Americans’ confidence in once sacrosanct institutions is ebbing at a rate not seen in this country since the Vietnam War drove people to protest in the streets in the late 60’s and early 70’s.
“There isn’t anything that can be done about that. People cannot be fired from civil service jobs in the government because of their political beliefs.”
I challenge this statement.
I see no reason why every law enforcement officer, soldier, military officer, and national security official in the US should not currently be subjected to a sweeping purge around just this issue .
It would not be difficult to craft a set of questions that all such officers and officials would have to answer, e.g., “Do you believe the Joseph Biden is the legitimate president of the United States?”
If they say yes, and a background investigation reveals that they made Facebook posts or other statements to the contrary, they could:
a) be fired summarily, or
(b) give a chance to explain why they made such statements, and if they continue to believe them.
Because if they don’t believe that the President of the United States is legitimate, they have no business being given the powers of the state to enforce the law, carry weapons, arrest people, and otherwise exercise the threat of violent force upon the citizenry.
Your suggestion for the questions amounts to a loyalty pledge which the Constitution forbids. I remember having to answer questions about what allegedly "subversive" organizations I belonged to -- every one of which was perfectly legal, incidentally -- in the Army. I resented it then and I resent that sort of thing now. Besides, Trump himself has pledged to rid the civil service of anyone not loyal to him if he is reelected by changing the civil service laws. You don't want to go down that road, trust me.
Like you, I am no fan of oaths, given their role in a variety of unsavory historical events and movements.
However, they are a fact of life for the holders of public office, for sworn law enforcement officers, and for military officers .
Below I will paste some oaths of office, one of which was made during the reign of a foreign government in the 1930s. The rest are American. 
I believe the first one, which is an oath made to obey a specific man by name, is clearly distinguishable from the others.
I believe a credible legal argument can be made that any sworn holder of public office, any American soldier, and any sworn, law enforcement officer in the US, can be legitimately charged with a failure to obey their oaths, if they refuse to acknowledge the authority of the duly elected president of the US, regardless of party.
"I swear to God this holy oath
that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
In the United States, the oath of officefor the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
“I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [So help me God.]”
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United Statesagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."
PEACE OFFICER OATH OF OFFICE, State of California
California Constitution Article 20, Sec. 3. Misc. Subjects
[Required Oath of Office ]
” I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
Do police swear an oath to the Constitution? | Police Brutality Lawyers
This is what you first suggested, which I will quote here: "It would not be difficult to craft a set of questions that all such officers and officials would have to answer, e.g., “Do you believe the Joseph Biden is the legitimate president of the United States?"
That is very different than swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Your suggested question contains the relevant reason: Do you "believe". People's political beliefs are no business of the government. It's a short distance from that question to the one Mastriano and the other "Christian nationalists" want asked of everyone who wants to come into government service: "Do you believe Christ is your master and savior?"
I was going to post the same idea-civil servants CAN be fired-it takes a bit of work, but dereliction of duty is one charge that sticks like rubber to the person who is charged with it.
Dereliction of duty applies to all federal officers, and that includes every single member of the DHS.
Start by firing those people who allowed this to happen by deleting emails, delaying notifications and other bad acts.
They are part of the problem, and Trump depended on them to help him carry out his coup. That it did not succeed is because a small portion of their ranks refused to put their political beliefs before their duty to this county.
No. Just no. And not just because along the way I've known people who were purged because they refused to take a loyalty oath or because they were lesbian or gay or for some other bogus reason. You can, and IMO should, ask civil service staffers, members of the military, elected officials, etc., to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they violate that oath, they can, and IMO should, be fired, though not without a hearing.
I don't think it's a big stretch from requiring people to (say they) believe that Biden is the legitimate president to requiring them to (say they) believe in God Almighty the maker of heaven and earth. The stupid and the scrupulously honest will say "no" and get fired (or stoned, or burned at the stake), but the clever will dissemble, keep their jobs, and go about their business.
The question is not whether Joe Biden is the legitimate president. It is whether the duly elected sitting president of whatever party is the legitimate president.
