"No Need To Vote in the Future If I Win" - Trump & Project 2025

 

Instead of panic regarding Trump’s remarks to the right wing “Christian” Turning Point Conference, we might step back and take a more comprehensive view. Trump has difficulty with nuance; his approach is inherently bombastic and hyperbolic. So, his statement about abolishing elections is likely an exaggeration, as most of his claims are. Reactions turn toward Trump aspirations as dictator in the executive branch. However, the substance behind the claim is perhaps more dangerous than Trump’s blatant bumbling claim. The president as dictator is perhaps the lesser evil in the scheme.

The GOP concerted mission of changing and “rigging” the electoral process to remove democratic safeguards surfaced during the Reagan years. The primary front has been processes of gerrymandering, voter dilution, and voter suppression. In gerrymandering, for example, a region in which 70% of voters favor a democrat is surgically divided into 3 voting districts so that at least 55% of those democrat leaning voters are concentrated in one voting district, and the other 45% are split between the other 2 districts. This systematic carving is often piggybacked on discriminatory housing patterns. The unavoidable result is that the democrat leaning voter majority will never be able to prevail – the 30% GOP voters will control 2 of 3 districts.

Voter dilution is more insidious, and typically focuses upon race as an indicator of voter preference. As in Jackson, MS, with a predominantly Black population, control over traditionally “local” issues such as police and education was shifted to “statewide” authority and effectively neutering the voices of the local community. Shifting control to “statewide” offices is just one dilution tool.

Voter suppression is a more aggressive form of anti-democratic shift. Imposing more stringent and more onerous conditions to “qualify” to cast a ballot, and obstacles to access to polls are primary examples. One such strategy is to reduce the number of polling locations in communities of color, so that long lines and long waits discourage voter participation in targeted precincts.

The secondary front is the judiciary. Politically appointed and biased judges are installed to make sure that the above strategies are not deemed “unlawful” or “unconstitutional.” Such rulings are a strained interpretation of the 14^th Amendment. In addition, measures such as the Voting Rights Act have been gutted by these GOP appointed judges so that options to challenge antidemocratic processes are limited.

The point here is that when Trump, in his clumsy way, was probably referring to the Project 2025, the substance of the promise to the right-wing group was that, if he is elected, the “fix” of assuring dominance of GOP control would be fully institutionalized during his term in office. The concept of democracy as “majority rule” will no longer exist in US elections. As an historical note, Bush and Trump assumed office as president despite failure to receive a majority of votes in those elections. So, this strategy and scenario is far more than just “hypothetical.”

Reflection and Narcissism: Perhaps the GOP should look within!

 As days pass, we learn more about the incident at the Butler, PA rally and yet are still left with major areas of speculation. We do know the identity of the shooter, and something of his background, but we will not likely know his mind, motivation, or intent. He was killed by Secret Service or police sniper fire within seconds of his firing the AR-15 assault weapon. We are left to speculate about what may have caused Crooks, a 20-year-old middle class youth who was described as a loner who liked guns, to actually go to the rally armed and fire the weapon. We know that he was a registered GOP member, when relatively few of his peers are formally registered as members of either party. We also have learned that some time ago he contributed $15 to a progressive get out the vote organization [NOT the Democratic Party, as media tend to imply]

Reflecting on these events and facts, the GOP should be concerned that a Gen Z member of a white middle class GOP affiliated family in a small western Pennsylvania town that was a member of a local gun club would seek to eliminate Trump [if that were his true intent]. The demographics and politics suggest that these would be prime characteristics for MAGA followers. Another factor is his contribution to an organization seeking to encourage voting. While some may want to infer alliance with Democrats, it must also be considered that the current GOP seeks to suppress rather than encourage voting by the general population. It is not easy to identify many GOP “get out the vote” organizations because of the party’s anti-democratic characteristics. Both Trump and his surrogates have taken the position that they would not commit to honor the 2024 election results

So, why would a youth who apparently believed in conservative values and policies, and politically aware enough to register to vote with party affiliation, view Trump as a threat to America? While we are not likely to reach any certain answer to that question, it does suggest that the GOP might be well advised to shift some of its focus away from wild conspiracy claims and demonization of the Democratic Party threat to the nation toward some internal reflection upon defects in its message and policies under Trump and the effect such policies are having on younger members of the GOP and Trump’s “Base.”  Most current GOP operatives are so infected or inebriated with the narcissism of Trumpism that they may be unable or unwilling to engage in critical reflection. But they fail to do so at their own peril. Crooks had practice and training with weapons and should have been able to hit his target with at least one of the multiple rounds fired from the semi-automatic weapon. yet he missed Trump as a target. It is possible that Crooks, faced with the enormity of his actions, flinched enough to just miss a solid strike. Plenty of research suggests actually killing someone is not easy or romanticized as in movies and TV. That is a reasonable inference, IF we assume Crooks' true intent was assassination. 

If they could accept that "one of their own" could view a Trump victory as a sufficient threat to democracy and the country to motivate an attempt on his life, the important question is not whether there will be more attempts on his life, but whether that disaffection and distrust might manifest in lesser forms, but still injurious to Trump and Project 2025. It would be far easier for Gen Z voters to simply not vote for Trump at the polls or not vote at all, if they shared even a fraction of the doubts and disaffection that Crooks must have felt about the GOP standard bearer. And without reflection and close analysis, that abandonment by Gen Z voters might be something the Trump Campaign never saw coming. 

Peacemaker, Appeaser, Quisling, or Apologist – Justice Amy Coney Barrett

 

Attention has recently been drawn to Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a somewhat favorable light because of her concurring opinions and statements appearing to downplay the cavernous division on the SCOTUS between the “conservative” bloc and the liberal justices. Much is made of her comments departing from the partisan majority that either questions the soundness of the ruling’s rationale or criticizing the majority for reaching beyond what was necessary to decide the case.

At the same time, she has spoken critically about the liberal justices who have spoken out about the ill-conceived, poorly grounded, and sometimes disastrous opinions the GOP bloc has handed down. Her contention is that the justices are in agreement more often than the minority criticism would suggest. Statistically and technically, that is accurate. But it is also somewhat dissembling. Liberal justices have actually been quite restrained and strategic in their dissents, often declining to issue a public statement of criticism or even acceding to opinions of the majority when their disagreement has no hope of swaying the GOP bloc. It certainly could not credibly  be claimed that when the sharp public dissents have come that they were in minor or trivial cases. To be fair, Barrett has shown herself a better justice that was expected and certainly superior to her contemporary Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. She has pointed out ungrounded or unreasonable departure from precedent and procedure by the majority used to reach a contrived result. At least in that sense she has shown some respect for SCOTUS as an institution and for her professional responsibility as a sitting justice.

Barrett treads upon thin and hypocritical ground, however, when she seeks to downplay the importance of differences among the justices, claiming that “we all wear the same color black robes.”  Cute phrase, but it fails to acknowledge that those robes can cover up huge and important differences in what lies underneath. The false equivalency argument that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown could ever be equated with Thomas and Alito in character and competence is truly laughable. And in another comment, Barrett disgraces the chair that her predecessor sat in. Ruth Bader Ginsburg would never have argued that her female colleagues should shut up and sit down or try to mollify an errant male dominated majority. In response to minority dissents regarding the presidential immunity ruling, Barrett said:

“The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up,” Barrett wrote. “For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home.”

Wrong. It is not the job of any justice to ignore the law, precedent, Constitution, and well-being of the nation and seek to mollify or blunt criticism of an errant majority that has both strayed and done serious damage to the country and respect for SCOTUS as a fundamental institution. It is sexist and demeaning to suggest that the minority dissenters, all women, should play the stereotypically feminine role of minimizing and smoothing over major problems. They have no duty to play the role of apologists for the majority and its erroneous and politically motivated ruling.

As such, the role Barrett is playing may be less that of a peacemaker, than that of a quisling. She may be seen as one seeking to portray an alliance with other women justices while voting consistently to undermine the principles and policies that would protect constitutional protections citizens should be entitled to enjoy. The Dobbs decision is one obvious example. Barrett, because of her wealth, status, and personal choices, has multiple children, natural and adopted. But when faced with a decision that would preserve the right to make such choices on reproduction and family, Barrett stood with the conservative majority to carry out the GOP agenda of denying those rights to other women. While Barrett may spout words of supposed collegiality, if I were one of the minority SCOTUS justices, I would not turn my back on her for a minute.

It is understandable that there should be an attempt to “buff up” the image of Barrett, since none of the other justices in the majority have shown attributes, character, or performance that is respectable ands praiseworthy. Barret has been silent on issues of corruption on the SC OTUS and failure of some justices to recuse themselves even when clearly required by law and jurisprudence to do so because of conflict of interests. But it is also fair to say that not too much can really be expected of Barrett, since even when she may side with the minority justices, they still are defeated by the five other conservative justices.