Trump's MADA: Make America Delusional Again

Since 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy for president, I've been on a journey towards increasing pessimism. 

I remember in the early days when I'd read what his supporters were writing/saying and my internal optimist would tell me that, when reality set in, they'd learn at least a bit about the error of their ways. It never happened. 

I also watched as Trump's sexism, racism, cruelty, and narcissism were put right out there in the open - constantly thinking that his latest outrage (ie, "grab 'em by the p*ssy) would finally lead to his demise. It never happened. 

We just watched Trump close out his 2024 campaign by promising to take revenge against the "enemies within," parrot Hitler by referring to immigrants as "vermin" who are "poisoning the blood" of our country, and promising to be a dictator on day one. As an added bonus, he talked about Arnold Palmer's penis and pretended to perform fellatio on a microphone. I assumed that he'd lose support. It didn't happen.

So now we're preparing for Trump's return to the White House with his determination to wreck the economy via mass deportation and tariffs. If, as everyone suggests, his re-election was all about "the price of eggs is too high," we're tempted to believe that soaring inflation and a recession (or depression) will surely turn his supporters against him. Right?

Not so fast. The first check on that is to remind ourselves that the Covid pandemic surged during Trump's presidency and we experienced the worst recession of our lifetimes. Not only did we all feel the economic pain, millions of people died because he totally bungled this country's response. What did his supporters do? They blamed China, Fauci, and science. Then they went on to blame Biden as he successfully cleaned up Trump's mess. 

To understand how that happens, it is helpful to remember what Julian Sanchez wrote about epistemic closure on the right. He noted that when he injected that phrase into our political discourse, a lot of people thought he was simply talking about an echo chamber or closed mindedness. But it's more complex than that.

So an “echo chamber” just means you never hear any contrary information. The idea of “epistemic closure” was that you WOULD hear new and contrary information, but you have mechanisms in your belief system that reject anything that might force you to update your beliefs…

I bring this up now, because the Trump ecosystem has developed a pretty sophisticated set of epistemic closure mechanisms that work to reject new information that might otherwise pose a problem.

The closure mechanisms Trump set up to inoculate his followers include his references to things like the deep state, fake news, and the swamp. When fact-checkers expose Trump’s lies, it is just fake news. When former administration officials decry the president, they are part of the deep state. 

Trump's narcissistic personality disorder has led him to develop a delusional system for dealing with the realitiy of his failures. As I noted shortly after he took office in 2017, it can be summarized as "lie, distract, and blame." We need look no further than his Big Lie after the 2020 election as an example. He lied about voter fraud, distracted with references to the great replacement theory, and blamed Democrats. 

The problem that we all face now is that a large portion of the electorate has bought into Trump's personality disorder. They have adopted his set of epistemic closer mechanisms to shut off the reality of his failures. To put an exclamation point on that, let's remember than one of Trump's most effective strategies during the 2024 campaign was to ask people whether they're better off today than they were 4 years ago when refrigerated trucks were being used as morgues and lines for food banks were miles long. Astoundingly, too many voters said "no." That is delusion created by epistemic closure. 

What we're going to have to grapple with is that, when Trump tanks the economy this time around, he will once again roll out his lie, distract, and blame strategy. Since I don't suffer from narcissistic personality disorder, it's hard for me to forecast what that will look like. But I have no doubt that it will happen. My concern is that his supporters will believe him and rather than holding him accountable, they'll unleash more hate on those the president choses to blame. 

With all my heart I hope I'm wrong. But for almost 10 years now I've been learning the hard way that the one time Trump told the truth was when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters wouldn't abandon him.

None of this is meant to suggest capitulation to the very real danger Trump poses. It's just that we have to start by understanding what we're dealing with.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is right about Tulsi Gabbard

Since Donald trump nominated Tulsi Gabbard to be head of our intelligence services, many people have spoken up about how she consistently parrots Putin's talking points - which poses the question about whether or not the next president is turning over our intelligence services to a Russian asset. It is hard to overstate what a danger that poses to this country and our allies.

But Gabbard has attempted to sell herself as anti-war - which is a lie. Representative Ocasio-Cortez recently pointed that out when she told Joy Reid that "A Tulsi Gabbard nomination is a pro-war nomination globally. Point blank, period." 

Let's unpack that a bit.

Folks have been reminding us that, in 2017, Gabbard travelled to Syria to meet privately with Bashar al-Assad, after he had gassed his own citizens as part of the civil war in that country. But we need to dig a little deeper.

The civil war in Syria began when citizens of the country rebelled against the dictatorship of Assad as part of the Arab Spring in 2011. More than any other Arab country, Assad responded with horrific violence against the rebels. But by 2015, he was losing territory. That's when Putin intervened and started a bombing campaign in Syria.

Putin attempted to justify his actions by saying that he was fighting terrorists in Syria. But that was a lie. He was bombing civilians in an attempt to shore up the dictatorship of Assad. Long before Russia committed war crimes in Ukraine, they were bombing hospitals, schools, and markets in Syria. The atrocities were so severe that the UN took the unprecedented step of releasing a report charging Russia with war crimes.

What was Gabbard's response? As the bombing began, she suggested that the U.S. should be joining Russia in bombing Syrian civilians -  utilizing Putin's propaganda to suggest that the civil war in that country was all about terrorism.

Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won’t bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 1, 2015

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) October 1, 2015

Then in 2016, Gabbard was one of only three lawmakers — and the only Democrat — to vote against a non-binding resolution calling out the Assad regime for war crimes and stating that the United States should support the establishment of an international tribunal to bring war criminals to justice.

Gabbard's affection for brutal dictators doesn't stop with Syria's Assad.

In 2015, two years after he orchestrated the worst mass killing of protesters in modern history, a smiling Gabbard appeared next to a grinning Sisi on a visit to Cairo, after which she praised him for showing “great courage and leadership” in the fight against “extreme Islamist ideology.”

