Respect Is the Foundation of Citizenship — Not a Reward

I have what some people might call a strange orientation. I believe respect is foundational. Not optional. Not conditional. And not something you earn only if you behave or think the “right” way.

The President of the United States and the government, work for US, we do not work for them. That seems to get lost a lot anymore.

Donald Trump & MaGA, our national disgrace

In a functioning democracy, citizens owe one another basic respect simply by virtue of shared citizenship. That obligation is mutual. It runs horizontally between neighbors and vertically between the public and the state. When that respect breaks down, everything downstream degrades with it.

This is not a soft or sentimental idea. It is structural. Systemic. So when it goes wrong, bad things happen. As we're seeing today under Donald Trump and under his Republicans, all who seem to think we're theirs, but they are not ours. 

Let's take a quick look at global trust.

2026 Edelman Trust Report / Barometer

The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer finds that global trust is fragmenting rather than simply declining. People increasingly distrust those who do not share their values, identities, or information sources, leading to social insularity and the breakdown of shared reality. Trust in governments and media remains weak, while business is still relatively more trusted but under pressure. Optimism about the future, especially for the next generation, continues to fall. Overall, the report warns that when societies lose common ground on facts and legitimacy, democratic cooperation and stability become much harder to sustain.

Trump, is not helping. He's exporting his nationalistic authoritarian tendencies now to the world.

Citizenship Requires Mutual Respect

Citizens must respect one another if a democratic society is going to hold. That doesn’t mean agreement. It doesn’t mean approval. It doesn’t mean silence in the face of harm. It means recognizing the humanity, agency, and dignity of the person on the other side of a disagreement.

People aligned with MaGA politics are not stupid. Mostly.

Reducing millions of people to that caricature is lazy and counterproductive. It is the first step of fascistic dehumanization, toward totalitarian power. What is true is that MaGA thinking often operates within a narrow scope — simplified narratives, grievance framing, and a tendency to collapse complex systems into enemies and slogans.

Limited scope, however, is not a moral failing. Disrespect is.

And disrespect has become a defining feature of MaGA political culture — not disagreement, not conservatism, not populism, but contempt. Contempt for fellow citizens. Contempt for institutions. Contempt for expertise. Contempt for the idea that other Americans might be acting in good faith.

That contempt did not arise in a vacuum, but it cannot be excused by grievance either.

We have, through ever poorer funding starved education, through allowing a festering subculture addicted to victimhood to bloom, to be weaponized by an autocratic career criminal, and blossom into overtaking and controlling a major political party.

Government’s Obligation Is Even Higher

If mutual respect is the baseline among citizens, then government actors carry an even greater obligation. Law enforcement, civil servants, judges, corrections officers — all exercise power on behalf of the public. That power must be restrained by respect, or it becomes abuse.

This is where the Constitution matters, not as an abstraction, but as a moral boundary.

The Eighth Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Yet in practice, American punishment is often cruel and entirely usual. Our prison system is designed less around rehabilitation than degradation. When people are caged, neglected, psychologically damaged, and then released back into society, we act surprised when recidivism follows.

That surprise is dishonest. You reproduce what you model.

Once the state deprives a person of liberty — citizen or not — it assumes responsibility for that person’s physical safety, mental health, and basic dignity. Anything less is not justice; it is abandonment disguised as punishment.

Profit and Punishment Do Not Belong Together

For-profit prisons are a moral contradiction. When incarceration becomes a business model, abuse is no longer an accident — it is an incentive. The same logic applies more broadly to essential public institutions.

Some functions exist precisely because profit should not be the motive. The USPS is one example. Education is another. A society that forces its citizens into lifelong debt to participate in mandatory systems is not acting in its own long-term interest.

Remember Trump’s own statement: “I love the uneducated.” On the surface, it can sound almost wholesome, even inclusive. But just beneath that surface, it is a revealing and deeply troubling admission.

Education correlates with resistance to manipulation. Educated populations are more likely to question claims, recognize contradictions, understand institutional guardrails, and demand evidence. Ignorance, by contrast, is easier to flatter, inflame, and mobilize through grievance and fear. How hard IS it to take a victimhood addicted subculture and enflame into a grievance driven political party. 

Not that hard apparently. as we've seen, if you hit all the right stress points. Even by such a fool as Donald Trump. But, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease," just to shut the "baby" up. But that is the most wrong orientation possibly, as it emboldens and empowers the worst behaviors possible.

The strategy is not simply to manipulate the uneducated. It's to use that manipulation as leverage. Once you can mobilize a sufficiently large, uncritical base, you can intimidate or neutralize the checks and balances of government. And once those guardrails weaken, even educated people, professionals, institutions, and powerful actors, as we've seen...become vulnerable to pressure.

As we're seeing today. Some educational institutions have bent the knee, rather than resist. Corporations have accommodated themselves to autocratic behavior. Legal, financial, and media institutions have shown a willingness to comply, hedge, or remain silent in the face of a rogue presidency and a criminal administration. 

CONGRESS, Republicans... to be sure, have not just bent the knee, but are apparently down there, living on their knees under Trump, showing their "soft under bellies" to him in supplication.

This is how democratic erosion works. You do not need to convince everyone. You only need to disable resistance early enough that compliance becomes the safer option later.

In that light, “I love the uneducated” is not a compliment. It is a tactical confession. When government offloads its core responsibilities to profit-driven entities, it isn’t shrinking government. It's evading responsibility.

How Disrespect Scales Into Authoritarianism

When respect erodes at the citizen level, and responsibility erodes at the government level, something has to fill that gap. What fills it is simplistic thinking, grievance politics, and the appeal of strongmen who promise order without accountability. Perfect for social media today. Shallow thinking, and a lot of it. Low information levels used to make judgements. 

The advent of the Stupid Society.

Authoritarian figures thrive in environments where civic understanding is weak and contempt is normalized. When politics becomes about dominance rather than coexistence, rather than decency and community, democracy becomes unintelligible to large portions of the public.

This is not an accident. It's the logical outcome of a culture that replaces respect with punishment, complexity with slogans, and responsibility with blame.

Respect Is Not Weakness

Treating people with dignity does not excuse bad behavior. It does not mean tolerating harm. It means understanding that a society built on humiliation and contempt cannot stabilize itself.

Respect is not a reward for compliance. It is the minimum requirement for coexistence.

If we want less violence, less extremism, less recidivism, and less attraction to autocrats, we have to stop pretending that disrespect is strength. It isn’t. It’s corrosion.

A democracy that forgets this does not collapse all at once. 

It decays — slowly, visibly, and then suddenly, all at once, it collapses and whoever is in power at that time, as total power over all.