The people authorized by the government -- at whatever level -- to carry guns and enforce the law, or to carry guns as military officers to defend the country, and their superiors, whether they are sworn officers carrying guns, or not, all swear various oaths. That is what makes them “sworn officers“.
We can go into the weeds and examine the verbiage of whatever those oaths might be, whether to preserve and protect the constitution, or to enforce the law, or defend the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic“.
Demanding that the people who swear these oaths, actually acknowledge that elected leaders are legitimate, is a far cry from demanding any of the things you describe.
Allowing the sworn law-enforcement officers and military personnel of a country to openly flout their defiance of their elected leaders will lead to exactly the kind of chaos that we have already witnessed, and are on the cusp of seeing metastasize into something far worse.
The question is whether one acknowledges a distinction between belief and action. Surely you see the distinction betweenn, for instance, believing that Biden isn't the duly elected president and "openly flout[ing} their defiance of their elected leaders." I think the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, gets it. A person can belong to any religious body or none at all, but they can't impose their beliefs on the government. (Someone should tell the SCOTUS majority this.) A man can believe that women belong in the home, but he can't violate laws that give women equal rights with men. Etc.
Come to think of it, I know people who believe that GW Bush wasn't legitimately elected, and others who believe that TFG wasn't legitimately elected. In any case, Lucian elsewhere put it more clearly and succinctly than I have. I hope you'll pay attention.
If there are any lawyers on here who would care to comment on whether this would pass muster, I would be interested in a quick and dirty legal analysis
Here’s my problem: there really is no “Trumpism”. There’s no party platform and no written (or other) principles that define a cogent belief system. There’s unfocused grievance, constant whining and an atavistic (and utterly insupportable) sense of racist and sexist superiority. What there isn’t is the first idea. About anything.
What little ideology there is is but camouflage for a visceral sense of disorientation caused by changing demographics and an emerging popular culture that no longer affirms their sense of “racist and sexist superiority.”
Exactly. We've been seeing cult behavior in MAGA since 2015. It is really the only explanation for what we've seen, that judges, congress members, local government officials, doctors, lawyers, media personalities et al, people who should know better, have defied logic and reason, and jumped aboard the MAGA train.
Many thanks for this citation to this excellent article which articulates something I have believed with great fervency ever since the grotesque charlatan emerged as a major political player 
I knew that Trump had studied Hitler’s writings but didn’t know the details. Burt Neuborne didn’t realize when he wrote that article just how prescient he was. Thank you for the link.
Predictions, warnings , based on verified facts, sound observations of human psychology, historical experience, via a valid method --- not, for example, adding "Ladies and Gentlemen, now comes the crucial test: Will Nostradamus, the Mystic Seer dog with whom I have traveled the world, vistiting the crowned heads of Europe, and hobnobbing with my fellow wizards, select the Tarot card signifying Trump from the pocket of my renowned, beautiful assistant, Miss Sophie Scorpio of Fort Lee, New Jersey? If so, we know my warnings about Trump are to be taken with the utmost seriousness! If not, all is a shambles, and I must withdraw my assertions!" --- that's what he has here, in the interview with Steve Rosenfeld from a few years ago. Notice the overlap of issues and policy recommendations between Hitler and, not only Trump, but a large swath of the GOP. They've been spiraling into fascism for some time.
Despite the evidence presented in Ivana's divorce filing, I'm skeptical that Trump "studied" anything, and even if he did -- there's really no need to trace a direct connection between what Hitler wrote and what Trump did and continues to do. We have quite a few examples of homegrown demogogues who had serious reach: Father Coughlin comes to mind, and so does George Wallace. You can find other examples in the Jim Crow South for sure. And in every presidential election since at least 1968, the dog whistles to aggrieved white people have gotten louder and louder. If you're looking to explain the rise and popularity of Trump, there's really no compelling need to focus on Hitler.
Wow...Thank you very much for that link, Mr. Turnbull. The article is excellent and I ordered the book. I want to remain optimistic....but it is always well to be prepared and be knowledgeable enough to spot the parallels.
