Corporate Thought: The Ideology That Ate Everything

Here’s a clean, publish-ready blog you can drop straight onto your site or Substack. It’s written as an essay, not a rant—meant to name the thing clearly and leave readers unsettled rather than shouted at.

---

Corporate Thought: The Ideology That Ate Everything

Decades ago, I started using a phrase that felt obvious but slightly out of step with the language of the time: corporate thought.

I didn’t mean “corporations are bad.” I meant something more insidious: a mode of thinking—a way of processing reality—that treats human systems as if they were balance sheets, people as if they were assets, and morality as if it were a liability.

Back then, it mostly lived where you’d expect: boardrooms, management culture, shareholder reports. Today, it’s everywhere.

Schools.
Government.
Religion.
Media.
Politics.

And once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

What Corporate Thought Is (and Isn’t)

Corporate thought is not capitalism. Capitalism can coexist with ethics, creativity, and human judgment.

Corporate thought is capitalism stripped of conscience and inflated into a worldview.

Its traits are consistent:

• Outcomes matter only if they reinforce power

• Process matters more than purpose

• Compliance matters more than competence

• Punishment matters more than effectiveness

• Winning matters more than legitimacy

It is obsessed with control, not results—though it will insist those are the same thing.

The Ritual Over the Result

A perfect illustration appears in Breaking Bad.

In the show, a subordinate is told to eliminate a rival. The actual objective is simple: remove leverage, maintain control, keep the operation stable.

But corporate thought doesn’t care about the objective. It cares about the ritual.

If the ritual isn’t performed exactly as demanded—even if the result is better—the subordinate must be punished. Not because the system is safer, but because hierarchy must be enforced.

This is the same logic that fires competent employees for breaking arbitrary rules, that fails students for questioning bad curricula, that destroys institutions while insisting it is “maintaining standards.”

Corporate thought would rather waste value than tolerate autonomy.

How It Spread

Corporate thought escaped the corporate world because it offered something seductive:

• Simplicity in complex systems

• Authority without accountability

• Metrics without meaning

• Certainty without wisdom

Once normalized, it colonized everything.

Education stopped being about learning and became about outputs.
Government stopped being about service and became about enforcement.
Religion stopped being about humility and became about identity policing.

Everywhere it went, it replaced judgment with procedure and humanity with compliance.

Why It Thrives in Politics Today

Corporate thought thrives where fear is useful.

It teaches people that cruelty is efficiency, that flexibility is weakness, and that any deviation from prescribed behavior is a threat. It reframes domination as “strength” and empathy as “softness.”

This is why contradiction no longer disqualifies leaders who operate under this mindset. Truth isn’t the metric. Loyalty is.

Failure doesn’t matter. Harm doesn’t matter. Only control matters.

Once a political movement adopts corporate thought, it stops governing and starts managing populations.

The Core Lie

The deepest lie of corporate thought is that it is rational.

It isn’t.

It is emotional, brittle, and afraid of losing dominance. It cannot adapt because adaptation implies shared agency. It cannot compromise because compromise implies equality. It cannot learn because learning requires humility.

It is not strength.
It is insecurity given institutional power.

Why Naming It Matters

When something feels omnipresent and unnamed, it feels inevitable.

That’s why I still use the term corporate thought.

Because once you name it, you can challenge it—not with slogans, but with clarity.

Corporate thought is not realism.
It is not order.
It is not efficiency.

It is a pathology that mistakes control for intelligence and obedience for success.

And the more spaces it invades, the more urgently we need to remember something simple:

Human systems are not spreadsheets.
People are not assets.
And any ideology that requires wasting lives to preserve hierarchy is already broken.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

When Dystopia Stops Being Fiction

Margaret Atwood made a remark on Kara Swisher's podcast On With Kara Swisher that stuck with me.

When The Handmaid’s Tale was published as a novel, she received no death threats. Years later, when it became a television series, the death threats arrived. When she asked why there were none for the book, she was told:

“Because those people don’t read.”

It’s a sharp line. It gets a laugh. No one laughed on the podcast. And it contains some truth.

But it’s not the whole truth.

This wasn’t just about books versus television. It was about when a warning stops feeling abstract and starts feeling personal.

When The Handmaid’s Tale existed only as a novel, it lived in the realm of interpretation. Readers had to build the world in their minds. That takes effort, reflection, and a willingness to engage with metaphor. Dystopia, at that stage, still felt like a thought experiment.

But television does something different.

It removes distance.

It makes the nightmare visible, immediate, shareable, and unavoidable. It removes the intellectual buffer and replaces it with lived imagery. Red robes. White bonnets. Ritualized power. Public punishment. Private terror. No footnotes required.

And that is the moment when some viewers stopped seeing it as “just a story.”