I wish us the very best. And we can have it. IF we just pay attention. See what we are doing and not doing, and NEVER shut up about it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

When Conservatism Makes Sense — and When It Holds Us Back

On this anniversary of Donald Trump's January 6th, 2021 insurgency in refusing to leave office as POTUS45, we still have, we again have, that clown in office. Sigh. Give me a break...how is such a clod brain President of the United States, ever, or AGAIN? Now we've enabled him yet again in his this time, foolishly invading another country? Unbelievable. 

World is less safe after US action in Venezuela, says UN Human Rights Office

OK...

I have long held a simple but deeply considered belief, conservatism is simply wrong-minded. That's never been more supported than today, under Donald Trump and whatever the hell this/his GOP is anymore.

Conservatism is most valuable in times of danger, but in times of strength, stability, and prosperity, progress — sometimes bold progress — is what truly moves societies forward.

That belief is not about partisan sorting or emotional preference. It comes from philosophy, history, and watching what actually happens when societies choose fear over possibility, or recklessness over stability. Understanding the difference matters, especially in an era where the word “conservative” is too often used as a costume for something far more chaotic and destructive than traditional conservatism ever intended to be.

So let’s slow the noise. Let’s talk about what conservatism is supposed to be, where it genuinely shines, where progressive governance excels, and why the right approach depends not only on ideology — but on the moment we are living in.

---

Conservatism Was Built as a Philosophy of Caution

Traditional conservatism — the intellectual kind associated with Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk, and others — was never about rage politics, enemies lists, or constant cultural warfare. It was about prudence.

Traditional conservatism says:

• Human institutions are fragile

• Social orders take generations to build

• Fast, sweeping change risks unintended harm

• Stability is a moral good

Conservative thinking performs its best work during unsteady times:

• when institutions are threatened

• when social cohesion is fraying

• when economic foundations feel shaky

• when the primary danger is collapse rather than stagnation

In those circumstances, slowing down can be wisdom.
Restraint can be virtue.
Continuity can literally save civilizations.

There is real dignity in the idea that not every moment demands upheaval.

---

But Prosperity Requires More Than Holding Still

There is another truth political conservatives often ignore:

Societies do not grow simply by preserving themselves. They grow by daring.

When a nation is strong — when it has capacity, confidence, economic strength, and resilient institutions — excessive caution becomes paralysis. Conservatism in a time of prosperity can quietly transform into something less virtuous:

• a defense of entrenched privilege

• a fear of modernization

• a refusal to expand rights

• a distrust of creativity and change

In other words, it stops being about “stability” and becomes about keeping others from advancing too.

History is full of examples of moments where progress didn’t destroy a society — it renewed it:

• Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal rebuilt economic stability and dignity

• Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society made rights real rather than theoretical

• Postwar Europe rebuilt modern social democracies blending capitalism and social protection

• Civil rights expansions did not break the United States — they fulfilled it more fully

Each of these required risk. Each required the belief that improvement is worth trying for. Progressivism, at its best, is not reckless revolution. It is the conviction that we should keep building a better society while we can — not freeze time out of fear.

---

Risk Tolerance Is the Real Difference

Strip away the slogans and tribal loyalties and political philosophy eventually comes down to one fundamental question:

How much risk are we willing to accept in pursuit of improvement?

Conservatism answers:
Not much. Stability matters more than improvement. Human systems break easily.

Progressivism answers:
Some risk is necessary. Human systems stagnate without reform.

The truth is not that one is always right and the other always wrong. The truth is that each is situationally wise. Healthy societies need:

• conservative instincts to keep us from blowing ourselves up

• progressive instincts to keep us from falling asleep in our comfort

But context matters.

---

When Conservatism Stops Being Conservatism

There is an additional complication in our moment: much of what calls itself “conservatism” today — especially in its MaGA form — has abandoned conservatism’s core principles entirely.

Traditional conservatism valued:

• institutions

• constitutional constraints

• civic responsibility

• moral character

• measured change

MaGA politics often values:

• disruption for its own sake

• loyalty to leaders over loyalty to law

• grievance instead of civic duty

• chaos disguised as “strength”

• rejection of expertise, tradition, and restraint

That is not conservatism. It is populist reaction, opportunism, and frequently authoritarian sympathy wrapped in conservative language. Conservatives used to see themselves as guardians of democracy. Today too many embrace rhetoric that treats democracy as legitimate only when their side wins.

So when critics argue against “conservatism,” they often are not arguing against prudence or stability. They are arguing against a movement pretending to be conservative while actively attacking the very institutional and moral principles conservatism was built to protect.

---

A Healthy Society Needs Forward Motion — and a Steady Hand

The idea I keep returning to is simple:

Conservatism works best when danger threatens collapse.
Progress works best when strength allows ambition.

Neither philosophy is evil. Neither is inherently superior in all times. But a society that forgets how to adapt dies slowly. And a society that abandons stability destroys itself quickly.

The goal should never be permanent revolutionary fever or permanent stagnation. It should be balance — with the wisdom to recognize when we need stability most, and when we should dare to build something better while we are strong enough to do so.

The tragedy of our modern politics is that we treat this as a permanent war rather than an ongoing conversation about timing, context, and responsibility.

The future belongs not to those who cling terrified to the past, and not to those who tear down merely for joy, but to those who understand that preservation and progress are not enemies.

They are tools.
And wise societies know when to use each one.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Americans Made Me Think About Our Own Failures to Protect Democracy

I'm rewatching The Americans. I really liked this show on the first run it had when it premiered in 2013.

Widely hailed as one of the greatest television series of all time, FX’s The Americans is far more than a standard spy thriller. Created by Joe Weisberg, this period drama ran for six seasons (2013–2018) and swept the awards circuit, earning Peabodys, a Golden Globe, and Primetime Emmys for its writing and lead actor Matthew Rhys. 

Set against the high-stakes backdrop of the 1980s Cold War, the series explores the lives of two KGB officers posing as an average American couple in the suburbs of D.C., blending white-knuckle espionage with a profound exploration of marriage and identity.

On the surface, The Americans is a show about the FBI vs. the KGB in the 1980s; at its core, however, it is a complex portrait of a marriage. Created by Joe Weisberg, the acclaimed FX drama follows Philip and Elizabeth Jennings (Matthew Rhys and Keri Russell), two Soviet intelligence officers hiding in plain sight as a married couple with children in Falls Church, Virginia. 

Over six seasons, the series masterfully used the Cold War as a metaphor for the conflicts of matrimony and parenthood, creating a tension that was heightened by their neighbor...an FBI counterintelligence agent.