Burt Neuborne was so very prescient when he wrote:
"encouraging mob violence at rallies, darkly hinting at violence if Democrats hold power, and constantly casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections unless he wins.”
we should feel fortunate that trump was not bright enough to fully capitalize on his hitler-like abilities in swaying mobs to extreme violence.
The FBI has always had distinctive Fascist taint. Talk to the people who helped mobilize those anti-war protests. We were hounded and our phones were tapped and we were completely non-violent. What were we going to do? Tickle someone to death? But we had our photos taken everywhere we went. It was meant to intimidate and stop us from pursuing our constitutional rights. Read the accounts of Hoover and his obsession with Martin Luther King. I'm afraid it's too late for house cleaning, now. I have no personal experience with the Secret Service, but that some of the agents were suborned by Trump, is to be expected. Do you ever wonder if when encountering Trump, one could resist his terrible gravity? I mean so many people have succumbed. Maybe we could devise a "Trump" test to be given to determine moral rectitude and fearlessness; or, lack thereof.
*chose* to run or *was chosen* to run? I'm missing something here. I suspect Trump saw the 2016 campaign as an audition and the presidency as a performance where of course other people did all the work while he got the perks. That scenario used to be pretty common and may still be: the (male) CEO was a blowhard and the (mostly female) clerical staff kept him, and maybe the company, functioning. I like to think that this is less common than it used to be, now that women are somewhat more likely to hold executive positions in their own right instead of doing all the work behind the scenes for a fraction of the pay.
Does anyone still remember when Trump said in 2016 after he was elected that he wanted to still live in Trump Tower after he was inaugurated, and that he'd conduct his presidency by phone? I do, and it made me realize that he had run on a lark and had no idea he'd win, and no idea what the POTUS' job entailed.
And he wanted Mar A Lago to be the "winter White House," once he realized he couldn't stay at Trump Tower. I guess it was explained to him that both Trump Tower and Mar A Lago could not be properly equipped and secured.
One thing, however, that I always thought was unusual about Trump was that for a rich guy, he'd never done much international traveling, as though it frightened him.
YES! In the late summer of 1969 I started college in Washington, D.C.. Before long I was up to my eyeballs in antiwar organizing (the huge "Mobe" march was that November) -- and learning that "the police" were not the friendly fellows I'd known in the small town/suburb in MA where I'd grown up. It wasn't just what I experienced firsthand -- it was knowing so many veterans of the civil rights movement and the labor movement who were often a generation or two older than I and who, to put it mildly, had stories to tell.
Police organizations attract moralists and angry younger brother's The Secret service was created in the 1860'ds to protect the government, thus attracting men with intense devotion. When FBI and SS became dispirited in the 1990's the anger burned hot, and Trump gave succor to these men.
After all that has been revealed, it's a miracle that the J6 coup attempt didn't succeed. The FBI has always been a far right organization, and nothing has ever been done about it. The SS has had more problems recently than Carter (not the former-president) has liver pills, to date myself. If these two entities are not made, and I mean MADE, politically neutral, then the next attempted coup, being planned at this moment, is going to make J6 look like a walk in the park.. Anyone who believes J6 was a one-off, is deluding themselves rather badly. The so-called 'Republican Party' is now an insurgency, and will respect no institutions or rules. One of the reasons J6 failed was that the military would not join it. All successful coups require support from the military, and we know the right-wing has infiltrated the military, but we don't know to what degree. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Milley, made clear what side he was on, and who gets that job next is of paramount importance to our survival as even a compromised democracy. The President chooses that person. Need I say more. Roughly 40% of this country wants a strongman dictator, and they're going to keep trying to get one. We, who don't want a president-for-life, should not sleep soundly in our beds until that threat is clearly gone.
“People cannot be fired from civil service jobs in the government because of their political beliefs.”
That’s true, and on the face of it, I won’t argue otherwise. However, when those beliefs lead to dereliction of duty, something’s gotta give. I’ve never agreed with Mike Pence, politically or otherwise, but I was relieved he didn’t die that day.