In summary, when oppressed people stand up to protest against tyranny, Gabbard supports violence and civil war as the tool for dictators to maintain their power.

It's worth noting that the first time Russia invaded Ukraine it was in 2014 after the Maiden revolution got rid of Putin's stooge, Viktor Yanukovych. When that didn't bring the country to heel, he launched a full-scale invasion in 2022. On the very same day, Gabbard sent out a tweet blaming the invasion on Biden and NATO. In other words, Putin's actions were justified. Is it any wonder then, why Russian state television calls her their "girlfriend?" 

Sorting through the noise to try and understand what just happened

After sitting in my discomfort for a few days, I'm ready to try to understand WTH happened in this election. There are an awful lot of bad takes out there attempting to find fault with VP Harris, President Biden, or Democrats in general. But they're all impossible to square with the fact that, no matter their shortcomings, a little more than half of voters supported a delusional, narcissistic bully who has been convicted of 34 felonies, found liable for sexual assault, and tried to overturn an election.

So here's the take that makes the most sense to me: 

About a month ago I wrote that, when it came to the presidential election, it was all about the lies and the way Trump/Vance used them to create an alternative reality. As it turns out, the lies worked. One of the best ways to document that came from a Reuters/Ipsos poll that was conducted just prior to the election.

What we see is that the more voters believed Trump's lies about crime, the economy, and immigration, the more likely they were to vote for him. Those who believed the truth swung heavily in Harris's direction. 

We're also getting a lot of bad takes on who those lies appealed to. Philip Bump did a good job of debunking all of that nonsense. The first thing to note is that Trump received about the same number of votes that he did in 2020 (it's just that Harris got fewer than Biden). So if we look at the demographics of Trump voters, "his voting base [in 2024] was older, wealthier and about equally White to what it was in 2020."

For example, we're hearing a lot of talk about how Trump won over Hispanics and African Americans in 2024. But here's what that actually looked like:

To all of those who are suggesting that this election was all about populism and support from working class folks, the truth is that Trump's big gains were actually among the wealthy.

What this kind of information tells us is that we not only need to combat the lies from right wing media, we're also being fed a lot of junk information from mainstream media and pundits. So chose your sources wisely.

Over the last few days I've been noting who I will pay attention to and who I'm going to ignore. On the former category, I've been significantly impressed with Rebecca Solnit. Here are a few gems from her latest column at The Guardian. 

I’m wary about anger – as George Orwell once observed, it’s easily redirected, like the flame of a blowlamp, and it has been in this election as people whose own lives were thwarted economically and otherwise got on board with the scapegoating of immigrants. So it’s something to be careful with. Even so, “rage is a form of prayer too,” as Reverend Dr. Renita J. Weems declared after this terrible US election.

I suspect she means that behind that rage is care, and this is something I have found secular activists often forget – you are angry the children are being bombed or the forest is being cleared because you care about them, so it’s not the feelings about the forces of destruction that is primary. It’s the love, and not losing sight of that is crucial...

Not being them and not being like them is the first job, not just as negatives but as an embrace of the ideals of love, kindness, open-mindedness, the ability to engage with uncertainty and ambiguity, inclusiveness...

There are other kinds of resistance that mean making your own life and your own mind an independent republic in which the pursuit of truth, human rights, kindness and empathy, the preservation of history and memory...This does not overthrow the regime, but it does mean being someone who has not been conquered by it, and it invites others who have not been or who can throw off the shackles to join you...

We do not know what will happen. But we can know who we can commit to be in the face of what happens. That is a strong beginning. The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything, and everything we can save is worth saving. Let Julian Aguon have the last word: “No offering is too small. No stone unneeded … All of us, without exception, are qualified to participate in the rescue of the world.”

Solnit's words remind me of a song Garth Brooks wrote after the Oklahoma bombing titled "The Change." It's going to be my anthem for a while.

I've also been extremely impressed with the analysis provided by historian Heather Cox Richardson. She was interviewed by Jon Stewart a couple of days ago on his podcast. It is a little over an hour long and I know most people won't take the time to listen to the whole thing. But she's absolutely brilliant (Stewart...not so much). So I definitely recommend paying attention to her - no one does a better job of describing what just happened. 

Doug Muder has always demonstrated a deep understanding of this political era and recently wrote a post titled, "My Way-Too-Soon Election Response" over at his blog The Weekly Sift.

Going forward, I'll be paying a lot of attention to Timothy Snyder, who literally wrote the book on fascism. His most recent column at the New Yorker is titled, "What Does it Mean that Donald Trump Is a Fascist."

To maintain my sanity in the midst of the chaos that is about to come, those are just a few of the people I'll be listening to. 

On a final (somewhat related) note, I'd just like to share this little nugget to help explain why Christian nationalists are so amenable to the alternate reality created by Trump's lies. 

The discomfort I'm sitting in today

I'm still reeling emotionally and doubt that it's a good time to write any analysis about what happened on Tuesday. There are an awful lot of bad takes pointing fingers - which is understandable, but ultimately not productive. Here's a twitter thread from Brad Bauman that I found helpful:

A lot of times we confuse fast with smart. Quick and simple answers at a moment when everyone is trying to make meaning of what’s happening and looking for something to do. We end up doing things that aren’t productive or counter productive when we move that quick.

Sometimes, the right answer is to sit in our pain; sit in our discomfort and feel it, rather than rush to answers or movement.

There will be a resistance, and all of us will be a part of it, individually and collectively.

Let’s take a moment and allow ourselves to process, to feel, to think about what truths arise and then let’s act.

As I "sit in my discomfort and feel it," Rebecca Solnit captured my reaction perfectly.

Our mistake was to think we lived in a better country than we do. Our mistake was to see the joy, the extraordinary balance between idealism and pragmatism, the energy, the generosity, the coalition-building of the Kamala Harris campaign and think that it must triumph over the politics of lies and resentment. Our mistake was to think that racism and misogyny were not as bad as they are, whether it applied to who was willing to vote for a supremely qualified Black woman or who was willing to vote for an adjudicated rapist and convicted criminal who admires Hitler. 