I'm on the final sixth season, episode one, there is a scene where one of them, the wife, meets with a Soviet general in Mexico. He tells her that they have created a system wherein if the Soviet leadership is disabled, this project, "Dead Hand" will finalize the launch of missiles destroying America if they had attacked.

At that moment, she should have executed him for such a project. But that wouldn't have cut out the cancer in their system. That kind of thing was after all, part of her job, to acquire or eliminate enemies of the Soviet Union. 

He then explains that if Gorbachev attempts to negotiate away this doomsday system in exchange for Reagan’s Star Wars program, elements within the Soviet military would be prepared to remove him from power. In other words, they were willing to overthrow their own legally installed leader simply to preserve their grip on a failing system.

Execution or coup, the method of removal is left unspoken. History would soon prove that such threats were not empty. A failed coup attempt came only a few years later, accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union and setting the stage for Vladimir Putin to take power in 1999, eventually becoming the despotic, aggressively imperial leader we see today.

She should have executed the general in that moment. He is after all, describing himself and his cohorts as criminal. For the fictional world of the USSR in that time period, it would have been the best course of action, and arguably in the interest of humanity. But history and human behavior rarely align with what might be morally necessary. 

She did not execute the General. Instead, the scene slowly allows the music to overpower the Russian dialogue, while the English subtitles keep revealing the message. It becomes clear that Elizabeth Jennings (Russian name, "Nadezhda", played by Kari Russell) understands exactly what she is hearing. She absorbs the full weight of it. 

Yet rather than act for a greater human good, of that of the Soviet, she accepts the general’s orders as a good soldier and chooses loyalty to the system over responsibility to the world. In the series, it is implied by the nature of the series at that stage, that the role of responsibility to a greater good will likely fall to her husband, Philip Jennings (Russian name, "Mischa", played by Matthew Rhys), who has always leaned that direction. Thus, setting up the heightened dramatic conflict between the primary characters, throughout the season's series finale.

Why do I mention all this? Because I really like this show. But further, because it points out a flaw in our system.

Donald Trump. When we realized he was a threat to this country, and others, that should have been enough to end his rise. And yet, it not only did not stop it, it fueled it. When it later time and time again because apparent and paramount that he be stopped or removed, he continued to rise. 

Two impeachments, being fired as POTUS45, convicted of 34 felonies, all did not stop him from becoming yet again, an American president as POTUS47. Both are top rated worst presidents in history.

Yet he remains at this time, so far, president of the United States of America, in a country thoroughly inappropriate for such a man.

So what am I saying here? I'm not making a call to action. Certainly nothing immoral or illegal, or even unconstitutional.

THAT'S how we GOT here in the first place.

What The Americans dramatizes so brilliantly is not simply ideology or geopolitics, but failure. 

The failure to recognize danger when it presents itself. The failure to confront rot when it spreads. The failure of people and systems to act when acting still matters. That is not a Soviet flaw. That is a human flaw. And it is one we, as Americans, have now lived through in real time.

Donald Trump did not rise in a vacuum. He did not endure because of one man’s will alone. He endured because far too many of us underestimated the danger, excused it, normalized it, or convinced ourselves that our institutions were strong enough to absorb anything. They were not. We were not. Inappropriate application of pressure at just the right pressure points and an autocracy rises to near fruition. 

And the price of that collective failure is the reality we are living through now.

I am not advocating violence. 

I am not calling for revenge. 

I am not arguing for anything outside the moral and legal framework of a civilized society. What I am saying, and what this show helped crystallize for me, is that democracies do not crumble simply because something dark appears. They crumble because people hesitate, rationalize, and allow that darkness to keep breathing. Or they simply "follow orders" (See, Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals).

Also check out two very good podcasts: Burn Order and Bag Man. Both make it very clear we've seen this all, before.

But the story does not have to end this way.

If The Americans teaches anything beyond espionage and tragedy, it is that systems can change, people can awaken, and moral clarity, even if it arrives late, still matters. Our responsibility now is not to wallow in despair or pretend none of this happened. It is to be honest about where we failed. It is to refuse complacency. 

It is to reclaim the basic expectations we once held of leadership, truth, and civic responsibility.

That is why I am writing this. Not only because The Americans is great television, but because it reminds us that the line between fiction and history is far thinner than we like to admit. 

Recognizing our part in that story is the first step toward writing a better one.

And despite everything, I still believe we can.

We are evolving…politically, culturally, socially. The Right is changing. The Left is changing. Government and citizens alike are being forced to confront pluralism not as something distant or theoretical, but as a lived reality. It is here, now.

Multiple paradigm shifts compressed into just a few years have created strain and fracture: a Digital–Information Shift, an Economic and Class Shift, a Cultural and Identity Shift, an Institutional Trust Shift, a Technology and Reality Shift.

That strain is real. But fractures do not have to become permanent breaks. We can resolve this…if we choose to do it together. To heal together.

The greatest danger comes from those who want us divided, who refuse to accept a pluralistic America and cling to rigid hierarchy, fear, and a romanticized past instead of a shared future.

They do not define our destiny unless we let them. Our strength has always come from expanding who “we” are.

We are E Pluribus Unum…From Many, One.

We have been pushed to forget that.

It is time to remember.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Is Patriotism Something Other Than What Most of Us Believed?

For most of our lives, “patriotism” felt like a straightforward idea. It meant love of country, respect for democratic principles, support for the Constitution, and a shared responsibility to something larger than ourselves. Today, however, the word feels contested...twisted, weaponized, and bent into shapes that often resemble the very opposite of what many of us were raised to believe patriotism meant.

How absurd have our politics become, especially under Donald Trump? Pretty damn absurd. And dangerously so. Ignorance has been encouraged, rewarded, and exploited. 

And layered over it all are the lies...constant, relentless, reality-warping lies.

The uncomfortable truth is simple:

Patriotism has always had competing meanings.

And now, they have crashed into one another in full public view.

How did we get to this point where Americans have to worry about whether our own democracy will survive? What happened to the Republican Party?

HOW can so many within it be so blind to the threat THEY'RE Enabling?

That my friends, is for another article and another time and has already been discussed here many times. This is another consideration based in the foundation of all that.

---

Two Patriotic Traditions — Only One Defends Democracy

1. Civic Patriotism

This is the patriotism of democracy, pluralism, accountability, and the rule of law. It understands that the most loyal citizens are not the quiet ones who salute uncritically, but the ones who demand honesty, confront corruption, and insist that our institutions live up to their promises.

This is the America many of us believed in. The America that expects citizens to protect democracy by participating in it honestly.