Accountability. Accountability. Accountability. That’s all I want, besides tfg’s ass in prison.
That's the key: when the belief leads to undesirable action or inaction, whether it's illegal or just incompetent, then you can act. Like I'm generally fine with people who don't believe the same things I do, even when I think their beliefs are misguided, but as long as they aren't imposing their beliefs on others I'm mostly OK with it.
Pence also is complicit, even though he saved democracy...for a minute. He surmised that the Secret Service was “up to something” not so kosher. He should’ve said so OUT LOUD! But no, kept his Ken doll mouth shut, as usual. Not certain we can be saved now that we know so many fascists in so many facets of our precious lives exist.
After watching the entire hearings yesterday I was thinking how could any reasonable person watch this and still support Donald Trump? I guess the answer is that no reasonable person would have ever supported him, so the ones that did still will even after watching the proceedings. Yet they will call themselves patriots and for democracy. Beginning to wish I lived on a different planet, one that is populated with people who comment here including subscribers who perhaps never comment but obviously hold the same values..
What nauseates me is that there are very powerful people everywhere you look, and they are protecting and supporting Donald Trump. This is why I have said that voting along is not going to get rid of the poison.
Oh, they've definitely been around. I think the big difference is that now they're targeting white people at least some of the time. The more you learn about U.S. history -- the history that the white right calls "critical race theory" and wants to keep out of the schools -- the less surprising it seems.
I call George Patton a cheap anti-Semite smelling of prejudice and contempt for those unlike himself. My grandfather relieved him of command of the 3rd Army in Bavaria after the war because he refused to de-Nazify southern Germany and made repeated anti-Semitic comments to the press and was keeping Holocaust survivors in no better conditions than they were in the camps. He was a disgrace to the uniform and un-American.
Damn, Lucian. You take us "inside baseball" with this whole bizarre, disturbing yet crtitical mess by making the connections and and insights others don't quite get! Keep up the splendid work!
Andrew Jackson attracted his own MAGA and after eight years people wondered what would happen to the country. Martin Van Buren came, and he helped the professionals return and Jacksons thunder faded away.
Trump is a carnival and has allowed disgruntled white men to vet their rages. But it won't last. Thunder eventually burns out and things quiet down. It has become obvious that Trump fueled the rebellion, and he must be held accountable, not imprisoned but convicted of insurrection, obstruction, and corruption. A stiff fine would punish him more than a cold cell in a penitentiary.
“There isn’t anything that can be done about that. People cannot be fired from civil service jobs in the government because of their political beliefs.”
I challenge this statement.
I see no reason why every law enforcement officer, soldier, military officer, and national security official in the US should not currently be subjected to a sweeping purge around just this issue .
It would not be difficult to craft a set of questions that all such officers and officials would have to answer, e.g., “Do you believe the Joseph Biden is the legitimate president of the United States?”
If they say yes, and a background investigation reveals that they made Facebook posts or other statements to the contrary, they could:
a) be fired summarily, or
(b) give a chance to explain why they made such statements, and if they continue to believe them.
Because if they don’t believe that the President of the United States is legitimate, they have no business being given the powers of the state to enforce the law, carry weapons, arrest people, and otherwise exercise the threat of violent force upon the citizenry.
Your suggestion for the questions amounts to a loyalty pledge which the Constitution forbids. I remember having to answer questions about what allegedly "subversive" organizations I belonged to -- every one of which was perfectly legal, incidentally -- in the Army. I resented it then and I resent that sort of thing now. Besides, Trump himself has pledged to rid the civil service of anyone not loyal to him if he is reelected by changing the civil service laws. You don't want to go down that road, trust me.
I finally found time to reply to this.
Like you, I am no fan of oaths, given their role in a variety of unsavory historical events and movements.
However, they are a fact of life for the holders of public office, for sworn law enforcement officers, and for military officers .
Below I will paste some oaths of office, one of which was made during the reign of a foreign government in the 1930s. The rest are American. 
