much worse it is with Trump than Biden? Now on this I say you couldn’t have Trump and his son-in-law making Gaza real estate plans without the Biden administration “softening the target”. So, I find that to be a disgusting non-starter. Are we really arguing about how much genocide we should allow?

But………here is where we do get the difference in the parties. And that is in the wholesale dismantling of our government infrastructure currently going on. Again, the liberals would blame the left for this situation when in fact this would not be our reality should the Democratic party have allowed for a natural primary in 2016, 2020 (or hell, even a primary at all in 2024). Those on the left were speaking to history, the inevitable allowance for fascism should relief valves and mitigation not be put in place. You don’t have these situations arise in materially comfortable, at ease societies. And no amount of “this naked emperor has clothes on that were free-trade sourced and hand-sewn by minority lesbians” will change the fact that he is indeed, fucking naked.

But alas, we find ourselves “together’ in that we aren’t fine with the future, the neoliberals and the leftists……..what the world is shaping itself to be is of course simply awful in new and adventurous ways. I would say that the path forward can’t be one of ceding to corporate power, to allowing greasy superficial politicians to convince you to accept situations as egregious as genocide. Our future may look quite different—we may end up with localities having much more power than in the past. We are in uncharted territory, but one thing is for certain and that is we cannot allow pretend opposition to corral our better natures or convince us that in the interest of rationality, we need to forego what we know is decent and correct. Because do not forget, these “rational players”, be it Obama, Clinton, Biden..…. Harris—well, look what their fake opposition has done for us. But they are pretty materially comfortable, aren’t they? Someone said we are in the copper stripping era of the national government. It really won’t affect Biden’s deal with his Hollywood agent.

Moving forward, the greasy political class those types spring from need to be consigned to the dustbin of history. They will bring us nothing but continued misery and a large portion of the masses will look to an authoritarian daddy to fix things. We have actual work to get done. Again, this isn’t new—we didn’t invent this situation. The only way to combat hate, selfishness and inhumanity is the exact opposite of all those things, not pretending, posing and sending out 1,000,000 give me money emails from AOC. This will be my last missive in regard to the Democrats because they are “like a candle in the wind—unreliable” –(thank you fictional Dean Lerner for whatever you were talking about when you delivered that unhinged and delicious line). Time to move on and not repeat such idiocy in the future.

Kathleen Wallace writes out of the US Midwest. Her writing is collected on her Substack page.

Thursday, February 13, 2025

Trump’s Civil Rights Era Begins Without Diversity, Equity and Inclusion


 February 13, 2025
FacebookTwitter

Within 24 hours of becoming president, Donald Trump released his first White House Fact Sheet, “Ending the Radical and Illegal DEI.” He signed an Executive Order claiming that eliminating programs promoting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is “the most important federal civil rights measure in decades.”

Trump, and by extension the MAGA Republican Party, link eliminating diversity and equality to promoting civil rights. This is not a new concept. However, one must understand our history to understand how these two practices are linked to civil rights.

The civil rights movement exploded after the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision of 1857 rejected African American citizenship claims. This decision was not based on economic claims of owning slaves as property but on racial claims that citizens who were seen as Black had “no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War to protect not only the legal equality of formerly enslaved persons but all people treated as Black, and in due course, it was extended to all minorities. Nearly a hundred years later, with the majority of Supreme Court justices being Republican-appointed, the Brown v. Board of Educationdecision was released. It found that denying racial diversity in public schools through segregation was unconstitutional.

In other words, according to the Supreme Court, the Constitution guarantees equality and diversity among citizens in our legal and educational institutions.

The bizarre importance of attacking transgender people.

Trump links civil rights to restoring “biological truth to the federal government.” This was a direct attack on citizens who identify with a gender different from what was determined at birth. We are talking about a minuscule percentage of Americans. Published findings show that 1.6% of U.S. adults are trans or nonbinary.

Is this a national emergency? Or is this a hot cultural issue among Republicans? According to a Pew Research Center survey, 66% of them say society has gone too far in accepting people who are transgender. Still, roughly eight in ten Americans say transgender people face at least some discrimination, with 35% of Republicans saying there is a great deal or a fair amount of discrimination against trans people.

Despite the majority of Americans believing that defining the rights of transenders requires a thoughtful approach, one of Mr. Trump’s most aired ads attacking presidential candidate Harris ended with a tagline raising the issue of transgender people as not part of America’s society: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” The implication is that Democrats would treat transgender citizens better than everyday Americans.

One of the first executive orders he issued was one mandating that those federal agencies “that prompt users for their pronouns” in their email systems, like Outlook, be turned off. They had 72 hours to comply or jeopardize their job.

It seems petty, but it does conjure up an image of Big Brother closely looking over your shoulder to see how you sign off on your emails.  This is being done to force federal workers to adhere to the new administration’s rules: Employees must repudiate their freedom to declare their gender.

It’s unclear how Trump’s attorneys will align this mandate with the Supreme Court’s decision protecting the rights of trans and gay citizens from being fired due to their sexual orientation and gender identity.

Trump is setting up a “spoils system” of government patronage.

Although Trump denied reading the Heritage Report Project 2025, his newly appointed public officers immediately implemented its reactionary objectives.

Trump appointed Russell Vought, coordinator for Project 2025, as the new Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Vought supports withholding funds appropriated by Congress and vows to roll back the merit-based career civil service. This goes beyond civil rights by tossing out legal contractual union rights, which Heritage’s Report ignored.

For instance, the report’s Equity Agenda recommended that employees breaking the law by openly promoting diversity could lose their jobs. It stated that participation in any DEI initiative, without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, would be grounds for termination of their employment.

In line with that objective, the Washington Post found that dozens of federal agency workers who didn’t work on diversity or inclusion issues were placed on administrative leave in the week that Trump was sworn in as president. Their findings showed that some federal agencies targeted “people who have expressed interest or participated in programs related to DEI.”

By pushing these employees out of government jobs, he borrowed a practice from President Andrew Jackson, who created a “spoils system” of government patronage. This was accomplished by rewarding his supporters to fill the empty seats available after he removed about 10 percent of all government postings.

For both Jackson and Trump, having supporters fill taxpayer-funded federal jobs instills personal loyalty to the president in their party’s ranks. See – Trump uses 3 Jacksonian Strategies.

Trump downplayed attacking diversity to allow others to do so. 

Other Trump executive orders demanded that DEI “language in Federal discourse, communications, and publications” be removed.  These orders merely resuscitate his prior Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,which he signed two months before the 2020 election and was revoked by President Joe Biden.

It’s possible that he saw this order as cementing his voter base by declaring that anti-American race and sex stereotyping would be eliminated from government agencies.

When Trump lost the 2020 election, he may have decided it best not to broadcast messages that frightened too many people about losing their civil rights. So, he let others do that to allow him to deny responsibility for their statements but enact those policies once elected. Project 2025 identified the most reactionary decrees that Trump should pursue.

Within the first 24 hours of being in office, Trump abolished all DEI training or discussion groups in the Federal Government.

Historically, such a sweeping move would have been foreshadowed in a newly nominated party’s candidate at their convention.  In Trump’s 90-minute acceptance speech at the Republican Convention, not a word was spoken about DEI or diversity.

That’s because Trump didn’t want to give the media and Democrats a paper trail exposing his anti-diversity strategy before taking office. Since promoting diversity is tied to promoting civil rights to those who are disenfranchised from voting or receiving social services, Trump would have to defend those intentions. Better to execute this strategy after taking office and avoid any pushback beforehand.

It helped avoid a public debate by not warning the public what the Republican Party would support. What better way to secure its silence than to have its platform not mention DEI, diversity, equity, or inclusion? This was accomplished by eliminating the chance of any questions being raised in an open-air platform committee to approve the text.

No committee discussions would happen because Trump created the Republican Party’s Platform with his advisors in private without formal party involvement. When he completed the final document, he presented it to the Republican Party to adopt as their new platform. It was accepted without question, not a surprise given that Lara Trump, Trump’s daughter-in-law, was the Co-chair of the Republican National Committee.

The RNC’s acquiescence to Trump allowed him to adopt the most severe measures of the Project 2025 report without submitting them to a traditional debate within a president’s party.

Democrats, having no leverage in Congress, are not mounting a systematic response to this new Trump Civil Rights Era. 

The reality is that Democrats cannot move any legislation through Congress without attracting at least several Republican House and Senate members. Consequently, individual Democratic members have threatened to take Hail-Mary efforts to block Trump’s executive orders.

Unfortunately, both parties have used presidential executive orders to get what they want without the other party’s support. So they have contributed to an executive-dominated government using those orders to accomplish tasks that would have been an act of Congress.

Democrats are baffled on how to mount an effective opposition. They hope that enough of the public will turn against the Trump administration as they lose critical services customarily provided by departments being effectively shut down.

Rather than relying on hope, Democrats need to go beyond challenging Trump’s MAGA agenda through a hopelessly compromised legislative process. They need to alter the mindset that Trump has successfully instilled in a plurality of voters that diversity is a threat to American freedoms.

Nick Licata is author of Becoming A Citizen Activist, and has served 5 terms on the Seattle City Council, named progressive municipal official of the year by The Nation, and is founding board chair of Local Progress, a national network of 1,000 progressive municipal officials.