2. Tribal or Nationalist Patriotism

This patriotism is different. It is not anchored in principles, but in identity, resentment, and loyalty to a leader, tribe, or grievance. It prioritizes dominance over equality, mythology over truth, and obedience over responsibility. It thrives on anger. It is highly emotional and easily manipulated precisely because it demands loyalty instead of accountability.

One version of patriotism protects a nation and its democratic soul.
The other protects a myth—and the people who profit from that myth.

We are living through the collision between these two ideas of America.

---

This Did Not Come Out of Nowhere

The angry minority now shaping so much of our politics did not simply appear. It has been simmering for decades. You could see it in movements like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the militia boom of the 1990s. But even that was not the beginning.

It is rooted in something older: unresolved Civil War grievances, cultural resentment, and a romanticized myth of “real America” defined against everyone else.

This was not patriotism. It was grievance wearing patriotism’s clothing.

Eventually, that culture found a political vessel in Donald Trump. He did not invent it. He recognized it, exploited it, fed it, and empowered it. And while he was doing so, Russian state-backed disinformation networks amplified the fracture lines already inside our country. Intelligence assessments and independent investigations have repeatedly made this clear: Russian information operations existed before Trump, intensified once he emerged, and deliberately worked to inflame division and elevate him.

Russia did not create the resentment.
It simply poured gasoline on the fire.

---

Turning Fringe Extremism Into “Mainstream Patriotism”

Before social media, these ideas lived in fringe newsletters, conspiracy radio, and underground spaces that most Americans rarely saw. They were monitored by law enforcement, noted by journalists, but mostly isolated.

Then technology changed.
Then politics changed.
Then power changed hands.

Coordinated digital propaganda campaigns pretending to be everyday conservative Americans began to push disinformation and grievance narratives into mainstream right-wing discourse. Soon these talking points were echoed on Fox News, then repeated by newer propaganda platforms like Newsmax and OAN. What was once fringe became branded as “normal conservative thought.”

Trump didn’t just ride that movement.
He weaponized it.

And suddenly, patriotism itself was rewritten by people who confuse loyalty to a leader with loyalty to a nation.

---

So What Does Patriotism Mean Now?

We return to the central question.

Patriotism has always had two meanings:

• One rooted in democratic values, accountability, and truth.

• One rooted in grievance, identity, and obedience to mythology or strongman authority.

The latter is not patriotism. It is a distortion of patriotism. And right now, it is being used to normalize authoritarian behavior in the United States.

Patriotism worthy of the name is not loyalty to a man.
It is loyalty to the country he swore to serve.

---

Where We Stand Today

Now we once again find Donald Trump in the Oval Office, and patriotism has taken on yet another meaning. Today, patriotism means defending the Constitution from those who would bend or break it. It means resisting efforts to erode democratic norms and gaslight the nation into accepting authoritarian behavior as normal, inevitable, or harmless.

Real patriotism is not blind loyalty.
It is a commitment to truth, to law, and to democracy itself.

We cannot surrender the meaning of patriotism to those who seek power through fear, division, and false nostalgia. The way forward requires choosing the version of patriotism that protects people, not ego; democracy, not authoritarianism; reality, not myth.

If patriotism is to matter at all, it must mean loyalty to America — not loyalty to anyone determined to damage it.

We need to be better. And we need to do it fast.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Poorer Citizens, Richer Corporations Equals a Poorer Nation Overall

Originally, companies, now massive corporations, have been exploiting our nation since the Great Depression. The groundwork for this was set at America’s founding. And somehow, we have been thanking them for it. Why?

I've talked about this recently: Corporate Thought - The Corporation, 14 Years Later: The Thought That Ate the World

As corporations have taken more and more profits from both the public and the government, our nation has invested less and less in the things that sustain us. Our infrastructure, education, and public health have all been left behind. 

To distract us, corporate interests have pushed one of our major political parties to make tax cuts a priority. The claim is that it helps people keep more of their income, but in truth that income has already been rerouted to corporations. The result is a government that can no longer keep up with the demands of time or the needs of its people.

Look around. Bridges are failing. Roads are deteriorating. Schools are outdated and struggling to meet global standards. Ignorance is rising, and people are teaching their children that evolution is a lie and that the world is only 6,800 years old. How do you think that happens? Because we have stopped investing in knowledge, in science, and in progress.

We must pay our taxes, not as a burden but as an act of shared responsibility. Government needs to function properly so it can maintain what individuals and corporations will not. That also means people must be able to live decently, earn enough to build and improve their lives, and still contribute fairly to the system that supports us all.

Meanwhile, monopolies are reappearing, even though laws were written to prevent them. Comcast’s merger with Time Warner, two of the lowest-rated companies for service, shows how consolidation limits competition and degrades quality. In too many cities, one company controls access to the internet, entertainment, and communication. Many of these providers also own the content they deliver. That does not create progress. It creates control.

Monopolies do not exist to make our lives better. That is what governments are for. Corporations exist to make shareholders richer. Governments should never serve that purpose.

Speak. Complain. Protest. Serve. Until government becomes what it was meant to be: a force for the common good.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Corporate Thought - The Corporation, 14 Years Later: The Thought That Ate the World

Back in 2011, I wrote a blog (Occupy Your World - 2011) that “The Corporation” — or more precisely, Corporate Thought — had infected our culture like a cancer. I first started talking about it when I graduated university in 1984. My older brother asked me, "OK, so what did you learn? What should I be watching out for?" I thought it an odd question as I'd learned so much. But I thought about it said, "The corporations. More than countries, start watching them closely." 

A decade later he reminded me of that conversation and said I had been correct.

I warned that what began as a legal fiction designed to organize production and protect owners had metastasized into something more insidious: a mindset. A way of thinking that valued profit above all else, even above life itself.

Fourteen years later, I wish I’d been wrong.

Corporate Thought: The Quiet Religion of the 21st Century

In 2011, “Corporate Thought” was still something you could name without being laughed out of the room. Now it’s simply the default. Governments are run by CEOs or those who want to be one. Schools teach “personal branding” before civics. Healthcare is optimized for shareholders, not patients. The human being — that messy, emotional, unquantifiable thing — is now a data point, a “user,” a metric to be mined.

When I said Corporate Thought had infected our culture, I didn’t realize how fully it would colonize our language. We don’t even talk like citizens anymore — we talk like middle managers. “Scalability.” “Monetize.” “Brand loyalty.” “ROI.” We talk about people like products, and about products like people.

The result is a society incapable of moral imagination. Everything must perform. Everything must scale. Even compassion must show “impact.”