I believe the first one, which is an oath made to obey a specific man by name, is clearly distinguishable from the others.
I believe a credible legal argument can be made that any sworn holder of public office, any American soldier, and any sworn, law enforcement officer in the US, can be legitimately charged with a failure to obey their oaths, if they refuse to acknowledge the authority of the duly elected president of the US, regardless of party.
"I swear to God this holy oath
that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath."
In the United States, the oath of officefor the President is specified in the Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
“I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. [So help me God.]”
At the start of each new U.S. Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, newly elected or re-elected Members of Congress – the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate – must recite an oath:
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
This oath is also taken by the Vice President, members of the Cabinet, federal judges and all other civil and military officers and federal employees other than the President.
Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United Statesagainst all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."
PEACE OFFICER OATH OF OFFICE, State of California
California Constitution Article 20, Sec. 3. Misc. Subjects
[Required Oath of Office ]
” I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
Do police swear an oath to the Constitution? | Police Brutality Lawyers
police-brutality.usattorneys.com
This is what you first suggested, which I will quote here: "It would not be difficult to craft a set of questions that all such officers and officials would have to answer, e.g., “Do you believe the Joseph Biden is the legitimate president of the United States?"
That is very different than swearing an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Your suggested question contains the relevant reason: Do you "believe". People's political beliefs are no business of the government. It's a short distance from that question to the one Mastriano and the other "Christian nationalists" want asked of everyone who wants to come into government service: "Do you believe Christ is your master and savior?"
I was going to post the same idea-civil servants CAN be fired-it takes a bit of work, but dereliction of duty is one charge that sticks like rubber to the person who is charged with it.
Dereliction of duty applies to all federal officers, and that includes every single member of the DHS.
Start by firing those people who allowed this to happen by deleting emails, delaying notifications and other bad acts.
They are part of the problem, and Trump depended on them to help him carry out his coup. That it did not succeed is because a small portion of their ranks refused to put their political beliefs before their duty to this county.
SoTired, concurring...
No. Just no. And not just because along the way I've known people who were purged because they refused to take a loyalty oath or because they were lesbian or gay or for some other bogus reason. You can, and IMO should, ask civil service staffers, members of the military, elected officials, etc., to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if they violate that oath, they can, and IMO should, be fired, though not without a hearing.
I don't think it's a big stretch from requiring people to (say they) believe that Biden is the legitimate president to requiring them to (say they) believe in God Almighty the maker of heaven and earth. The stupid and the scrupulously honest will say "no" and get fired (or stoned, or burned at the stake), but the clever will dissemble, keep their jobs, and go about their business.
The question is not whether Joe Biden is the legitimate president. It is whether the duly elected sitting president of whatever party is the legitimate president.
The people authorized by the government -- at whatever level -- to carry guns and enforce the law, or to carry guns as military officers to defend the country, and their superiors, whether they are sworn officers carrying guns, or not, all swear various oaths. That is what makes them “sworn officers“.
We can go into the weeds and examine the verbiage of whatever those oaths might be, whether to preserve and protect the constitution, or to enforce the law, or defend the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic“.
Demanding that the people who swear these oaths, actually acknowledge that elected leaders are legitimate, is a far cry from demanding any of the things you describe.
Allowing the sworn law-enforcement officers and military personnel of a country to openly flout their defiance of their elected leaders will lead to exactly the kind of chaos that we have already witnessed, and are on the cusp of seeing metastasize into something far worse.
The question is whether one acknowledges a distinction between belief and action. Surely you see the distinction betweenn, for instance, believing that Biden isn't the duly elected president and "openly flout[ing} their defiance of their elected leaders." I think the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, gets it. A person can belong to any religious body or none at all, but they can't impose their beliefs on the government. (Someone should tell the SCOTUS majority this.) A man can believe that women belong in the home, but he can't violate laws that give women equal rights with men. Etc.
Come to think of it, I know people who believe that GW Bush wasn't legitimately elected, and others who believe that TFG wasn't legitimately elected. In any case, Lucian elsewhere put it more clearly and succinctly than I have. I hope you'll pay attention.
See my reply to Lucian Truscott just posted above 
That's what I was responding to.
I just posted a new and lengthy reply to Lucian 
Oh, OK. I read "just posted above" as "posted just above." My bad. I'm in the middle of copyediting a lot of text in rather small type. ;-)
If there are any lawyers on here who would care to comment on whether this would pass muster, I would be interested in a quick and dirty legal analysis
The average lawyer wouldn't know. A federal judge or professor of constitutional law would.
i strongly agree with all your points, SToW.
Here’s my problem: there really is no “Trumpism”. There’s no party platform and no written (or other) principles that define a cogent belief system. There’s unfocused grievance, constant whining and an atavistic (and utterly insupportable) sense of racist and sexist superiority. What there isn’t is the first idea. About anything.
So right.
What little ideology there is is but camouflage for a visceral sense of disorientation caused by changing demographics and an emerging popular culture that no longer affirms their sense of “racist and sexist superiority.”
He’s a cult leader. His people will follow him no matter what he says or does.
Hello Jonestown...
Perhaps they will all drink the Jonestown recipe Kool Aid.
Exactly. We've been seeing cult behavior in MAGA since 2015. It is really the only explanation for what we've seen, that judges, congress members, local government officials, doctors, lawyers, media personalities et al, people who should know better, have defied logic and reason, and jumped aboard the MAGA train.
www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/09/leading-civil-rights-lawyer-shows-20-ways-trump-copying-hitlers-early-rhetoric-and
Many thanks for this citation to this excellent article which articulates something I have believed with great fervency ever since the grotesque charlatan emerged as a major political player 
I knew that Trump had studied Hitler’s writings but didn’t know the details. Burt Neuborne didn’t realize when he wrote that article just how prescient he was. Thank you for the link.
Predictions, warnings , based on verified facts, sound observations of human psychology, historical experience, via a valid method --- not, for example, adding "Ladies and Gentlemen, now comes the crucial test: Will Nostradamus, the Mystic Seer dog with whom I have traveled the world, vistiting the crowned heads of Europe, and hobnobbing with my fellow wizards, select the Tarot card signifying Trump from the pocket of my renowned, beautiful assistant, Miss Sophie Scorpio of Fort Lee, New Jersey? If so, we know my warnings about Trump are to be taken with the utmost seriousness! If not, all is a shambles, and I must withdraw my assertions!" --- that's what he has here, in the interview with Steve Rosenfeld from a few years ago. Notice the overlap of issues and policy recommendations between Hitler and, not only Trump, but a large swath of the GOP. They've been spiraling into fascism for some time.
Despite the evidence presented in Ivana's divorce filing, I'm skeptical that Trump "studied" anything, and even if he did -- there's really no need to trace a direct connection between what Hitler wrote and what Trump did and continues to do. We have quite a few examples of homegrown demogogues who had serious reach: Father Coughlin comes to mind, and so does George Wallace. You can find other examples in the Jim Crow South for sure. And in every presidential election since at least 1968, the dog whistles to aggrieved white people have gotten louder and louder. If you're looking to explain the rise and popularity of Trump, there's really no compelling need to focus on Hitler.
Wow...Thank you very much for that link, Mr. Turnbull. The article is excellent and I ordered the book. I want to remain optimistic....but it is always well to be prepared and be knowledgeable enough to spot the parallels.
Hitler's Nazism was very similar in that there was no platform and no cogent belief system other than blaming jews and subhumans
Burt Neuborne was so very prescient when he wrote:
"encouraging mob violence at rallies, darkly hinting at violence if Democrats hold power, and constantly casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections unless he wins.”
we should feel fortunate that trump was not bright enough to fully capitalize on his hitler-like abilities in swaying mobs to extreme violence.
As a hurricane survivor, my enemy is mold, which you just described.
Spot on, bunch of racist clods led by the master grifter of all time.
It's a Barnum and Bailey show.....
you have pretty much defined trumpism.