I literally cried as I read that. Here's how John Harwood put it:

If you’re accustomed, as I am, to believing that a critical mass of Americans embraces the values of freedom, pluralism, and common sense, the choice voters made defies comprehension. The arc of history in 2024 bent not toward justice, as Martin Luther King Jr. liked to say, but away from it.

Regular readers will know that I've always maintained that President Obama's speech at the 50th anniversary of the Selma march was the most important he's ever given. In it, he defined his view of America and the ideals we've embraced/fought for. VP Harris echoed that vision during her speech in Washington D.C. last week.

I’ve seen [the promise of America] in Americans, different in many respects, but united in our pursuit of freedom, our belief in fairness and decency and our faith in a better future...

Nearly 250 years ago, America was born when we wrested freedom from a petty tyrant. Across the generations, Americans have preserved that freedom, expanded it, and in so doing proved to the world that a government of, by, and for the people is strong and can endure. And those who came before us, the Patriots at Normandy and Selma, Seneca Falls, and Stonewall, on farmlands, and factory floors, they did not struggle, sacrifice and lay down their lives only to see us seed our fundamental freedoms.

They didn’t do that only to see us submit to the will of another petty tyrant.

These United States of America, we are not a vessel for the schemes of wannabe dictators. The United States of America is the greatest idea humanity ever devised, a nation big enough to encompass all our dreams, strong enough to withstand any fracture or fissure between us, and fearless enough to imagine a future of possibilities.

So America, let us reach for that future. Let us fight for this beautiful country we love.

And in 7 days, we have the power, each of you has the power to turn the page and start writing the next chapter in the most extraordinary story ever told.

What's been shattered is my belief in that America. More than anything else, I'm grieving that loss today.

Why I'm getting optimistic about this election

It's hard to over-state how much the Des Moines Register's Selzer poll shook things up by showing Harris/Walz leading in Iowa. None of us know if their numbers are on point. But here's what we DO know:

That's one of the ways to look at the Selzer poll. In early Sept, they had Trump up +4. By the end of Oct, they have Harris up +3. Since their methods didn't change, they captured something important. (2/2)

— Nancy LeTourneau 🇺🇦 (@Smartypants60) November 3, 2024

Whether or not Harris wins Iowa isn't as important as the fact that the same pollster found a 7 point swing in her favor in state that has been deeply red. WOW!

But let's forget about the polls for a minute. While Selzer gave us all a moment of hope, a consensus has been building over the last week or so that pollsters and aggregators really don't have a clue about what's going on. Here are the data points that make me optimistic.

Enthusiasm

According to Gallup, Democrats are seeing a surge in enthusiasm.

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are largely driving the surge in enthusiasm nationally. In March, 55% of Democrats and Democratic leaners said they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting; now, 78% are. Republicans and Republican leaners, who held a slight edge in enthusiasm in March, now trail Democrats by a significant margin, with their current 64% enthusiasm score up slightly from 59% in the spring.

That difference is palpable when you compare what is happening at Harris/Walz rallies to Trump's. 

Meanwhile here was Kamala’s rally, held at the exact coliseum. Both levels plus the floor full of eager supporters! https://t.co/ZJmaeIaIvg pic.twitter.com/w55RKfka1A

— V 🤎 (@veexoh_) November 3, 2024

Fundraising 

It's true that Trump has a lock on money from the oligarchs. The problem is that they only get one vote - like the rest of us. When it comes to small donors, they've abandoned his ship.

Donald Trump’s contributions from small-dollar donors have plummeted since his last bid for the White House...Fewer than a third of the Republican’s campaign contributions have come from donors who gave less than $200 — down from nearly half of all donations in his 2020 race...The total collected from small donors has also declined, according to the analysis. Trump raised $98 million from such contributors through June, a 40% drop compared to the $165 million they contributed during a corresponding period in his previous presidential race.

Here's how that compares to Harris/Walz:

Ground game

When it comes to GOTV, Trumpers are nowhere to be found.

Some battleground state Republicans say they’re worried they see little evidence of Donald Trump’s ground game — and fear it could cost him the election in an exceedingly close race.

In interviews, more than a dozen Republican strategists and operatives in presidential battlegrounds voiced serious concerns about what they described as a paltry get-out-the-vote effort by the Trump campaign, an untested strategy of leaning on outside groups to help do field work and a top-of-the-ticket strategy that’s disjointed from the one Republicans down the ballot are running.

In comparison, here's at taste of what the Democratic ground game looks like:

The Harris ground game strategy is at once obvious and sophisticated. Harris has more than 2,500 staff and 358 field offices across the battleground states, including more than 475 paid staffers in Pennsylvania. Since July, more than 110,000 people have volunteered with the Harris campaign in Pennsylvania, and those volunteers have knocked on nearly 2 million doors in October alone. One third of the Pennsylvania field offices are in rural counties that Trump carried by double digits in 2020, and where Harris’ goal is to hold down Trump’s margins. At the same time, the campaign is attempting to lock down the base in urban areas through long-term relational organizing targeted to hard-to-reach voters. The campaign realizes that Democrats have long taken Black and Latino votes for granted. Now, the campaign is treating them as persuasion targets as much as mobilization targets. And it believes the path to victory goes through the suburbs, where they hope college-educated voters and women could propel the VP to victory.

Harris/Walz voters are "fired up and ready to go!" Their enthusiasm is demonstrated by their willingness to donate both money and time to the campaign. So while I'm certainly not ready to celebrate yet, I'm at least starting to unclench my fists and breath a bit. 

 

It's the lies, stupid

For my title, I'm borrowing a phrase from when James Carville said, "It's the economy, stupid." That's because the Trump/Vance campaign is pretty much entirely based on lies. That hit home to me when CNN's Daniel Dale recently pointed out that Trump told at least 40 lies during two speeches this week. That is in line with how Dale categorized Trump's performance during his debate with Harris.