It didn’t stop at business. Corporate Thought crept into our schools and our churches — the very places meant to nurture minds and souls, not markets. Education now functions like a corporate training pipeline, producing “career-ready” workers instead of critically thinking citizens. Metrics replaced curiosity. Creativity got labeled “disruptive.” Children learn early that compliance earns approval, and questioning the system is a liability.

Religion fared no better. Many congregations now resemble franchises more than faiths, with branding strategies, merchandise tables, and “growth targets.” The gospel of compassion has been quietly repackaged as the gospel of prosperity — salvation by way of quarterly performance. Even worship feels algorithmic: lights, music cues, applause. It’s Corporate Thought wrapped in stained glass, a business model disguised as belief.

And from that corporatized faith grew something even more dangerous: the merger of evangelicalism with nationalism, a branding campaign that sold political power as divine right. What began as moral language twisted into a management strategy for control — a way to sanctify hierarchy and erase dissent. Christian nationalism has invaded government, law enforcement, even the military, wrapping political ambition in the language of salvation. It’s not faith guiding policy anymore; it’s ideology masquerading as religion, a corporate hostile takeover of the sacred and the state alike.

The 2011 Blog Was Right About Healthcare

I wrote in 2011 that the healthcare system wasn’t “broken” — it was working exactly as designed: for profit. That’s still true. Only now it’s turbocharged by private equity, algorithmic triage, and “wellness metrics” that rank you as a risk before you’ve even sneezed.

Corporate Thought turned medicine into a business plan, and that plan has eaten the doctor’s soul.

Work, Life, and the Vanishing Dream

I also asked in 2011 why we couldn’t have four-day workweeks, long vacations, early retirements. The answer came, loud and clear: Because there’s no profit in it. 

Government should work not just to protect but to better the lives of its citizens.

Today, “work-life balance” is a marketing phrase for apps that track your pulse while you sleep. The same corporations that stole our time now sell it back to us as “wellness subscriptions.” The dream of retiring at 50 has become the nightmare of gigging at 70.

And About Cannabis…

Here, at least, there was progress — partial, imperfect, but real. Cannabis is now legal in most of the U.S. and globally normalized. You called it in 2011: the end of prohibition was inevitable. It just took a few more waves of economic desperation and corporate co-opting.

But even this victory has a shadow. The “Green Rush” was quickly absorbed by — yes — corporate thought. Weed is now a billion-dollar commodity owned by the same conglomerates that lobbied to criminalize it decades ago. The revolution was branded and sold back to us in recyclable packaging.

2025: The Year of Reckoning

We are now watching hopefully the final stages of Corporate Thought — its own self-consumption. The planet, the workforce, and the markets are exhausted. Climate lawsuits are coming for Big Oil. Antitrust is back in political vocabulary. Unions are rising again, not because of ideology but necessity. The machine is running out of parts.

And yet, people are remembering what you hinted at in 2011: that it’s not corporations themselves that destroy us, but our obedience to their logic. The quiet surrender of our humanity to “efficiency.”

Maybe, Just Maybe…

In 2011, I ended by saying, “Maybe, lighten up. Better times may be just ahead.” At the time, we had President Obama — and another term to follow in 2012. Democracy felt steady, even hopeful. But beneath that optimism, darker forces were gathering. 

Those shadows finally erupted under Trump as POTUS45, were held at bay during the Biden years, and have now returned under a criminal Trump POTUS47 administration — a test of whether American democracy can survive the very forces it once empowered. 

In 2025, I’d say: maybe wake up. Better minds may be just ahead. With the election of November 5th, 2025, hope springs up as the authoritarian, the Corporate Thought, is being restrained and hopefully made more aware in the general populace and we'll finally get this all under control. The old guard is too old, their beliefs outdated. 

We need to let younger minds rise and give them space to lead — to move forward where we’ve stalled. The goal isn’t to turn government into communism or socialism, but to finally let it become what it was meant to be: not a servant of toxic capitalism, cronyism, or broken conservatism, but a true instrument of democracy and the common good.

The same revolution we needed then. back in 2011 — moral, cultural, not merely economic — is still waiting. 

The question is whether we’ll take it before Corporate Thought finishes digesting its host. US.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

A Brief History Lesson in Gamesmanship

During World Wars I and II, warfare evolved in ways that dragged humanity into a new, darker modernity. War was no longer a so-called “gentleman’s affair” governed by rules, honor, or decency. While laws of war existed, they often came too late—and were just as often bent or broken.

For instance, strafing enemy soldiers from the air—once deemed unconscionable—became standard practice. Killing sleeping soldiers in their barracks had previously been viewed as dishonorable, yet even that taboo faded. Poison gas, banned after World War I, was still stockpiled and researched. The deliberate firebombing of civilian cities like Dresden and Tokyo blurred the line between military necessity and civilian massacre. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced the world to accept the normalization of mass civilian casualties under the guise of ending war. Starvation blockades, torture of prisoners, summary executions—once considered beyond the pale—became “necessary evils.” The justifications? “War is war,” “All's fair,” and, of course, the ever-abused “fog of war.”

After WWII, the world held the Nuremberg Trials in an attempt to cement those moral lines into law—hoping to keep nations, leaders, and military officers accountable. But the erosion had already begun. The idea that “winning at any cost” was acceptable had seeped into military doctrine—and beyond. That made sense. War is indeed war, after all. When war evokes the need to counter existential threat, it becomes necessary. The enemy requires no need for care, or humanity.

Over time, that mindset filtered into politics. It took root in authoritarian regimes and was exploited by dictators. And in the 1990s, it found fertile ground in America. Newt Gingrich, borrowing ideas shaped by Soviet-era KGB tactics, brought a zero-sum mentality to the Republican Party: not compromise, but conquest. Not debate, but destruction.

This opened the door for someone like Donald Trump, who weaponized narcissism, division, and ruthless gamesmanship. The goal became winning—not for the nation, but for the tribe. “Us vs. them” thinking replaced any remaining notion of shared sacrifice or civic responsibility. The harm done to others no longer mattered—as long as “we” weren’t the ones paying the price.

Much like corporate thinking and evangelism—two ideologies that fused, then spread beyond their originations—this mindset infected religious institutions, corporations, and eventually government, schools, and media. "Winning at all costs" became a replicable strategy. It permitted despicable things. Lying to the public became de rigueur. Cheating, breaking laws, ignoring the Constitution, demanding loyalty to a single person—but not offering loyalty in return—became normalized.

This is, at least, understandable in war. When facing an enemy from another country who attacked you, responding with equal or greater force can be morally rationalized. War demands hard choices. But here's the rub:

When those tactics are used within your own country, against your fellow citizens, that is not acceptable. That’s not just politics—it borders on treason. It is seditious. It is insurrectionist.