The FBI has always had distinctive Fascist taint. Talk to the people who helped mobilize those anti-war protests. We were hounded and our phones were tapped and we were completely non-violent. What were we going to do? Tickle someone to death? But we had our photos taken everywhere we went. It was meant to intimidate and stop us from pursuing our constitutional rights. Read the accounts of Hoover and his obsession with Martin Luther King. I'm afraid it's too late for house cleaning, now. I have no personal experience with the Secret Service, but that some of the agents were suborned by Trump, is to be expected. Do you ever wonder if when encountering Trump, one could resist his terrible gravity? I mean so many people have succumbed. Maybe we could devise a "Trump" test to be given to determine moral rectitude and fearlessness; or, lack thereof.
Look at why Trump chosen to run.
Transactional, he must receive something to give something, no empathy.
Total disinterest in governing, his henchman ran things while he watched Fox and Friends each a.m.
Complete ignorance of our NATO commitment and the US policy of Forward Defense during and after the end of the Cold War.
He would have failed any simple interview for the job of POTUS...bigly.
*chose* to run or *was chosen* to run? I'm missing something here. I suspect Trump saw the 2016 campaign as an audition and the presidency as a performance where of course other people did all the work while he got the perks. That scenario used to be pretty common and may still be: the (male) CEO was a blowhard and the (mostly female) clerical staff kept him, and maybe the company, functioning. I like to think that this is less common than it used to be, now that women are somewhat more likely to hold executive positions in their own right instead of doing all the work behind the scenes for a fraction of the pay.
Does anyone still remember when Trump said in 2016 after he was elected that he wanted to still live in Trump Tower after he was inaugurated, and that he'd conduct his presidency by phone? I do, and it made me realize that he had run on a lark and had no idea he'd win, and no idea what the POTUS' job entailed.
Ha! I'd forgotten that!
And he wanted Mar A Lago to be the "winter White House," once he realized he couldn't stay at Trump Tower. I guess it was explained to him that both Trump Tower and Mar A Lago could not be properly equipped and secured.
One thing, however, that I always thought was unusual about Trump was that for a rich guy, he'd never done much international traveling, as though it frightened him.
YES! In the late summer of 1969 I started college in Washington, D.C.. Before long I was up to my eyeballs in antiwar organizing (the huge "Mobe" march was that November) -- and learning that "the police" were not the friendly fellows I'd known in the small town/suburb in MA where I'd grown up. It wasn't just what I experienced firsthand -- it was knowing so many veterans of the civil rights movement and the labor movement who were often a generation or two older than I and who, to put it mildly, had stories to tell.
We had nicknames for the hoods that followed us around with cameras
Police organizations attract moralists and angry younger brother's The Secret service was created in the 1860'ds to protect the government, thus attracting men with intense devotion. When FBI and SS became dispirited in the 1990's the anger burned hot, and Trump gave succor to these men.
After all that has been revealed, it's a miracle that the J6 coup attempt didn't succeed. The FBI has always been a far right organization, and nothing has ever been done about it. The SS has had more problems recently than Carter (not the former-president) has liver pills, to date myself. If these two entities are not made, and I mean MADE, politically neutral, then the next attempted coup, being planned at this moment, is going to make J6 look like a walk in the park.. Anyone who believes J6 was a one-off, is deluding themselves rather badly. The so-called 'Republican Party' is now an insurgency, and will respect no institutions or rules. One of the reasons J6 failed was that the military would not join it. All successful coups require support from the military, and we know the right-wing has infiltrated the military, but we don't know to what degree. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Milley, made clear what side he was on, and who gets that job next is of paramount importance to our survival as even a compromised democracy. The President chooses that person. Need I say more. Roughly 40% of this country wants a strongman dictator, and they're going to keep trying to get one. We, who don't want a president-for-life, should not sleep soundly in our beds until that threat is clearly gone.
My fear is that everything you wrote is spot on.
yes.
i too am most concerned about how the military, both leaders and rank & file might respond to a call to act against gunfire from insurrectionists.
how can the White House make sure they have law abiding people first in offices of command, then in the ranks?