No major presidential candidate before Donald Trump has ever lied with this kind of frequency. A remarkably large chunk of what he said tonight was just not true, and this wasn’t like little exaggeration, political spin. A lot of his false claims were untethered to reality.

The most common lies told by Trump/Vance have to do with immigration. But they also tell blatant lies about the economy, tariffs, FEMA, crime, abortion, and schools. Those were all documented recently by David Corn, who makes an important point when he writes that Trump is running a disinformation campaign (emphasis mine).

Trump’s dishonesty goes further than the usual campaign lying. He concocts and promotes utterly false narratives to shape voters’ perceptions of fundamental realities. His campaign is a full-fledged project to pervert how Americans view the nation and the world, an extensive propaganda campaign designed to fire up fears and intensify anxieties...

Trump is not merely heading a campaign fueled by the routine lies of politics. He is endeavoring to use these and other lies to create an alternative reality for millions so they will vote on the basis of a false understanding of the world.

This is why it is so difficult (and perhaps pointless) to have conversations with MAGA people. It's not as if you can simply debunk a lie. It is that they are actually living in an alternate reality created by lies.

So what happens when Trump or Vance are confronted with the fact that they're lying? Trump just brushes it off as "fake news." But Vance has taken a different approach. For example, during the VP debate, Walz asked Vance a basic question: "Did [Trump] lose the 2020 election?" Here's how the senator from Ohio responded:

Tim, I'm focused on the future. Did Kamala Harris censor Americans from speaking their mind in the wake of the 2020 COVID situation?...

Obviously, Donald Trump and I think that there were problems in 2020. We've talked about it. I'm happy to talk about it further. But you guys attack us for not believing in democracy. The most sacred right under the United States democracy is the First Amendment. You yourself have said there's no First Amendment right to misinformation. Kamala Harris wants to use the power of government and big tech to silence people from speaking their minds. That is a threat to democracy that will long outlive this present political moment. I would like Democrats and Republicans to both reject censorship.

You can read a good fact check about what Walz said here. And Kamala Harris has never suggested that we should use the power of the government to silence people from speaking their minds.  

But it's important to note how Vance responded when challenged by Walz about the Big Lie. He pivoted to censorship. He did the same thing when challenged by Lulu Garcia-Navarro. 

What Vance is telling us is that he and Trump will lie in order to create an alternate reality. When challenged, he'll cry "censorship."  That's rich coming from the guy who wants the government to "seize the institutions of the left" and implement "a de-woke-ification program.” So no, Vance has zero respect for democracy or the First Amendment. He simply wants to lie with abandon. 

So what happens when politicians create an alternative reality based on lies. Here's what Peter Pomerantsev wrote back in 2014 in a piece titled "Russia and the Menace of Unreality: How Vladimir Putin is revolutionizing information warfare" (emphasis mine)

The new Russia doesn’t just deal in the petty disinformation, forgeries, lies, leaks, and cyber-sabotage usually associated with information warfare. It reinvents reality, creating mass hallucinations that then translate into political action... insisting on the lie, the Kremlin intimidates others by showing that it is in control of defining ‘reality.’ This is why it’s so important for Moscow to do away with truth. If nothing is true, then anything is possible.

 A place where nothing is true and anything is possible is ripe for totalitarianism, as Hannah Arendt warned.

What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed...If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer.

 That is why Trump/Vance pose the biggest threat to democracy that we've seen in generations.

The story Vance doesn't want you to hear about towns like Springfield, Ohio

During an interview on CNN Sunday morning, J.D. Vance basically admitted that he created the lies about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. 

Vance claims he and Trump have to "create stories" about migrants eating cats and dogs "so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people."

There is then some awkward dead air as Bash tries to highlight the absurdity of what he just said pic.twitter.com/IN26ZGYsvE

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 15, 2024

The rationale he gives for spreading those lies is that he wanted the media to focus on what is going on in Springfield. What he doesn't want you to know is that several reporters have covered the story of towns like Springfield for over a decade. It's just that they have been doing so honestly - without the lies he's been ginning up. 

For example, back in 2011, A.G. Sulzberger wrote about what was happening in western Kansas. 

For generations, the story of the small rural town of the Great Plains, including the dusty tabletop landscape of western Kansas, has been one of exodus — of businesses closing, classrooms shrinking and, year after year, communities withering as fewer people arrive than leave and as fewer are born than are buried. That flight continues, but another demographic trend has breathed new life into the region.

Hispanics are arriving in numbers large enough to offset or even exceed the decline in the white population in many places. In the process, these new residents are reopening shuttered storefronts with Mexican groceries, filling the schools with children whose first language is Spanish and, for now at least, extending the lives of communities that seemed to be staggering toward the grave.

James Fallows visited the same area in 2016. 

Every single person we’ve met here — Anglo and Latino, African and Burmese and other, old and young, native-born and immigrant, male and female, well-educated and barely literate, working three jobs and retired and still in school—of all these people, we’ve asked the same questions. Namely: how has Kansas handled this shift in demography? And how does it sound, in this politically and culturally conservative part of the country, to hear the national discussion about “building a wall,” about making America “a real country again,” of the presumptive Republican nominee saying even today that Americans are “angry over borders, they’re angry over people coming into the country and taking over, nobody even knows who they are.”

And every single person we have spoken with — Anglo and Latino and other, old and young, native-born and immigrant, and so on down the list — every one of them has said: We need each other! There is work in this community that we all need to do. We can choose to embrace the world, or we can fade and die. And we choose to embrace it. (The unemployment rate in this area, by the way, is under 3 percent, and every business we’ve talked with has “help wanted” notices out.)

Dave Price wrote about Marshalltown, Iowa in 2016.

As many smaller Iowa towns are shrinking, Marshalltown is experiencing the opposite: The population has increased over the past 15 years, and it’s almost entirely due to an influx of immigrants. The number of non-Hispanic people in town has actually declined slightly since 2000, while Hispanics have more than doubled their share of the population in that time. They now make up more than a quarter of the city’s 28,000 residents.

Art Cullen, of Iowa’s Storm Lake Times, wrote about the shrinking population of small Iowa towns in 2019 and came to this conclusion.

[R]ural communities can be rejuvenated by immigration to replace those youth who don’t see their future in a food processing plant or dairy barn. First, a recognition of the crucial role immigrants play in low-margin industries like agriculture and food processing would be helpful. Second, a system that recognizes reality is overdue. The problem in Sac County is not too many Mexicans, but too few people in general, no matter their skin color.

Michelle Norris wrote about Hazelton, Pennsylvania in 2018.

Hazleton was another former coal mining town slipping into decline until a wave of Latinos arrived. It would not be an overstatement to say a tidal wave. In 2000 Hazleton’s 23,399 residents were 95 percent non-Hispanic white and less than 5 percent Latino. By 2016 Latinos became the majority, composing 52 percent of the population, while the white share plunged to 44 percent... 

Hazleton’s population is younger, the hospital is no longer in bankruptcy, and major employers such as Amazon, Cargill, and American Eagle Outfitters have opened distribution centers and plants offering jobs that helped attract the massive Latino migration.

 In 2019, Thomas Friedman visited Wilmar, Minnesota.

“We had 1,200 to 1,600 Somalis when I started as mayor in 2014 and now we have 3,500 to 3,800,” said [Mayor Marv] Calvin. “We also have 800 Karen people from Burma.” Add to that over 4,000 Latinos and you have a town of 21,000 that had been virtually all white and Christian its entire existence become nearly half new immigrants in the blink of two decades...

America is actually a checkerboard of towns and cities — some rising from the bottom up and others collapsing from the top down, ravaged by opioids, high unemployment among less-educated white males and a soaring suicide rate. I’ve been trying to understand why some communities rise and others fall — and so many of the answers can be found in Willmar.

The answers to three questions in particular make all the difference: 1) Is your town hungry for workers to fill open jobs? 2) Can your town embrace the new immigrants ready to do those jobs, immigrants who may come not just from Latin America, but also from nonwhite and non-Christian nations of Africa or Asia? And 3) Does your town have a critical mass of “leaders without authority”?

Almost all of these accounts describe the challenges these communities faced in light of the demographic changes they were experiencing. But what is true in every single case is that, prior to the influx of immigrants, these towns were dying. Now, if they can rise above the racism, they have a chance to flourish. 

That is the story David DeWitt tells about Springfield, Ohio.

The Times details how, after decades of shrinking and uncertainty, Springfield was able to attract new manufacturing and business with a strategic plan, and by 2020 had drawn in food-service firms, logistics companies, and a microchip maker, among others...

So what, in fact, do we have going on here?

We have a large population increase over a short period of time; we have a language barrier that can cause various strains; we have housing, schooling, and health services that need adequate resources to deal with a massive and rapid adjustment.

We also have an eager, dutiful, law-abiding, and peaceful workforce helping revitalize a city and helping local businesses thrive; we have a city’s population swelling instead of declining; we have an influx of new taxpayers and consumers filling blue-collar jobs, paying property taxes, shopping at local stores, and contributing to their community.

Are there struggles? Absolutely.

Is it chaos and terror? Absolutely not.

Let's first of all note that what is happening in all of these small towns started long before the Biden/Harris administration. There is a long history to these dynamics that Trump/Vance want to ignore. That's because they are more interested in fanning the flames of racism and inciting terror in towns like Springfield than they are in finding solutions to help them flourish. 

The truth is that small town America needs immigrants. 

Now run and tell that.

Amanda Gorman: "the American dream is no dream at all, but instead a dare to dream together"

As I wrote previously, something in me literally "woke up" as I watched VP Harris and Gov. Walz begin their campaign. In thinking more about it, I realized that I had been experiencing a mild depression over the last few years. It's pretty clear that I'm not the only one. 

I think it all started when I watched the same country that elected Barack Obama chose Donald Trump as his successor. My optimism about my fellow Americans was shattered. But then, not only did we have to live through four years of division, hate, and chaos, we all had to navigate living through a pandemic, the murder of George Floyd, and the MeToo movement. The insurrection of January 6 was yet another blow. 

While Joe Biden did everything possible to deal with the physical and economic devastation we were experiencing, the MAGA crowd shouted so loud that we found ourselves chasing down every hateful lie they told. In other words, we found ourselves in the gutter with them on defense. 

Somehow Harris and Walz broke though all of that. Here's how Walz described it last night.

You know, you might not know it, but I haven't given a lot of big speeches like this. But I have given a lot of pep talks. So let me finish with this, team. It's the fourth quarter. We're down a field goal. But we're on offense and we've got the ball. We're driving down the field. Our job for everyone watching, is to get in the trenches and do the blocking and tackling. One inch at a time. One yard at a time.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure that last bit was a reference to Al Pacino's locker room speech in "On Any Sunday," which is definitely worth a listen. 

But as right wingers and the media keep droning on about the lack of specific policy proposals from Harris, it is important to keep in mind that what has been broken is not about the lack of a legislative agenda. Democrats have accomplished that in spades over the last four years while no one gave them credit. And Harris has a long history of putting forth excellent policies to address issues. As just one example, her anti-poverty proposal was rated the most effective in 2020.

What has been broken is our spirit. Harris, Walz, and many of the speakers at the Democratic Convention aren't just bringing back the joy. They're reminding us of who we are and what's important to us. 

One of the most powerful reminders last night came from Amanda Gorman. Take a listen:

I was honored by the opportunity to perform my newest poem, “This Sacred Scene”, at the 2024 Democratic National Convention. A huge thank you to @KamalaHarris for having me—I am so grateful. And finally, thank you all for watching, and for your kind words and support 💙

You can… pic.twitter.com/dnkLWMuouG

— Amanda Gorman (@TheAmandaGorman) August 22, 2024

The whole thing is AMAZING! But here are the lines that went straight to my heart:

Empathy emancipates, making us greater than hate or vanity. That is the American promise, powerful and pure.

Divided we cannot endure but united we can endeavor to humanize our democracy and endear democracy to humanity.

And make no mistake, cohering is the hardest task history ever wrote,

but tomorrow is not written by our odds of hardship, but by the audacity of our hope, by the vitality of our vote.

Only now, approaching this rare air are we aware that perhaps the American dream is no dream at all, but instead a dare to dream together.

Here's how Obama talked about it:

That’s the America Kamala Harris and Tim Walz believe in: an America where “we, the people” includes everyone. Because that’s the only way this American experiment works. And despite what our politics might suggest, I think most Americans understand that. Democracy isn’t just a bunch of abstract principles and dusty laws in some book somewhere. It’s the values we live by. It’s the way we treat each other, including those who don’t look like us or pray like us or see the world exactly like we do...

 

All across America, in big cities and small towns, away from all the noise, the ties that bind us together are still there. We still coach Little League and look out for our elderly neighbors. We still feed the hungry in churches and mosques and synagogues and temples. We share the same pride when our Olympic athletes compete for the gold. Because the vast majority of us do not want to live in a country that’s bitter and divided. We want something better. We want to be better.

Oprah hit on the same theme. 

Oprah: When a house is on fire, we do not ask about the homeowners race or religion. We just try to do the best we can to save them. And if the place happens to belong to a childless cat lady. We try to get the cat out, too. pic.twitter.com/Oms9vO3d5c

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 22, 2024

Coach Walz's entire life has been a testament to that theme. 

Growing up in a small town like Butte, Nebraska – you learn to take care of each other.

The family down the road may not think, pray, or love like you – but they are your neighbors and you look out for them. pic.twitter.com/N15YonzVkl

— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) August 22, 2024

We can (and will) have debates about policy differences and the threat Trump poses to our democracy. But before we get there, we needed a reminder of the bedrock of who we are. 

Harris: Competition is the life-blood of our economy

Does anyone else remember that time back in the mid-80s when Ben & Jerry's ice cream started an ad campaign titled "What's the doughboy afraid of?" Here's what happened:

By 1983, the little ice cream company from Vermont was distributing their frozen treats to grocery stores...the same stores that sold Häagen-Dazs.

Häagen-Dazs was owned by Pillsbury at the time, and their distributor had been given an ultimatum by Pillsbury: stop selling Ben & Jerry's or we'll stop selling all Pillsbury products through you.

Guess what the distributor did? Kept his biggest account and dropped Ben & Jerry's.

Much to Pillsbury's chagrin however, the innovative campaign from the small start-up worked. 

Prior to that, not many of us knew that Haagen-Dazs was owned by Pillsbury. But the fact is that 10 corporations own almost all of the world's food.

That's part of the reason why the FTC recently found that price-gouging became a post-pandemic problem (emphasis mine).

Notably, consumers are still facing the negative impact of the pandemic’s price hikes, as the Commission’s report finds that some in the grocery retail industry seem to have used rising costs as an opportunity to further raise prices to increase their profits, which remain elevated today.

“As the pandemic illustrated, a major shock to the supply chain can have cascading effects on consumers, including the prices they pay for groceries,” said FTC Chair Lina M. Khan. “The FTC’s report examining U.S. grocery supply chains finds that dominant firms used this moment to come out ahead at the expense of their competitors and the communities they serve.”

Apparently, the editors of the Washington Post missed that report. Their op-ed is titled "The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks." But the tag line says it all: "‘Price gouging’ is not causing inflation. So why is the vice president promising to stamp it out?"

Rather than "gimmicks," Harris is proposing to take on those "dominant firms" who used the excuse of the pandemic to increase their profits. Here's how she explained it: 

Vice President Harris: As president, I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food pic.twitter.com/NE4t50hpfc

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) August 16, 2024

It was especially powerful when, at the end, she said, "We will help the food industry become more competitive because I believe competition is the life-blood of our economy. More competition means lower prices for you and your families."

Contrary to those who claim that Harris is proposing socialism, the fact is that the life-blood of capitalism is competition. When dominant firms use their power to control markets, they stifle the ability of small businesses to compete. That might line the pockets of people like Jeff Bezos - the owner of both the Washington Post and Amazon - but it means higher prices for the rest of us.

VP Harris is serious about tackling that issue head-on. Obviously the "dominant firms" won't like it one little bit, as Bezos just demonstrated.

Drop the labels and embrace the joy

In case you're wondering how this Minnesota girl feels about the Harris/Walz ticket, here's something I tweeted a couple of days ago: 

I want to say a heartfelt "thank you" to @VP and @GovTimWalz for rising above the fear to infuse politics with joy and enthusiasm. Personally, I feel like the dark clouds have parted and a sense of hope is once again on the horizon. pic.twitter.com/lzzUcPsuNw

— Nancy LeTourneau 🇺🇦 (@Smartypants60) August 6, 2024

The way Democrats rallied around Harris and are now positively joyous about adding Gov. Walz to the ticket is the best thing I've seen in politics since the 2008 election. 

But I want to take a moment to address the sourpusses among us who are joining with the opposition to suggest that Walz is a nod to progressives /radicals and risks alienating so-called "moderates." People who have said that include John Halpin, Ruy Teixeira, Jonathan Chait, and Nate Cohn.

Just to be clear, it's true that Walz and MN Democrats passed some of the most progressive policies in the country over the last couple of years. As the governor said at the time: "Right now, Minnesota is showing the country you don't win elections to bank political capital. You win elections to burn political capital and improve lives.” And they did, indeed, improve lives. How do Minnesotans feel about that?

More than 70% of Minnesota voters — including majorities across every ideological and demographic category — say they approve of the Legislature’s decision last year to provide free school meals to all students, regardless of income...

The KSTP survey also found wide margins of support for several other new policies passed last year, including legal marijuana (65%) and paid family leave funded by a new payroll tax (61%).

When it comes to the issues Harris and Walz are talking about on the campaign trail, here's what the majority of Americans think:

1. 63% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases
2. 87% say they support requiring criminal background checks for all gun buyers 
3. 61% support banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons 
4. 70% favor U.S. taking steps to address climate change 
5. 65% oppose book banning in schools 
6. 61% favor raising taxes for household incomes over $400,000

I'd suggest that there is a serious disconnect between those sourpusses and the majority of American voters, wouldn't you? The so-called "center" isn't where they think it is. Here's how David Rothkopf put it:

One thing I love about Harris and Walz is they are not buying the idea that they need to apologize for what they and most Americans believe. Forget the labels. They represent the vast majority of us and are not letting a minority pull them to the right.

— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) August 8, 2024

But there are some things WAY more important than the policy issues. Walz showed us how to get beyond the fear.

We should all watch this awesome clip where Tim Walz explains how we win against MAGA:

“These guys are just weird…But we’re not afraid of weird people. We’re a little bit creeped out, but we’re not afraid.”

pic.twitter.com/nNzVh0XsBP

— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) August 6, 2024

And, is I indicated up above, he and VP Harris have brought back things like joy and hope. That does more than make people like me feel better, as Anand Giridharadas pointed out. 

.@Tim_Walz is a PSA for white folks, older folks, men, rural dwellers, and others: You don’t need to be afraid of the future.

We can all thrive together, and have fun.pic.twitter.com/PbA4UybrcU

— The.Ink, from Anand Giridharadas (@AnandWrites) August 7, 2024

Please listen to the whole thing because it is the most profound bit of punditry I've heard in a long time. Here's how he ended:

Here's an older white man, a coach, a soldier who is very hard to dismiss as some kind of coastal elite who is telling older folks and white people you do not need to be afraid of the future. There is joy in the future. There's joy in having your boss be a Black woman. There is joy in what is coming. I think it's going to teach lots of people, in addition to whatever role he is going to play in this election and in the White House. He is going to teach lots of people through his role in the culture that they are going to be okay. That there is joy on the far side of realizing a multi-racial democracy in this country.

Overshadowing the policy issues is the racism/sexism/homophobia that is so often driven by fear. Who better to lead the way out from under that cloud than an older white man who is fearlessly joyful about the promise of America. 

Vance's Dilemma

Yesterday's news rocked the political world as Biden pulled out of the 2024 presidential race and the Democratic Party immediately coalesced around VP Harris as the presumptive nominee. The angles on what this means for November are endless, but one take that I've found interesting was captured by Michael McFaul on Twitter. 

Judge leaders by how they treat the subordinates and staff. Compare Trumps treatment of Pence and Bidens treatment of Harris.

— Michael McFaul (@McFaul) July 22, 2024

As you know, Trump said that the January 6th insurrectionists were justified in their chants of "hang Mike Pence." On the other end of the spectrum, Biden bowed out and passed the torch to his vice president. The contrast couldn't be more clear. 

But all of that reminds me that Trump's current running mate, J.D. Vance, is going to have to walk a very fine line. That's because, even before it became clear that the former president is suffering from dementia, he was clearly diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (among other things). 

Way back in 2016, Richard Greene wrote about what it means to deal with someone who has NPD (emphasis mine).

There are only two ways to deal with someone with NPD, and they are both dangerous. There is no healthy way of interacting with someone with this affliction. If you criticize them they will lash out at you and if they have a great deal of power, that can be consequential. If you compliment them it only acts to increase the delusional and grandiose reality the sufferer has created, causing him to be even more reliant on constant and endless compliments and unwavering support.

Vance has already shown that he's willing to bite the bullet and feed Trump's delusion with loyalty and praise. His dilemma is going to come from elsewhere. What Greene didn't mention is that people with NPD not only demand total loyalty (which Pence wasn't willing to give when it meant participation in a coup), they also need to demonstrate their dominance over everyone around them. 

J.D. Vance is a very smart guy with ambitions and his own ego to support. Folks are already claiming he's won the battle to be the next GOP leader. But Trump will turn on him in a hot minute if the VP candidate even comes close to out-shinning the guy at the top of the ticket. 

So Vance has to walk the fine line of bowing to Trump's dominance while not coming off as too weak and submissive to be the next MAGA leader. He'll get no sympathy from me for having to maneuver that minefield. It's what the entire GOP has brought on itself by turning a political party into a cult of personality.

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

My title is how Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded her dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court case granting presidents criminal immunity for "official acts." Here's the context:

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

You might not have seen this coming if you'd watched the confirmation hearings for the six justices who ruled in favor of presidential immunity. At least three of them made statements that no one - not even the president - is above the law.

Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005) pic.twitter.com/DzxIXOJotW

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006:

“There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” pic.twitter.com/Zpx2CQhgFn

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018:

“Under the Constitution, the president is not above the law. No one is above the law…The president remains subject to the law.” pic.twitter.com/wx6VcHr4VV

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 1, 2024

Why the change all of the sudden? Josh Marshall nailed it. 

What's most notable to me in this decision is how much of it seems to come from a realization that if your team's going to have a President who's a big time criminal he's going to need some big time immunity.

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) July 1, 2024

Because the GOP has been overtaken by a criminal, it is now time to give their leader immunity. 

I believe that Sotomayor's words in response will go down as one of the most consequential moments in our history as a country. But in her dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson took things a bit further and identified the root of the problem.

Ultimately, the majority’s model simply sets the criminal law to one side when it comes to crimes allegedly committed by the President. Before accountability can be sought or rendered, the Judiciary serves as a newfound special gatekeeper, charged not merely with interpreting the law but with policing whether it applies to the President at all...

In short, America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction...The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious...because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent.

In other words, the six extremists on the court gave themselves the power to decide when/if a president can be held accountable for criminal acts. Over time this isn't so much about making the president a king as it is about taking power away from the legislative and executive branches and giving it to the courts. It continues what the court ruled just three days prior.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo fully consolidates the Court’s dominance over federal agencies within the executive branch of government. It is a radical reordering of the US separation of powers, giving the one unelected branch of government all of its own power, plus much of the power that Congress has vested in the executive branch.

What we see unfolding is that the one unelected branch of government with lifetime appointments has decided that they have the power to overturn rulings by previous courts (Roe vs Wade), decide when a president can be held accountable, and discard expert analysis by federal employees - directing policy based on their own beliefs.

None of this is an accident. Two men in particular have been focused on elevating the power of the court over the other (more democratic) branches of government: Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell. Recognizing that the GOP was moving into minority status when it comes to elections, they have been working on this for years. Their dream of neutering the legislative and executive branches of government to set up a country ruled by a majority of extremist judges is unfolding right before our eyes. Sotomayor issued the correct warning when she concluded her dissent by expressing fear for our democracy.

Trump's attacks on Biden are no accident

According to the Washington Post fact-checkers, Donald Trump told over 30,000 lies during his presidency. During Thursday's ninety-minute presidential debate, CNN documented that he told over 30 lies. 

During a speech at the United Nations in 2018, heads of state and delegates laughed at Trump.

Trump has been found liable for fraud and rape. He's also been convicted of 34 felonies.

Over and over again Trump has promised to weaponize the federal government against his political opponents.

During his presidential term, some members of Trump's cabinet discussed the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment. 

You might be wondering why I'm rehashing some of the sordid history of this country's 45th president. It's because this happened during/after Thursday's debate.

• Trump said this about Biden "I’ve never seen anybody lie like this guy...everything he does is a lie.”
• Trump said that around the world Biden isn't respected.
• Trump called Biden’s actions “absolutely criminal” and falsely alleged that Biden “gets paid by China” and is a “Manchurian candidate.”
• Trump launched a groundless claim that Biden is weaponizing American justice against him. He called it "a system that was rigged and disgusting." 
• Immediately after the debate, Republicans began calling on Biden's cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment.

Trump and his MAGA enablers chose those particular attacks for two reasons. First of all, as Karl Rove discovered years ago, the best way to defend your candidate against an attack is to accuse your opponent of the same thing. That way, when Trump's lies are documented, he simply accuses Biden of being a liar. The whole thing devolves into an argument of he said/he said.

Mike Lofgren explained how that works for Republicans by destroying public trust in government and its institutions.

There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that “they are all crooks,” and that “government is no good,” further leading them to think, “a plague on both your houses” and “the parties are like two kids in a school yard.” This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s – a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn.

Secondly, that kind of "he said/he said" leads to headlines like this one at The Hill: "Trump, Biden accuse each other of lying."Rather than fact-check which one was lying and which one was telling the truth, it's easier to just act as a stenographer and report that both candidates accused the other one of lying. In other words, projection lays the foundation for the media's obsession with bothsiderism. When one candidate has demonstrated that he's a serial liar, that's a win for him.

During a more sane time, you'd be reading this kind of analysis all over the media because Trump's projection of his own failures onto Biden is so obvious. But these are, indeed, crazy times. I'm hoping this helps shore up your sanity just a bit. 

The root of the problem is a theology that enables sexual abuse

As someone who was raised in a white evangelical Christian family and church, it deeply saddens me every time we hear that another leader of that community is guilty of sexual abuse. One of the latest is Robert Morris, pastor of Gateway Church in Southlake, TX. 

Thirty-five years ago Morris began sexually abusing Cindy Clemishire, who was only 12 years old at the time. The abuse continued for over four years. Once Clemishire spoke out against the abuse, Morris left the ministry for two years and received counseling. After that, he returned to the ministry and is now the pastor of a church that attracts an estimated 100,000 worshippers weekly. He also served on Trump’s Evangelical Executive Advisory Board during the 2016 campaign and has been a relentless MAGA cheerleader ever since.

From what I've seen, there are some individuals and churches attempting to document this kind of abuse in evangelical churches/organizations and develop ways to address the problem. But most of them focus on after-the-fact interventions designed to support the victim and hold the perpetrator accountable. No one seems to be willing to address the fact that sexual abuse is obviously rampant not only in Catholic Churches, but evangelical circles as well. 

In writing about Morris, Amanda Marcotte provided insight into the root of the problem.

As ex-evangelical therapist Jeremiah Gibson told Salon earlier this year, sex has never really been the issue with evangelicals. It's more about "the performance of gender" and maintaining a rigid gender hierarchy. While right-wing Christians talk a lot about "purity," that expectation only applies to women. Men, as the history of Christianity in America makes clear, largely get to do what they want, confident that the church will usually look the other way — even when the behavior is criminal or blatantly predatory...

The problem with expecting women — or in so many cases, underage girls — to bear the responsibility for maintaining "purity" is that it directly conflicts with another mandate placed on women in evangelical circles: total submission. Women were placed on earth by God, according to this theology, primarily if not exclusively to serve men...It's a lose-lose situation: Women are supposed to make themselves attractive and compliant, but if a man abuses or assaults her, that's her fault for not uttering the otherwise forbidden word "no." Furthermore, if she did say no but failed to fight him off, after a lifetime of being told that it's sinful "pride" to stand up for yourself, then that's her fault too.

That theology of "total submission" applies to children as well - which explains why young boys are also the victims of this kind of abuse. Once women and children have been properly schooled into a theology that tells them that men/fathers/pastors are at the top of a rigid hierarchy and that it is "sinful pride to stand up for yourself," the table has been set for sexual predators. 

In order to root out sexual abuse in the church, both Catholics and Protestants will have to grapple with a theology that actually enables the abuse. I have to say that I'm not optimistic that is going to happen any time soon.