So what else could it be?

It is betrayal—plain and simple.

A betrayal of our founding ideals.
A betrayal of our neighbors.
A betrayal of truth, law, and common decency.

When war tactics are turned inward—used not to defend a nation but to dominate its people—it ceases to be politics.
It becomes sabotage.
It becomes psychological warfare.
It becomes treason wearing a flag pin.

And make no mistake:
It doesn’t end with victory. It ends with ruin.
It ends with democracy hollowed out, flying its colors while forgetting its soul.

This isn’t strategy.
It’s surrender—surrendering integrity for power, country for control, future for the fleeting thrill of the win.

And unless we name it, call it what it is, and confront it with courage—
It will become not just the past we failed to learn from,
But the future we allowed to be stolen.

That brings us back to the modern Republican Party.

They are no longer playing politics—they're playing war, and not against foreign enemies, but against fellow Americans. Against truth. Against democracy itself. Gingrich may have lit the match, but others carried the torch straight into the halls of Congress—and then into the Capitol rotunda on January 6th.

So what do we do?

We refuse to meet their fire with silence.
We expose the lies.
We vote like our country depends on it—because it does.
We push accountability, not just for the figureheads, but for every enabler, every cynic hiding behind a flag while gutting what it stands for.
We make decency louder than cruelty, and truth stronger than fear.

Because if we don’t reclaim the rules, they’ll burn the gameboard.

And then call it a win.

---

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

From "Mein Führer" My 2015 Blog to Now: The American Mistake Unfolding

Happy Juneteenth! On a day that honors delayed justice and hard-won freedom, it's worth remembering: history doesn't just repeat—it often rhymes with a darker verse. Back in 2015, I warned about the disturbing echoes between Trump's rise and a past we swore we'd never repeat. Today, that warning feels less like a cautionary tale and more like a prophecy ignored.

OK then...

I was just wondering, in this blog I started back in 2010, what's my earliest mention of the guy who has taken up so much of the air in the room, nationally and internationally: Donald J Trump? I found what I think is my oldest blog on him.

On November 20, 2015, I published a blog titled On Mein Führer Donald Trump and American Mistakes. He wasn't yet POTUS45, hadn't yet been elected until November 8, 2016. It was written in the wake of Trump proposing a national registry for Muslims—an idea that echoed a disturbing historical precedent. It marked the beginning of his descent into overt authoritarianism, a path he’d been edging toward his entire life, though most of us hadn’t yet recognized it.

At the time, some dismissed the comparison to fascism as hyperbole. Much as we heard for year when making an accurate observation of Donald Trump that "You're just a Trump hater!" Or, "You have TDS!" A condition I quickly pointed out when I got sick of hearing, that only a Trump supporter can acquire Trump Derangement (or Delusion) Syndrome.

But here in 2025, after a failed coup attempt, a Supreme Court stacked for ideology, and threats of authoritarian project plans like “Project 2025,” it’s clear the warnings weren’t extreme—they were early. This isn’t just about Trump anymore. It’s about how many Americans welcomed or ignored the transformation of our democracy into something far more fragile.

In 2015, I wrote about Donald Trump’s call for a Muslim registry. It sounded absurd. Un-American. Even surreal. Yet I knew history well enough to recognize the shape of the storm. Trump’s rhetoric wasn’t just bluster—it was blueprint.

Fast forward to 2025, and the warnings have aged like radiation. We didn’t just flirt with authoritarianism—we invited it in, gave it a beer, and handed it the nuclear codes. Twice.

Trump didn't need to gaslight the nation all at once. He did it slowly. Through birther conspiracies. Through cries of "fake news." Through flattery of dictators and contempt for allies. Through normalizing the idea that cruelty is strength and truth is optional. And far too many nodded along.

I once asked: What if Hitler never killed anyone, just “managed” the dangerous people? It was a rhetorical stab in 2015. But in 2025, it reads like a thesis statement. Trump didn’t need death camps. He had executive orders, stacked courts, and loyalists ready to purge agencies of dissenters under the banner of “Project 2025.”

We told ourselves a businessman could run the country better. But a nation isn’t a company—it’s a people. A messy, sacred, volatile people. You don’t “optimize” a democracy by streamlining rights or outsourcing humanity. You govern it with care. With checks, balances, and inconvenient truths.

Instead, we got a CEO of cruelty, and a political class so addicted to power that they let him gut the very idea of a republic.

And here we are.

Back then, I wrote a satirical list of wars worth fighting:

• A war on ignorance (Kill Fox News, open schools).

• A war on fake wars—on drugs, on immigrants, on “woke.”

• A war on abusing the First Amendment while silencing the rest.

• A war on those who call social progress a war on them.

That list hasn’t aged. It’s matured. Because we now live in a country where banning books is patriotic, where gerrymandering is a survival tactic, and where voting rights are eroded with surgical precision—all while we pretend it’s just “politics as usual.”

What’s changed most is how open it all is now. They’re not hiding it. They’re declaring it. Project 2025 lays it out in detail: fire civil servants, centralize executive power, dismantle protections for marginalized groups. This isn’t theoretical. It’s planned.

So yes, I was angry in 2015. But in 2025, I’m alarmed—and exhausted.

But not finished.

Because if we ever stop naming the danger, we start accepting it. And authoritarianism thrives on silence.

---

We still have a chance to change course. But let’s be honest—it’s no longer about stopping Trump. It’s about rejecting the America that wanted him. That still does. But also, acquiring them back into the fold, as Trump, will not last.

We can’t afford to keep mistaking the performance of strength for real leadership, or mistaking cruelty for conviction.

We need a war—not on people—but on complacency. On indifference. On historical amnesia. Actually, I despise that "we need a warn on..." nonsense and I've spoken on that before, often.

It’s the language of overcompensation. Of a culture that can’t solve a problem without militarizing it. We don’t need more wars, metaphorical or real. What we need is resolve. Memory. Collective responsibility.

Part of our problem today is too many exaggerating too much. IF we just all tried to be accurate and deal only in facts, so much of our disabled culture would rectify almost instantly. That very phrase “war on …” betrays the deeper illness: we’ve taught ourselves to communicate through exaggeration.

If we could all take a step back—strip away the spin, the fearmongering, the tribal loyalty—and just deal in facts, honestly and consistently, so much of our broken culture would begin to self-correct.

Reality is hard enough. We don’t need to distort it to make our point. We need to face it, together.