“People cannot be fired from civil service jobs in the government because of their political beliefs.”
That’s true, and on the face of it, I won’t argue otherwise. However, when those beliefs lead to dereliction of duty, something’s gotta give. I’ve never agreed with Mike Pence, politically or otherwise, but I was relieved he didn’t die that day.
Accountability. Accountability. Accountability. That’s all I want, besides tfg’s ass in prison.
That's the key: when the belief leads to undesirable action or inaction, whether it's illegal or just incompetent, then you can act. Like I'm generally fine with people who don't believe the same things I do, even when I think their beliefs are misguided, but as long as they aren't imposing their beliefs on others I'm mostly OK with it.
Pence also is complicit, even though he saved democracy...for a minute. He surmised that the Secret Service was “up to something” not so kosher. He should’ve said so OUT LOUD! But no, kept his Ken doll mouth shut, as usual. Not certain we can be saved now that we know so many fascists in so many facets of our precious lives exist.
After watching the entire hearings yesterday I was thinking how could any reasonable person watch this and still support Donald Trump? I guess the answer is that no reasonable person would have ever supported him, so the ones that did still will even after watching the proceedings. Yet they will call themselves patriots and for democracy. Beginning to wish I lived on a different planet, one that is populated with people who comment here including subscribers who perhaps never comment but obviously hold the same values..
The key word is "reasonable".
As opposed to "faithful".
None of the "founding fathers" were religious. They were philosophers.
So true!
What nauseates me is that there are very powerful people everywhere you look, and they are protecting and supporting Donald Trump. This is why I have said that voting along is not going to get rid of the poison.
Truly sad and depressing that such a large segment of our country has sunk so low
I don’t think they had to sink. I think we just figured out where they’d been all the time.
Oh, they've definitely been around. I think the big difference is that now they're targeting white people at least some of the time. The more you learn about U.S. history -- the history that the white right calls "critical race theory" and wants to keep out of the schools -- the less surprising it seems.
Otherwise known as: "Complete, Unvarnished History that makes Whyt Rightwingers Very Uncomfortable".
Bill, they were under the woodwork, with the rest of the cockroaches.
Maybe we need a K1-12 "Defense Against the Dark Arts" curriculum. We're losing a lot of people to lunacy.
General George S. Patton called the Secret Service "cheap detectives, smilling of drink", and it seems he wasn't far off the mark.
I call George Patton a cheap anti-Semite smelling of prejudice and contempt for those unlike himself. My grandfather relieved him of command of the 3rd Army in Bavaria after the war because he refused to de-Nazify southern Germany and made repeated anti-Semitic comments to the press and was keeping Holocaust survivors in no better conditions than they were in the camps. He was a disgrace to the uniform and un-American.
Thank you for clearing that matter ip about Patton. No hero, in my book.
And things haven't changed much since his time either.
Well, at least Clarence Thomas punted Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court which in turn did not back Trump...
Naegleria fowleri, the dangerous brain eating amoeba, may have evolved into Naegleria fowleri trumpus. And it is entering through their noses.
I would completely reorganize the Secret Service and FBI and retrain all of them on mission.
It would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it.
Makes James Comey's outing of Hilary Clinton's investigation while Trump's was left quiet until after the election look even worse now...
Damn, Lucian. You take us "inside baseball" with this whole bizarre, disturbing yet crtitical mess by making the connections and and insights others don't quite get! Keep up the splendid work!
Andrew Jackson attracted his own MAGA and after eight years people wondered what would happen to the country. Martin Van Buren came, and he helped the professionals return and Jacksons thunder faded away.
Trump is a carnival and has allowed disgruntled white men to vet their rages. But it won't last. Thunder eventually burns out and things quiet down. It has become obvious that Trump fueled the rebellion, and he must be held accountable, not imprisoned but convicted of insurrection, obstruction, and corruption. A stiff fine would punish him more than a cold cell in a penitentiary.
A stiff fine where he’d stiff the government.
A lot houses for Garland to clean, starting with the White House. Will he?