Because suddenly, it wasn’t about a future that might happen.
It felt uncomfortably close to a future they wanted, feared, or recognized.

And that’s when the threats began.

Not because it was fiction.

Because it was recognition.

---

The Difference Between Warning and Accusation

Dystopian fiction has always served two purposes:

1. To warn.

2. To accuse.

As long as a story remains abstract, people can safely file it under “ideas,” “politics,” or “philosophy.” But once it becomes visual and mass-distributed, it shifts into something more dangerous — it becomes cultural confrontation.

For many viewers, The Handmaid’s Tale wasn’t an attack on women’s rights.

It was an attack on their identity, their beliefs, their power structures, and their fantasies of control.

And that’s the pivot point.

Criticism can be tolerated.
Exposure is harder.
But being recognized inside a dystopia? That produces rage.

---

Why the Threats Came Later

The death threats didn’t appear because Atwood suddenly became more controversial. The ideas were always there. The difference is that television turned the story into a mirror large enough for millions to stand in front of at once.

And mirrors make people angry when they don’t like what they see.

What terrifies authoritarian personalities most is not disagreement. It’s visibility without permission. It’s being shown, without editorial control, as what they resemble.

A dystopia is only comfortable when it feels safely distant.

Once it feels familiar, it stops being entertainment.

---

This Is the Moment We’re Living In

We are now in a historical phase where:

• Fiction is being mistaken for instruction.

• Satire is misread as aspiration.

• Warnings are treated as threats.

• And storytellers are increasingly targeted not for what they invent — but for what they expose.

The danger isn’t that dystopian stories are too dark.

The danger is that too many people look at them and don’t see a warning anymore.

They see a trial run.

---

The Real Lesson in Atwood’s Story

So no, it’s not simply that “those people don’t read.”

It’s that:

• Books allow distance.

• Images demand confrontation.

• And recognition is what ignites hostility.

The threats didn’t arrive when The Handmaid’s Tale was imagined.

They arrived when it was seen.

And in that difference lies everything we need to understand about the current moment.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

"The Let Them Theory." Or, Do Not Follow Them Into their Chaos.

I have never understood people who get so wound up about things they cannot control. 

I say that fully aware that I was exactly that person in my 20s back in the 1970s. I held myself and everyone around me to standards so impossibly high that frustration was basically my default setting. Someone finally told me I was making myself miserable and dragging others along with me.

They were right.

People liked me just fine, but I was burning emotional fuel like a rocket launch. Every minor failing, every imperfection, every deviation from how I thought things should be felt like an emergency. I mostly kept it to myself, but my discomfort wasn't 100% secret. 

It took years to understand the truth behind what is now circulating as the Let Them Theory (audiobook).

And here is the funny part. 

There is nothing new about it. Let Them is simply the latest name on wisdom that has been passed down for thousands of years under different labels.

The Let Them Theory is simple.

If people are going to do something that disappoints you, frustrates you, or runs against your expectations, let them. Let people show you who they are. Let their choices be theirs, not your burden. Do not try to correct, control, rescue, or manage what is not yours to manage. Adjust your boundaries and keep your peace.

Let Them does not mean letting people harm you or anyone else. It applies to the small things, the personal expectations, the disappointments, the ego bruises, the dramas that are not yours to carry. 

But when someone’s actions cross into real harm, abuse, exploitation, or danger, you do not let them. You step in. You act. You set hard boundaries. You protect yourself and others. Let Them is wisdom for everyday frustrations, not a replacement for courage when action is required.

The Let Them Theory’s closest modern ancestor is the Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr. Accept what you cannot change. Change what you can. Know the difference. That is the Let Them idea distilled.

Long before that, the Stoics were in on it. Marcus Aurelius. Epictetus. Seneca. Control what is yours. Release everything that is not.

Shift over to Asia and you find Taoism with wu wei, the art of non-forcing. Do not push the river. Let it flow.

Then Buddhism, with its teachings on impermanence and non-attachment. Stop gripping what is already slipping away.

Move forward in time and you hit the moral maxim Live and let live. The Polish gave us Not my circus, not my monkeys. Recovery communities taught Detach with love. Bowen Family Systems Theory taught emotional boundaries and self-differentiation. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy repeated it all again in modern psychological language.

Different centuries, different cultures, one message.
Stop trying to control what is not yours to control.

By the time I hit my 20s, this thinking already made sense to me, even if I did not know the names yet. I had years of Okinawan Ishinryu Karate behind me from grade school and junior high in the 1960s. Later beginning in college I studied Aikido, ending up later in life on the Board of Directors of a local 501(c)(3) non-profit Aikido school and those principles fit the same shape. 

When I found Buddhism, the pieces aligned even more. When I earned my psychology degree, it closed the circle. All of it blended naturally. I was raised Catholic, old school Slovak Catholic. I was amazing how well one things merged into the other for me. From Catholicism, to Karate, to Buddhism, to psychological theory. 

Looking back, what still amazes me is how naturally one thing in my life merged into the next. Catholicism had given me discipline and ritual. Karate arrived and taught me balance, breath, and the idea that strength is not domination but control of self. Buddhism followed and showed me that letting go is not weakness but clarity. Then psychological theory put names and structures to everything I had already felt in my bones.

None of these contradicted each other. They overlapped like layers of the same teaching spoken in different languages.

Catholicism gave me conscience.
Karate gave me focus.
Buddhism gave me equanimity.
Psychology gave me the framework.

And all of them pointed toward the same truth some now call the Let Them Theory.

Martial arts, Buddhism, Stoicism, Taoism, psychology.
Different languages, same truth.
Let go of what is not yours.
Hold only what is.

Which brings us back to today.

The next version of the Let Them Theory you will hear is something like this:

Sure, but sometimes you just have to punch them in the mouth.

And that is very much 2020s America. The pendulum swings wildly. Everything becomes binary. Anger becomes identity. We see it with MaGA, lending elements of fascism and authoritarianism into the latest flavor of what has become toxic conservatism that thrives on the adrenaline of outrage.

 They feed themselves on the idea of Do not you dare let them. Control everything. Crush anything that feels different.

And then the natural reaction becomes:
Same back atcha, pal.

But here is the truth. You do not have to participate in that juvenile cycle. You can say:

Sure. But do not.
Do not swing back.
Do not drop to that level.
Do not make someone else’s chaos your compass.

Let them reveal themselves.
Let them burn their own energy.
Let them have their tantrums, their conspiracies, their performative outrage.

And you?
You keep your peace.
You keep your standards, the healthy ones this time, for yourself and not as weapons for others.

That is the real Let Them Theory.
Not passivity.
Not weakness.

Simply the choice to stop letting someone else’s dysfunction take up space in your mind.

---

A Final Note

I have of late been ending my blogs with Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

I've be using "Cheers" for some years now, a couple of decades in emails. 

I started using "Sláinte!' As I learned more about that side of my family history. And realizing I was leaning into my Celtic side more than what I am mostly made of, according to DNA, my Slovak side, 

I recently added Na zdravie! In that way I've been paying homage to my own sensibilities, as well as both of my parents on what was once considered my Czechoslovakia side (my mom's family), and my Irish side (my dad's family).

Czechoslovakia, by the way, was a Central European country that existed from 1918 to 1992 and was dissolved into two separate nations: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. So, I just use Slovak, now.

As for Cheers! I just liked it. I’ve used it for decades. Then, Sláinte entered my life, and rather than replace one with the other, they blended together, inclusively. And so, with my recent realization of Na zdravie! It just fit in along with the others.

Those three words tie directly into this entire idea. Each one is a simple wish for goodwill and health, spoken in three different languages from my own heritage. A small closing reminder that connection matters more than control. A way to end on something human and generous, even when the topic is how to let go of those who are not.

---

And so?

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Why Some Americans Still Don’t Understand How Government Works

And Why That’s Becoming a National Problem

I’ve had arguments with my conservative brother for decades — long before he slipped into the MaGA orbit. What stands out now is how much he sounds like the people in the new movie Sovereign: convinced the government is illegitimate, certain he’s discovered “hidden” truths, and armed with court cases he pulled from somewhere online.

The pattern is the same across the country. Millions of Americans have embraced a worldview where the Constitution is fixed in 1789, the federal government is illegitimate whenever it displeases them, and any law they don’t like is automatically “unconstitutional.”

It’s not just wrong — it’s dangerous. Sure, I agree with some of their complaints. Some they are right on, not as many as they wish to believe, some they think they are right on and it sounds and feels good, but there are good reasons or bad, it's not how it is in reality. Some of their issues are in concept good, but in reality, either make no sense, or aren't possible due to how America has evolved. 

More importantly, it reveals something deeper: they fundamentally misunderstand how the American system actually works.

Here’s why this belief system is so persistent, and why people get the Constitution, the law, and the government wrong in the same ways.

It's like the unconstitutional and illegal militia issue and the 2nd Amendment nonsense. But I digress and have discussed ad nauseum. 

---

1. They Don’t Know That Law Evolves — Constantly

A surprising number of people think the Constitution is a list of unchanging rules written in stone. They believe:

• if a law isn’t in the original text, it’s invalid

• if a court case says something they like, it’s “forever true”

• if a regulation exists, it’s “tyranny”

But the truth is simple:

American law only works through evolution.

Every generation has added the interpretations, refinements, and court decisions that make it usable. Without 200+ years of case law, the Constitution is too vague to govern a modern nation.

Most of the cases these folks cite have been overturned or limited long ago. They just… don’t know it.

---

2. They Believe in a Mythic America That Never Existed

For many people on the extreme right, their version of America isn’t historical — it’s emotional. It’s a story about rugged individualism, small government, pure liberty, and the founders as flawless prophets.

The problem?
The actual founders:

• disagreed with each other constantly

• changed their minds

• compromised

• regretted things they’d written

• expected the country to evolve

• designed a system that must grow to survive

Jefferson himself later contradicted things MAGA loves to quote. But myth is more comfortable than reality.

---

3. Sovereign-Citizen Thinking Has Merged With MAGA

The “you can’t tax me,” “the government is illegitimate,” “states are sovereign,” “federal law is optional” attitude didn’t start with MAGA — it’s straight out of the sovereign-citizen movement.

The two ideologies have fused.

They follow the same script:

• I only accept laws I like.

• I only accept election results I agree with.

• I only accept government authority when it benefits me.

It’s constitutional cosplay — not constitutional literacy.

---

4. It’s About Identity, Not Information

This part matters:

Most people who say “I’ve read the Constitution” haven’t.
What they’ve read is a Facebook-tier translation of what they want the Constitution to say.

Correcting them doesn’t work because the belief isn’t rooted in evidence — it’s rooted in identity.

Rejecting government becomes a way of saying:

• I’m in control.

• I’m smarter than the experts.

• I refuse to feel powerless.

It’s emotional self-protection wearing the mask of political philosophy.

---

5. America Has Evolved for 200+ Years — And That’s the Point

When someone says, “That’s not how the Constitution was originally written,” they’re accidentally making the opposite argument:

Yes — it isn’t.
Because we updated it.
Because we amended it.
Because we corrected mistakes.
Because society changed and the law changed with it.

If we froze America in 1789, then:

• slavery is legal

• women can’t vote

• states can ban any religion

• corporations don’t exist

• no national currency

• no federal protections

• no civil rights

• no modern economy

Nobody actually wants that country — but many want the fantasy of it.

---

6. The Founders Knew This Day Would Come

Jefferson didn’t want his early 30s phase worshipped as sacred doctrine.
Madison warned that tyranny could rise from inside the American system.
Washington warned that factionalism could destroy democracy.
Hamilton warned about charismatic demagogues.
Franklin warned about citizens becoming complacent and uninformed.

They didn’t expect Americans to freeze the country in amber.
They expected future generations to be adults, adapt, and face reality.

---

So What Are People Getting Wrong?

Everything in this worldview boils down to one central misunderstanding:

They think government exists to validate their preferences.
When it doesn’t, they declare it illegitimate.

They mistake discomfort for tyranny.
They mistake disagreement for oppression.
They mistake democracy for persecution.
And they mistake mythology for history.

---

Why This Matters

We now face a movement that believes:

• the law only applies when it benefits them

• the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean

• modern government is “illegitimate”

• elections are valid only when they win

That’s not conservatism.
It’s not even politics.

It’s a step toward something the founders feared more than anything:
rule by grievance, not rule by law.

---

Final Thoughts

America survived 200 years because we accepted — even embraced — the evolution of law, society, and government. The danger today isn’t disagreement over policy. It’s the rise of a whole subculture living in a fantasy Constitution that never actually existed.

Understanding that is the first step in pushing back against it — not to change their minds, but to prevent their mythology from rewriting our reality.

In the end, if you are wrong about these beliefs, the cost is not theoretical, it is human. I understand that many people truly believe they are right, but belief alone does not make a worldview accurate or sustainable. 

So the real question becomes: what are you actually fighting for, and is it worth the damage it can cause? 

All the arguments, the fractured relationships, the tension in your home or community, these add up and affect everyone around you. This mindset also tends to attract people who are naturally obstinate or contrary, people who feel empowered by resisting anything placed in front of them. 

At what point does that shift from a personality trait into a sign that something deeper is going on, something that brushes up against issues of mental health? At some point this stops being about debate and becomes about quality of life, yours, your family's, your neighbors', and the strangers whose lives intersect with yours. 

And if these convictions ever escalate into real-world confrontation or life-threatening situations, what value remains in a belief system that requires harm, or demands that you risk your own life or the lives of those you love? 

And what of the people you do not know, the ones with families who will grieve them? 

That is the true weight of being wrong about something this big.

And if, or where you ARE correct? Fight your fights sensibly, but fight as I do so many other things, especially dangerous things, to live to fight another day. I've done many dangerous things in my life, in such a way as to be able to do them again, another time. I partied hard at times in life, but in a healthy way. I had friends who did not give any care to themselves toward sustainably seeking their preferred activities. I'm still here. They are not. 

So fight to win. But also fight your fight to fight another day.

Otherwise, your fight, is over. And it's all...just moot.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

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