Maybe it’s not a war we need, but a reckoning. A willingness to face what we’ve become—and what we still might be, if we finally grow up.

Because if we don't fight that, we’ve already surrendered.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Trump Presidency of Lowered Expectations

The Presidency of Lowered Expectations: How Trump Turned Failing Upward Into a Feature, Not a Flaw

Most of us never imagined we’d end up in an America led by such a petty, thin-skinned criminal.
What’s even more surreal is how many toxic personalities rally behind him—people who, under any other circumstance, would mock a man so performatively fragile.

It’s stunning. It's sad.

When exactly did we start electing leaders who, instead of exceeding our expectations, keeps lowering the bar—as Trump does—seemingly by the minute?

Let’s never forget who—and what—we’re dealing with when it comes to Donald Trump: a man whose criminal tendencies and psychological instability I detailed in a previous blog post that resonated widely.

Devaluation Disguised—When Control Hides Behind Concern: Donald Trump

What is THAT article about? Well... it analyzes a (mental aberration and) tactic used by Donald Trump known as "covert devaluation." A strategy that involves making subtle, demeaning comments to undermine others' confidence and establish dominance. Examples are included from Trump's interactions with various individuals, illustrating how he employs psychological tactics such as devaluation, passive-aggression, and gaslighting. 

The article contrasts Trump's behavior towards perceived weaker individuals with his more deferential approach to authoritarian leaders, highlighting his narcissistic need for power. Ultimately, I express a strong aversion to Trump, not only for his political views but also for his (lack of) character and (despicable) treatment of others, offering insights into the psychological (and pathological) mechanisms behind Trump's ill behavior.

Trump’s covert devaluation of everything around him—truth, institutions, norms, even language—is often mistaken for strategy. But in reality, it reflects his psychological makeup more than any calculated plan. It’s also why some mistake his unfocused, contradictory actions and statements for “genius”: he simply throws everything at the wall, then sticks with whatever gains traction or applause.

At first glance, it may seem like a political tactic: lowering expectations so consistently that corruption, incompetence, and cruelty become mundane. But this isn’t chess—it’s a compulsive pattern. Trump doesn’t just devalue others to consolidate power; he does it reflexively, because he needs to.

This behavior is rooted in:

• Narcissistic fragility – Others must be diminished for him to feel big.

• Insecurity masked as dominance – He attacks anything he doesn’t understand or control.

• Cognitive dissonance aversion – Rather than reflect or adapt, he redefines success downward to match failure.

While some aides and enablers may try to frame it all as “strategy”—after all, Trump is in the Oval Office, and not everyone around him is a fool—the truth is more chaotic and disturbing. Yes, he surrounds himself with sycophants, but even smart people can’t steer a man driven by impulse and grievance. It’s not a master plan—it’s pathology masquerading as politics. And the damage is real, even when the intent isn’t coherent.

Moving on...

Remember when we used to elect presidents hoping they’d rise to the occasion? That they’d surprise us with depth, courage, leadership—even if we didn’t vote for them? Somewhere along the line, that dynamic reversed. Today, particularly with figures like Donald Trump, the phenomenon feels inverted: the longer they’re in office, the lower our expectations sink. 

And somehow, bizarrely, that’s become part of the appeal.

A Broken Feedback Loop

Presidents used to be measured by how well they adapted to the weight of the office. Lincoln and FDR were tested by crisis and became legends. Even recent presidents—Obama, George H.W. Bush, even Nixon—were assessed by their ability to balance power with responsibility. The system wasn’t perfect, but it expected a certain upward trajectory, or at least a competent plateau.

Enter Trump: a man whose supporters don't seem to care if he governs competently, tells the truth, or respects democratic institutions. In fact, for many, the lack of those traits is exactly why they voted for him.

What we’re watching isn’t leadership. It’s a degradation of standards so thorough that merely reading a speech without slurring, or not insulting a foreign leader that day, is treated like a triumph.

This line appears in the section where the Founders list grievances against King George III, justifying the colonies’ decision to break away from British rule.

How Did We Get Here?

This shift didn’t begin with Trump, but he weaponized it in a way that no one else had the audacity—or nihilism—to attempt.

• Post-Watergate Disillusionment: After Nixon’s resignation, Americans became deeply cynical about government. That disillusionment never healed. Instead, it became a breeding ground for anti-establishment sentiment.

• The Rise of the “Folksy Outsider”: Reagan, Bush II, even Palin played the role of the relatable outsider. But they still engaged with policy, institutions, and norms. Trump took the performance further—he turned disengagement into defiance and ignorance into authenticity.

• Media Saturation & Scandal Fatigue: Trump’s strategy of flooding the zone with chaos numbed the public. What would be a multi-week scandal for any other president—say, calling veterans “suckers and losers,” or suggesting bleach injections—was just Tuesday for Trump. With outrage exhausted, expectations dropped by necessity.

• Partisan Armor: In a hyper-polarized era, many voters don’t defend Trump's actions—they defend their identity. And admitting Trump failed would mean admitting they were wrong. It’s easier to move the goalposts than face that mirror.

The Dangerous Appeal of the Low Bar

Trump isn’t just surviving despite lowered expectations—he thrives on them. When nothing is expected, the smallest gesture is praised. This is how you get media headlines like “Trump Acts Presidential in Address” simply because he read a teleprompter without going off-script.

This inversion of accountability is corrosive. It:

• Rewards failure if it’s cloaked in bravado.

• Punishes nuance as weakness.

• Normalizes dysfunction.

And perhaps worst of all: it redefines leadership as nothing more than domination, spectacle, and ego.

Examples. Trump's Pardon Attorney: "No MaGA Left Behind."

In 2025, President Donald Trump issued multiple controversial pardons that have drawn significant criticism. Why pardon these people? Trump sees himself in them, in his own forms of criminality.

Here are some of the most contentious:

---

1. Todd and Julie Chrisley – Reality TV Stars Convicted of Fraud

Trump granted full pardons to Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality TV show Chrisley Knows Best. In 2022, they were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion, having defrauded banks of at least $30 million by submitting false documents. Todd was sentenced to 12 years, and Julie to 7 years in prison. The pardons were announced by their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, a vocal Trump supporter who had campaigned for their release. Critics, including Ana Navarro on The View, condemned the pardons as unethical and indicative of corruption. 

---

2. James Callahan – Union Leader Convicted of Failing to Report Gifts

James Callahan, former president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, received a full pardon from Trump on the eve of his sentencing. Callahan had pleaded guilty to failing to report $315,000 in gifts from a company that did business with the union. Prosecutors had recommended a six-month prison sentence. The pardon was unexpected, especially since Callahan's union had endorsed President Biden in the 2023 election. 

---

3. Scott Jenkins – Former Virginia Sheriff Convicted of Bribery

Trump pardoned Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, who was convicted in December 2024 on multiple counts of bribery and honest services fraud. Jenkins had accepted over $75,000 in bribes in exchange for appointing individuals as auxiliary deputy sheriffs. He was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in March 2025. The pardon was granted just before Jenkins was due to begin his sentence. 

---

4. Consideration of Pardons for Convicted Plotters in Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Case

President Trump has indicated he is considering pardons for Barry Croft Jr. and Adam Fox, the ringleaders convicted in the 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The two were sentenced in 2022 to over 19 and 16 years, respectively, for conspiring to kidnap and use weapons of mass destruction. Trump described the trial as a "railroad job" and suggested the men may have simply made "stupid" remarks while under the influence of alcohol. 

---

5. Pardons for January 6 Capitol Riot Participants

On January 20, 2025, immediately after taking office for his second term, President Trump granted clemency to approximately 1,500 individuals charged or convicted for their roles in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. This included full pardons for prominent figures such as Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys and Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers, both of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The mass pardons have been widely criticized as undermining the rule of law and accountability. 

6. Pardon for convicted drug trafficker Jonathan Braun, and child abuser

President Donald Trump granted clemency to Jonathan Braun, a convicted drug trafficker, who was later arrested for assaulting a 3-year-old child.

In 2019, Braun was sentenced to 10 years in prison for smuggling over 100,000 kilograms of marijuana into the U.S. from Canada. In January 2021, Trump commuted Braun's sentence, leading to his early release. 

Following his release, Braun faced multiple legal issues. In March 2025, he was arrested and charged with several offenses, including assaulting a 3-year-old child. According to court documents, during a Sabbath event at his home, Braun punched a man in the face and then shoved his 3-year-old son to the ground, causing a red mark on the child's back. 

Braun's post-commutation conduct has raised concerns about the vetting process for presidential clemency and the potential risks of granting clemency to individuals with histories of violent behavior.

Here are a few other controversial pardons issued by Donald Trump:

• Steve Bannon

• Bernard Kerik

• Dinesh D’Souza

• Joe Arpaio

• Michael Milken

• Rod Blagojevich

• Charles Kushner

• George Papadopoulos

• Roger Stone

• Paul Manafort

---

These actions have intensified debates over the use of presidential pardon powers, with critics arguing that they reflect a pattern of favoritism toward political allies and supporters, raising concerns about the integrity of the justice system.

David Frum has characterized the Trump administration's corruption as being on a scale comparable to that of a post-Soviet republic or a postcolonial African dictatorship. In a recent episode of The David Frum Show, he stated:

“This is American corruption on the scale of a post-Soviet republic or a postcolonial African dictatorship.”

Frum elaborated that the extent of self-enrichment and the brazenness of the actions taken by the administration are unprecedented in American history, likening them to the corruption seen in authoritarian regimes.

He further emphasized that the scale of financial gain by the president and his family, through ventures such as meme-coin sales and foreign-financed golf courses, cannot be compared to any previous American administration. Frum noted:

“The scale of the self-enrichment—billions of dollars flowing to the president and his family, not just from American donors, which would be shocking enough, but from people all over the world—this can’t be compared to anything in American history. It’s more like something from a post-Soviet republic or a postcolonial African state.” 

These statements underscore Frum's view that the Trump administration's actions represent a level of corruption more akin to that found in certain authoritarian regimes than in any prior U.S. presidency.

There’s another disturbing layer to all this: Trump didn’t cause the rise of authoritarianism—he rode it. That’s what he does. He finds a flaw, then leans into it. Is that genius? No. It’s a lazy, destructive tactic long favored by the narcissistic and the criminal. He became POTUS45 in a world already tilting that way. Don’t kid yourself—Russia, under Putin, has spent decades undermining democracies. And it’s working.

At the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) events in Europe, particularly in Hungary and Poland, CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp emphasized the global expansion of the MAGA movement and expressed concerns about perceived authoritarianism from international institutions.

In an interview with NPR, Schlapp stated:

"I felt like America's institutions were definitely in an autocratic slide. I felt like people who have CPAC-type values couldn't get a fair shake in the major national media... I've talked to tons of Hungarians who feel like it's Brussels that are the autocrats, it's the U.N. that are the autocrats, it's the WHO that are the autocrats that tell doctors how they should prescribe medicine." 

He further noted the international interest in Trump's policies, saying:

"The one thing that's undeniable is that everybody wants to know where Donald Trump is on the issues that matter to their country. They're really rooting for Donald Trump to succeed." 

Schlapp also highlighted the proliferation of Trump support abroad:

"When I go to these countries, I'm always shocked. Poland: a lot of Trump hats. This is what's happening all around the world." 

These statements reflect Schlapp's perspective that global institutions are perceived by some as authoritarian, and that there's a growing international alignment with the MAGA movement's ideals.

Matt Schlapp’s comments about MaGA support growing internationally—like seeing Trump hats in Poland or hearing that the UN, WHO, and Brussels are the “autocrats”—reveal just how deep he is inside a right-wing information bubble. Yes, there’s been a coordinated global rise of nationalist, illiberal movements—but interpreting that as a grassroots global revolt against “autocracy” is a complete inversion of reality.

Authoritarian regimes and illiberal leaders—from Hungary’s Orbán to Russia’s Putin—have openly attacked democratic norms, stifled press freedom, and weakened judicial independence. When CPAC aligns itself with these figures and Schlapp calls them the ones fighting autocracy, he’s flipping the script: casting democracy defenders as the tyrants, and the actual authoritarians as freedom fighters.

It’s a narrative warped by ideology and self-interest, not fact. He’s not observing a spontaneous world movement toward freedom—he’s helping manufacture and market an illusion that justifies erosion of liberal democracy under the banner of “saving” it.

What Are We Losing?

When expectations decay, so does civic responsibility. We become a culture of enablers, cheering mediocrity or worse, as long as it “owns the libs” or feeds our own political appetite. We stop demanding growth, intelligence, integrity. We settle for bluster and cruelty masquerading as strength.

And the bar keeps falling.

Can We Reverse It?

Yes—but only if we stop accepting theater as governance. If we stop measuring “success” by who can yell loudest or trigger the opposition hardest. And if we return to the basic idea that public office is not a show, it’s a service.

Presidents are not supposed to “disrupt” just for the sake of disruption. They're supposed to rise—to crises, to compassion, to the occasion.

It's long past time we start electing leaders who want to elevate the nation, not themselves.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT