Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label populism. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2026

The Oldest Hustle in American Crime: When They Say It's About Who You Are

There is a script. It is older than anyone currently living. It goes like this:

I am not a criminal. I am a threat. And they hate me because of what I represent to you. 

Al Capone knew it by heart.


By the late 1920s, Alphonse Gabriel Capone was the most powerful organized crime figure in America. He ran bootlegging, gambling, and prostitution across Chicago with an iron fist wrapped in a silk suit. He ordered murders. He bribed police captains, judges, and aldermen wholesale. The Saint Valentine's Day Massacre -- seven men machine-gunned in a garage on his orders -- was so brazen it shook the country.

And yet Al Capone's public posture, maintained with remarkable consistency, was that of a persecuted man.

"Every time a boy falls off a tricycle, every time a black cat has gray kittens, every time someone stubs a toe, every time there's a murder or a fire or the marines land in Nicaragua," Capone said, "the police and the newspapers holler 'get Capone.'"

He wasn't just complaining. He was building a brand. Capone cultivated a Robin Hood image, donated to soup kitchens during the Depression, made himself accessible to reporters, and cast himself as a simple businessman being singled out by hypocrites. "When I sell liquor, it's called bootlegging," he pointed out. "When my patrons serve it on Lake Shore Drive, it's called hospitality." He told crowds he had "spent the best years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time," and received in return only "abuse, the existence of a hunted man."

This country wanted booze, he said. He organized it. Why should he be called a public enemy?

The argument was not without a certain populist electricity. Prohibition was absurd. The rich did drink openly while working-class men went to jail. The cops Capone bribed were on every other corner. He was telling people things they already half-believed, and wrapping himself in their grievances as insulation against his own accountability.

His defense attorney argued at trial that the tax prosecution was simply a pretext -- that the government wasn't really after tax fraud, it was just trying to "stow Al Capone away." The jury should not, he told them, be a party to persecution in a time of public excitement.

The jury convicted him anyway. He died at 48, his mind destroyed by syphilis, the empire he built already in ruins.

But the script survived him.


Donald Trump did not invent the populist criminal's persecution narrative. He inherited it, refined it, and ran it at a scale Capone could never have imagined -- not across one city, but across an entire country, through television, social media, and the machinery of a major political party.

The playbook is identical. Only the costumes changed.

Where Capone said "every time something goes wrong, they blame me," Trump told his supporters at a Waco rally: "They're not coming after me. They're coming after you. I'm just standing in the way." The logic is the same move, executed a century apart. The criminal reframes his own legal accountability as an attack on the people who love him.

Where Capone cast himself as a simple man meeting a public demand -- beer, whiskey, a good time -- Trump cast himself as a simple man giving people what they wanted: jobs, a wall, a middle finger pointed at the people who looked down on them. "From the time I came down the golden escalator," Trump said after his first indictment, the radical left had been engaged in a witch hunt "to destroy the Make America Great Again movement." Not him. The movement. You.

Where Capone pointed at the hypocrisy of Prohibition -- the law applied selectively, to the poor and the ethnic, while the wealthy drank freely -- Trump pointed at real and perceived hypocrisy in the justice system: Hillary Clinton's emails, Hunter Biden's laptop, the two-tiered application of law. Some of those complaints had genuine substance. That's the point. The hustle works best when it's built on a foundation of things that are actually true.

Trump claimed the prosecution "would immediately stop" if he decided not to run for president -- framing his legal exposure as purely political, a weapon aimed not at a man who broke the law, but at a movement that threatened power. He compared his situation to Alexei Navalny dying in an Arctic prison. He called it "the existence of a hunted man."

Capone would have recognized that phrase. He used it himself.


Here is where the comparison becomes not just rhetorical but precise.

Capone ran an organization built on intimidation and bribery, surrounded himself with men willing to commit violence on his behalf, and corrupted every institution he could reach -- police, courts, city hall. He positioned this as American enterprise. "My rackets are run on strictly American lines," he said. He was not knocking the system. He was just using it.

Trump surrounded himself with what a presidential historian called "a team of felons" -- eleven top allies convicted or having pled guilty, their combined sentences totaling roughly thirty years. He pressured the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. He urged his attorney general to go after Hillary Clinton. He leaned on election officials in Georgia to "find" votes. He was impeached twice. He was convicted on 34 felony counts. He pardoned rioters who broke into the Capitol at his encouragement, including the first man to breach the building.

And throughout all of it, his line never wavered: this is persecution. They are doing this because of who I am, and what I mean to you.

The crucial difference between Capone and Trump is that Capone never got his hands on the actual machinery of the state. He had to bribe it from the outside. Trump won the presidency twice. He used the Justice Department as a tool of personal vengeance. He pardoned his own criminal associates. He sat in the Oval Office and directed federal power at his enemies while simultaneously claiming to be a victim of federal power.

Capone claimed he was being hunted. Trump made himself the hunter, from inside the building, while still claiming to be the prey.


The populist criminal's greatest trick is not the lie. It's the grain of truth.

Capone was right that Prohibition was selectively enforced. Trump is right that the justice system does not treat everyone equally. Both men took that truth, swallowed it whole, and used it to insulate themselves from consequences for things that had nothing to do with inequality and everything to do with their own appetites for power and money.

Capone's defense attorney told the jury: don't be a party to persecution in a time of public excitement.

Trump's supporters say the same thing today, at a volume that shakes windows.

But here is what the script always leaves out: the question of whether the government is treating you fairly is entirely separate from the question of whether you did the things they say you did.

Al Capone did the things they said he did.

Donald Trump did the things they said he did.

The jury that convicted Capone did not acquit him because he made them feel good at rallies. The question of what we do with that fact -- what we do with a man who turned the oldest hustle in American crime into the platform of a presidency -- is not a question about him.

It is a question about us.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Monday, June 8, 2026

"The Man I Warned You About": What William F. Buckley Would Make of Trump and His MaGA Republican Party

I was a fan of William F. Buckley, Jr. decades ago. And of Gore Vidal. The opposites of the Right and Left political thinking in their day, respectively. I still watch Buckley's Firing Line, now in the competent hands of Margaret Hoover. I came across the documentary Best of Enemies - Buckley vs Vidal (2015) on Netflix, that I highly recommend, and it got me thinking. It was about their 10-night ABC network airing during the Republican Convention in 1968 in Miami, Florida which I would love to get a chance to view...all 10 episodes. Even though each segment was only 15 minutes druing each night's 90-minute news show.

What would Buckley make of Pres. #47 Donald J Trump today? Not much I thought. So who is Buckley?

William F. Buckley Jr. was the most influential intellectual architect of modern American conservatism. He founded National Review in 1955 as the movement's flagship journal, hosted Firing Line for 33 years as the longest-running public affairs show in television history, and was widely regarded as the most skilled conservative debater of his generation. Erudite, witty, and relentlessly disciplined, he believed conservatism had to be intellectually serious to be politically durable. He was not a populist. He was the man who defined what the American right was supposed to be.

One of his most consequential acts was purging the John Birch Society from the conservative movement in the early 1960s, on the grounds that conspiratorial, anti-intellectual populism would destroy conservatism's credibility and marginalize it from mainstream American life. That decision shaped the Republican Party's intellectual identity for decades.


What He Actually Said About Trump

Around 2000, when Trump briefly pursued the Reform Party nomination, William F. Buckley wrote critically about him, in National Review, characterizing him as a demagogue whose essential appeal was flattering crowds while offering no substantive ideology beyond self-promotion. He identified Trump's narcissism as the core of his political identity. This was not a passing dismissal. Buckley chose his words with precision, and he used them deliberately.

It was in part reprinted in 2016, again in the National Review.


On MaGA and Populism

The Birch Society purge is the key lens here. MaGA, with its election denialism, conspiracy adjacency, contempt for institutional expertise, and grievance-driven mass politics, would look to Buckley like the Birchers' revenge. He spent decades trying to prevent exactly this kind of movement from capturing the Republican Party. Watching it succeed would have been, for him, a historic failure of conservative nerve.

On Institutions

Buckley was a deeply institutional man. Yale, the CIA, the Church, the Senate, the press. He believed civilization was built on inherited structures that required active defense against both left-wing leveling and right-wing wrecking. Trump's sustained assault on the Justice Department, the electoral system, NATO, and the independent press would not read to Buckley as disruption or strength. It would read as vandalism.

On Trade and Foreign Policy

Buckley was a free trader and a Cold War internationalist who saw the liberal international order as a necessary defense against totalitarianism. Tariff nationalism, America First isolationism, and hostility to alliances would be nearly incomprehensible to him as conservative positions. He would see them as strategic recklessness dressed up as patriotism.

On Style

This matters more than people credit. Buckley believed conservatism should project civilizational confidence, wit, and seriousness. He cared about what the movement looked like to educated people. Trump's rally aesthetic, the vulgarity, the grievance saturation, the contempt for precision and argument, would strike Buckley as not just politically wrong but as an embarrassment to everything he built.

Where It Gets Complicated

Buckley had his own contradictions. His civil rights record was late and troubled. He had an aristocratic streak that could shade into romanticizing hierarchy. And his loathing of the left was bone-deep, which might have made a clean break from the Republican Party psychologically difficult even as he watched it transform into something he didn't recognize.

His most likely posture would have been to call for a conservative reformation from within, probably to diminishing audiences, probably futilely.


The Bottom Line

Buckley would almost certainly argue that MaGA is not conservatism at all. It is a personality cult that has occupied conservatism's institutional infrastructure while gutting its intellectual content. He would place himself, however uncomfortably, alongside people like George Will and David Frum who chose principle over party. And he would reserve his sharpest contempt not for Trump, whom he had already diagnosed clearly in 2000, but for the conservative intellectuals and Republican officials who knew better and said nothing.

The movement he built was taken over by the kind of man he spent his career warning about.

He saw it coming a quarter century ago.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Tuesday, January 13, 2026

The Contagion Presidency: Why Trump Needed America to Stop Trusting America

It occurs to me that what Donald Trump did leading up to his first election was not accidental, mysterious, or misunderstood. It was deliberate. He discovered a constituency already primed for resentment—Americans who distrusted their own government, who felt ignored by institutions, who believed vague conspiracies about “deep state” enemies rather than acknowledging the often-unremarkable reality of career civil servants—and he told them their anger was righteous. He validated their suspicions not by solving them, but by amplifying them.


They didn’t simply elect a president.

They elected someone who promised revenge on their behalf.

They believed his disdain would be directed outward—at elites, at liberals, at immigrants, at whomever they’d been told to fear. What they didn’t realize was that Trump’s contempt has always been indiscriminate. It extends to anyone who refuses to kneel: opponents, allies, the press, sacrifice, law, democratic norms, and eventually even his own voters.

He did not drain the swamp. He replumbed it.
He flooded it. Then he built a second pool for the corrupt and the confused to wallow in.

The only reason America did not fully collapse under his first presidency is because institutional guardrails existed: military officers who refused illegal orders, ethics officials who still believed laws mattered, career bureaucrats who quietly continued serving the country even when attacked for doing so. In the end, many within his own administration functioned less as staff and more as containment.

That should terrify us.

Because when a president must be protected from himself in order to protect the nation, democracy is no longer functioning normally. It is surviving.

He left office, but accountability never truly arrived. So he returned. And what did he do with his second chance? He removed competence. He tore out every remaining safeguard. He replaced experience with loyalty tests and surrounded himself with sycophants who understood that their survival depended not on serving the American people, but on serving him.

This leads to the essential question:

Why would Trump want chaos, distrust, and institutional failure?

Because in a functioning democracy, power belongs to institutions.
In a broken democracy, power belongs to the man who breaks them.

If Americans trust the press, he cannot rewrite truth.
If Americans trust elections, he cannot declare losses to be victories.
If Americans trust courts, he cannot dismiss legal accountability as political persecution.
If Americans trust government itself, they do not need him to “save” them from it.

So he attacks everything that is not him.

He undermines civic trust because distrust centralizes power.
He delegitimizes expertise because expertise limits him.
He polarizes because division creates dependency.
He normalizes abnormality because outrage fatigue eventually becomes acceptance.

This is not ideology.
This is not conservatism.
This is a survival strategy.

It is deeply personal and ruthlessly effective.

A psychologically fragile leader cannot coexist with strong institutions. A narcissistic leader cannot tolerate independent thought. A leader obsessed with image cannot admit error, and therefore must destroy the credibility of anyone who points it out. This is political authoritarianism powered by emotional insecurity. That is a dangerous combination.

The tragedy is not simply what Trump did to his base.
It is what he did to the entire country.

He did not merely exploit distrust.
He constructed a political reality in which distrust is the default state of civic life.

He turned cynicism into an organizing principle.
He made disbelief in democracy itself a partisan loyalty test.

And it worked. Not only within his movement, but beyond it. Even Americans who despise him now question institutions more than ever. The damage is not contained; it is ambient. We are living inside a psychological climate created by one man’s ego and broadcast across a nation.

Mary Trump, a psychologist who knows both the pathology and the person, has warned repeatedly that this is not simply political harm. It is psychological contagion. It rewires how people perceive truth, identity, belonging, and power. Once learned, distrust is not easily unlearned. It lingers. It metastasizes. It becomes cultural.

That is his legacy.

Not accomplished policy.
Not vision.
Not leadership.

His legacy is corrosion.
His legacy is destabilized civic faith.
His legacy is a democracy taught to hate itself from within.

America is now facing a reckoning—not just with Trump, but with the environment he cultivated. Removing him alone does not fix the damage. It does not restore trust. It does not rebuild respect for reality. It does not heal a country that has been conditioned to believe its own system is always lying.

That requires accountability.
That requires truth.
That requires the uncomfortable work of democratic adulthood.

Until that happens, we remain trapped inside the psychological weather system of one deeply flawed man—still paying the price for our failure to take the danger seriously when it mattered most.

This is a mind no nation should be forced to live inside.

And yet, here we remain—still, and again.


Trump’s strategy isn’t complicated. It’s the ancient tactic of bullius shittius: overwhelm the public with so much nonsense, chaos, and contradiction that truth becomes impossible to track, outrage becomes normal, and exhaustion replaces accountability.

AKA...

1️⃣ “Flood the zone with shit”

A phrase directly attributed to Steve Bannon. The idea is overwhelm the public with so much misinformation, scandal, and outrage that truth becomes impossible to track and accountability collapses.

2️⃣ “Firehose of Falsehood”

A formal RAND Corporation term describing high-volume, rapid, repeated, shameless disinformation campaigns. Features:

  • floods information space
  • contradicts itself freely
  • prioritizes volume over credibility
  • works because it overwhelms cognition and attention

3️⃣ Gaslighting + Chaos Governance

Creating so much instability and contradiction that people doubt their own judgment and turn to the leader as the only “reliable” source.

4️⃣ Authoritarian Playbook Tradition

Variations of this tactic have been used by 20th-century propagandists and demagogues globally: normalize the abnormal through sheer repetition and speed.


Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Tuesday, January 6, 2026

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. 

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!




Thursday, November 20, 2025

**Would Donald Trump Have Happened If Al Gore Had Become President?

Almost Certainly Not — And Here’s Why**

Before we get started...this:

Annals of Law Enforcement
Kash Patel’s Acts of Service
The F.B.I. director isn’t just enforcing the President’s agenda at the Bureau—he’s seeking retribution for its past investigations of Donald Trump.
By Marc Fisher (also his interview last night on Fresh Air with Terri Gross on NPR:

How Kash Patel is roiling the FBI and changing its mission

Moving on...

Counterfactuals are tricky, but some historical arcs are clear enough that you can reasonably project the outcome. When it comes to Donald Trump, the truth is this:

Trump was a symptom of a vacuum — a collapse of trust, endless wars, economic anxiety, political cynicism, and a GOP that had exhausted its traditional ideology.
A Gore presidency would have prevented most of that from ever happening.

Let’s walk through the key drivers of Trumpism and how Gore’s presence in the White House would have changed the trajectory.


1. No Iraq War, No Trump

This cannot be overstated.
The Iraq War was the defining strategic disaster of the 21st century:

  • It destabilized the Middle East

  • It birthed ISIS

  • It cost trillions

  • It disillusioned millions of Americans

  • It shattered trust in government

  • It radicalized the right

  • It fueled conspiracy culture

  • It broke the Republican Party’s intellectual spine

  • It turned anti-establishment rage mainstream

Trump exploited every one of these fractures.

Gore would not have invaded Iraq.
Meaning:

➡️ No endless wars
➡️ No mass veteran trauma on this specific scale
➡️ No “the system lied to you” radicalizing event
➡️ No shattered global credibility
➡️ Far less anti-government rage for Trump to weaponize

Donald Trump’s political persona is built on the ruins of that war.
Take away the ruins, and the persona collapses.


2. The Financial Crisis Would Have Been Mitigated — or Hit Differently

The 2008 crash, born from deregulation and complacency, gutted the middle class and fueled resentment.

Bush-era policies contributed to:

  • aggressive deregulation

  • lax oversight

  • ballooning leverage

  • reckless mortgage practices

Gore was a regulator by instinct and an economic realist, not an ideologue.
While the crisis might still have occurred (its roots predated 2001), it likely would have:

  • been less severe

  • hit later, not during a Republican administration

  • been managed with more competence

  • avoided the “Main Street got crushed while Wall Street got bailed out” anger that fueled Trump

Remember: Trump tapped into economic humiliation.
A well-managed 2008 doesn’t birth that same anger.


3. No Katrina-Like Collapse of Federal Competence

Events like Hurricane Katrina told millions of Americans that government was incompetent and indifferent.

That cynicism was a major ingredient in Trumpism.

Gore was obsessive about:

  • planning

  • coordination

  • science

  • climate-related disaster management

There is no universe in which he handles Katrina the way Bush did.

Take away that trauma, and again, less fuel for Trump.


4. Climate Policy Changes Everything

Under Gore, the U.S. would’ve spent the 2000s:

  • building renewable energy

  • taxing carbon or capping emissions

  • investing in green jobs

  • reducing dependence on fossil fuel states and foreign suppliers

This helps:

  • Rust Belt workers

  • rural economies

  • manufacturing

  • public health

  • energy prices

What was Trump’s entire argument in the Rust Belt?

“Globalism stole your jobs. Democrats abandoned you. Only I care about your factories and your towns.”

A decade of green investment would have done the opposite:
It would have brought jobs and hope back a decade earlier.


5. The GOP Would Have Nominated Different People

The Republican Party was drifting but not yet broken in 2000.
The Bush-Cheney years:

  • hollowed out its intellectual core

  • radicalized it

  • empowered neocons, then the Tea Party, then MAGA

  • pushed conspiratorial thinking into the mainstream

  • delegitimized “normal” conservative governance

Without Bush-Cheney:

  • there is no Tea Party of 2010

  • there is no Palin-style populism

  • there is no birther movement

  • there is no Fox News radicalization on the same scale

And without those, Trump has no ladder to climb.

He needs the party already destabilized.

Gore-era competence stabilizes it.


6. Trump Himself Would Have Lost Interest

This matters more than you’d think.

Donald Trump flirted with running for president in:

  • 1988

  • 2000

  • 2012

But what made him finally run in 2016 was a unique convergence of national bitterness, cultural collapse, and political opportunity.

In a stable, prosperous, less-angry America, Trump is just:

➡️ A loud real-estate guy
➡️ A celebrity cameo-maker
➡️ A Howard Stern curiosity
➡️ A Twitter grievance machine
➡️ A guy with an ego, not a political future

He needed chaos to ascend.

Gore’s presidency would not have produced that chaos.


7. No Birtherism = No Trump

Trump built his political identity on one thing:
The racist lie that Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

Would Obama still have become president after eight years of Gore?
Possibly — but with:

  • a less radicalized opposition

  • no Iraq War baggage

  • no Tea Party movement

  • a healthier information ecosystem

  • a less angry electorate

And without a radicalized right-wing machinery, birtherism dies on arrival.

Without birtherism, Trump has no political identity at all.


So, Would Trump Have Happened?

No — not in any meaningful, powerful, or dangerous form.

Could he still have existed as a celebrity?
Sure.

Could he still have posted nonsense online?
Absolutely.

But would he have risen to the presidency, launched a personality cult, destabilized democracy, and rewired the global far right?

Almost certainly not.

History doesn’t create people like Trump out of nowhere.
It requires:

  • distrust

  • chaos

  • humiliation

  • economic fear

  • political exhaustion

  • institutional failure

  • cultural despair

A Gore administration would have prevented, softened, or managed the very forces that created Trump’s opening.

Trump didn’t rise in a vacuum.
He rose from the wreckage of the 2000s.

If that wreckage never happens, neither does he.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Monday, October 27, 2025

I Wrote This Dystopian SciFi Long Before Trump. I Wish I Hadn’t Been Right

America’s descent was already fiction — until it wasn’t. It was fake, it was fun, it was fiction, until it wasn't. 

It imagined a United States that willingly hands itself — mind, body, and soul — to a charismatic media figure named Peter Masters.

Cover art by Marvin Hayes

In 1990, I published my first short story in a horror quarterly magazine, a dystopian sci-fi story titled “In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear.” 

I've written about this story before.

Its title is an homage to Isaac Asimov's first autobiography, "In Memory, Yet Green".


Asimov and this autobiography in particular, had a profound impact on me. I read his science fiction as a kid in the 1960s. I read his autobiography in the late 1970s while I was in the USAF. He said in his book that the great Golden Age science fiction writers had been military technical writers. I was in the military at the time but later worked my way up to a Senior Technical Writer, in my case, in some of the top IT companies and departments in the Pacific Northwest. 

I was also deeply affected by other authors of my youth like Ray Bradbury for his prose, and Harlan Ellison for his at times acerbic view of the world, who turned me onto the concept of being a speculative fiction writer.

My reason for writing this here today has to do with Donald Trump and the state of America. In Trump we've seen a mentally deficient man, an emotional dwarf, a sociopath, a narcissist, an autocrat by the nature of his personality and childhood, who has brough this mental illness to our public at large.

But in my sci fi story, the protagonist, is an intelligent man, a friend of our main character, Peter Masters, who never had to become President to take over. Because in his case, he is just that intelligent. 

Unlike Donald Trump (now, regarding him as POTUS...this on Substack).

He doesn’t need to take over America through politics. 

He becomes something far more dangerous:

The center of all attention and without being obnoxious.

Peter’s rise begins as entertainment — a talk show. Trump, as a TV show host who eventually fails.

Then Peter takes over total control of America's social media. Then full control of all media, all surveillance, all public information, all narrative.

The public cheers as he takes power piece by piece. Sound familiar yet?

Democracy doesn’t fall — it evaporates.

Now does this sound familiar?


The Villain Wasn’t a Politician. He Was a Celebrity.

Peter is mentally unstable — brilliant, yes — but unstable. Trump plays that kind of a character on TV and in the White House. But he is a vapid man, a petty man, a mental midget who is a one trick pony.

Both men's delusions are treated as genius.
Their propaganda feels like patriotism.
Their narcissism is packaged as salvation.

They become the nation’s brain, and Americans celebrate losing their own.

Meanwhile…

  • Science bends to conspiracy

  • Citizens are distracted into submission

  • Children are groomed to accept surveillance as safety

  • The wealthy expand power through entertainment rather than governance

And America’s allies?

Canada and Mexico do everything they can to distance themselves from the madness. Why? Because they are physically closest to US.

Keep in mind:

I wrote this around 1985, 40 years before Donald Trump declared that he alone could fix America.


The Road to Autocracy Isn’t Lined With Armored Tanks — It’s Paved With Infectious Media

Trump isn’t a genius engineer like Peter Masters. A salvation and an embarrassment for us.

He’s not inventing new technology — he’s exploiting existing weakness:

📺 The attention economy
🚨 The dopamine loop
📢 The fear machine
❤️ The parasocial bond

Autocrats don’t need votes when they have followers.

They don’t need laws when they have disbelief in law.

They don’t need a coup when millions decide the Dear Leader is democracy.

Peter and Trump both rise by corrupting the question:

“Who should lead?”
becomes
“Who makes me feel something?”


In Fiction, I Called It Propaganda. In Reality, It’s Primetime News.

Peter seizes control by promising:

  • Safety

  • Simplicity

  • Spectacle

Trump promises the same thing — packaged in grievance, nostalgia, and revenge.

It’s the same populist trick:

“Only I can fix it.”

Translation:

“I must control everything.”

And too many Americans cheer.

Because the high of certainty feels better than the burden of truth.


The Scariest Part of the Story Wasn’t the Villain

The scariest part was that everyone in America…

welcomed him in.

They asked for it.
They begged for it.
They surrendered freely — as long as the TV stayed entertaining.

Just like now.

We didn’t need fictional monsters to show us how fragile democracy is.
We only needed to meet a man who knows how to sell.


A Warning I Never Wanted to Come True

When I wrote “In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear”, it was meant as satire — a cautionary tale about:

  • unchecked charisma

  • mentally unstable leaders

  • tech-driven culture collapse

  • propaganda as national identity

In 2025…
It feels like a documentary filmed ahead of schedule.

Art imitates life.
But sometimes life — horrifyingly — catches up.

And as history keeps reminding us:

Democracy doesn’t end when people lose their rights.
It ends when they stop caring that they’re losing them.


If my old story suddenly feels like today’s headlines…

That’s not science fiction.

That’s America trying to warn itself.

I wish us all the very best. But that will require Donald Trump receiving a destiny that is far, far from that.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!


Compiled with aid of ChatGPT



Wednesday, April 16, 2025

Trump's GOP: A Deep Dive into the Shifting Political Landscape and Its Long-Term Impacts

​Under Donald Trump's influence, the Republican Party has undergone significant transformations, reshaping its policies, ideological focus, and internal dynamics.


​1. Ideological Shift Towards Populism and Nationalism

Trump's tenure marked a departure from traditional Republican values, steering the party towards populist and nationalist ideologies. This shift is evident in policy changes such as stricter immigration controls, protectionist trade measures, and a focus on "America First" principles. The GOP's platform evolved to emphasize hardline stances on immigration, reduced emphasis on international alliances, and a more isolationist foreign policy approach. ​

2. Transformation of Party Rhetoric and Media Relations

Trump's approach to communication significantly altered the GOP's relationship with the media. He popularized the term "fake news," fostering a deep skepticism towards mainstream media outlets among Republicans. This rhetoric not only challenged media narratives but also reshaped the party's discourse, making combative and populist language more prevalent in political dialogue. ​

3. Centralization of Power and Loyalty Dynamics

The Trump era saw a consolidation of power within the party, with loyalty to Trump becoming a key criterion for political advancement. Figures who initially opposed him, such as Senator Lindsey Graham, shifted to become staunch allies, while those who criticized him faced marginalization. This shift highlighted a move towards a more centralized and personality-driven party structure, where allegiance to Trump often outweighed traditional policy debates.

4. Policy Reorientations on Social and Cultural Issues

The GOP's focus under Trump also shifted towards social and cultural issues, aligning with the interests of conservative bases. Policies addressing immigration, law enforcement, and education became more pronounced, reflecting a departure from previous Republican positions. This reorientation often involved challenging established norms and advocating for more stringent regulations on social matters. 

5. Electoral Strategy and Demographic Targeting

Trump's electoral success was partly attributed to his ability to connect with working-class voters, particularly in the Midwest and rural areas. His messaging resonated with voters who felt alienated by traditional political elites, leading to shifts in the GOP's demographic appeal. This strategy emphasized economic nationalism and a critique of globalization, aiming to reclaim American jobs and industries. ​

In summary, Trump's influence has indelibly altered the Republican Party, steering it towards populist, nationalist ideologies, reshaping its internal dynamics, and refocusing its policy priorities. These changes have sparked debates about the future direction of the party and its alignment with traditional conservative values.​

If the United States under Trump’s leadership and the current GOP were viewed as an imaginary country, the evaluation would likely center around several key factors—governance, societal dynamics, international relations, economic management, and overall stability. Here's how one might assess this "imaginary country":

1. Governance and Leadership

  • Authoritarian Tendencies: The centralization of power and loyalty-based political system might raise concerns about democratic principles. In this country, the leadership style might prioritize personal loyalty over merit, leading to potential corruption and weakening of institutional checks and balances.

  • Polarization: The leadership might foster deep divides within the population, pitting one group against another. This would result in a fragmented society, with limited ability for cooperation or compromise across political lines.

  • Populist Policies: The leader (akin to Trump) might push populist policies that cater to immediate voter interests but could undermine long-term stability or fairness, especially in areas such as immigration, trade, and social rights.

2. Societal Dynamics

  • Cultural and Social Divisions: The country could experience deep cultural and social divides, with groups feeling increasingly alienated from one another. Social issues—such as immigration, race relations, and gender equality—could become points of contention that further divide the populace.

  • Civil Rights and Freedoms: Personal freedoms and civil rights might be selectively applied, particularly regarding freedom of speech, protest, or the press. The media might be regularly accused of being "fake" or "biased," creating a lack of trust in institutions meant to hold the government accountable.

  • Populism and Nationalism: The country’s government may cultivate a sense of nationalism that appeals to certain segments of the population but risks isolating others. Ethnocentrism or nativist policies could be promoted, further separating the "us" from the "them."

3. Economic Management

  • Economic Nationalism: The country might adopt protectionist economic policies, focusing on “America First” or similar nationalistic ideals. While these policies might temporarily benefit some segments (e.g., working-class voters), they could harm international trade relationships and lead to economic isolation.

  • Wealth Inequality: Under such leadership, wealth inequality might increase as policies could disproportionately benefit the rich, with the gap between the wealthy elite and the working-class citizens widening.

  • Short-Term Economic Gains vs. Long-Term Stability: Economic policies, such as tariffs or tax cuts, could yield short-term boosts to certain industries or voters but undermine long-term financial health, contributing to deficits, trade imbalances, or economic instability.

4. International Relations

  • Isolationist Foreign Policy: The country's foreign policy might favor isolationism or confrontational diplomacy. Relations with traditional allies could deteriorate, while international institutions (such as the UN or NATO) might be sidelined or undermined.

  • Trade Wars: Frequent tariffs and protectionist measures could lead to trade wars, disrupting global supply chains and creating long-term friction with major trading partners. The country's global influence could decline as a result of its "America First" approach to international trade.

  • Unpredictability: The country might become known for unpredictable diplomatic actions, with leadership changing policies on a whim. Allies and adversaries alike could struggle to navigate this country’s foreign policy stance, leading to instability in global affairs.

5. Stability and Long-Term Outlook

  • Political Instability: With divisive leadership and deep polarization, this imaginary country might experience political instability. The ruling party could face frequent challenges from opposition groups, and protests or civil unrest could become more common as citizens grow increasingly dissatisfied with the leadership.

  • Institutional Erosion: Over time, institutions such as the judiciary, press, and legislature might become weaker under the influence of populist, authoritarian leadership, making the country more vulnerable to corruption and abuse of power.

  • Democratic Backsliding: This country could face a slow erosion of democratic principles, such as free and fair elections, due to undermining institutions, voter suppression, or the centralization of power within a singular figure.

Overall Evaluation:

Pros:

  • Strong connection with populist sentiments, rallying a significant portion of the population.

  • Economic policies that benefit certain groups, such as working-class voters or specific industries.

  • Clear and charismatic leadership that appeals to national pride.

Cons:

  • Authoritarian tendencies and centralization of power.

  • Deep political polarization and social divides.

  • Economic isolationism that harms long-term stability and international relations.

  • Erosion of democratic institutions and rights.

This imaginary country would likely be marked by a tense and unstable environment, with significant internal divisions and challenges in governance. While it could experience short-term economic gains or political successes among its core supporters, the long-term outlook would be fraught with challenges related to authoritarianism, international isolation, and growing inequality. 

The overall stability of the country would be highly uncertain, as it would depend heavily on how well it manages its internal divisions, economic instability, and international relationships.

Two things allow this kind of governing. Division. Fear/Hate. We cannot allow ourselves to be divided. We cannot allow ourselves to be set upon one another. MaGA Trump supporters think Liberals are stupid, Liberals think MaGA Trump supporters are stupid. Or..name whatever negative, dehumanizing adjective you can think of. But we are all Americans and that is what makes us great. Not our leaders. 

I see MaGA Trump supporters as Americans with a rough take on Life & America. 
I asked a stranger today:
“You a Trump supporter?”
Him: “Proudly.”
Me: “Cool—we can talk.”
(He smiles)
Him: “You too?”
Me: “Not...even...close.”
Him: “But…”
Me: “We can still talk. Just don’t have to agree there.”

We can think differently, be different, believe different things. But we can't stop talking. We can't stop being Americans. And to label the other side, those opposing you, or your group, or leader as incapable of thought, humanity, or decency...is to unbecome Americans and become something far lower in nature. By dehumanizing others, you dehumanize yourself.

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and act without asking questions.” - Primo Levi, Holocaust survivor and author

The Founding Fathers would likely have mixed reactions to the idea of a "strong connection with populist sentiments" rallying a significant portion of the population, as their views on democracy, leadership, and governance were complex and varied.

1. Concern for Factionalism and Populism:

  • Figures like James Madison were deeply wary of the dangers of populism. In Federalist No. 10, Madison warned about the dangers of "factions," or groups with specific interests that could overpower the common good. He feared that a government too responsive to populist pressures could lead to instability or the tyranny of the majority.

  • Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton, believed that a republic should have checks and balances to prevent any one faction, including populist movements, from gaining too much power. They would likely have cautioned against populism becoming too dominant, arguing that it could undermine the careful balance they sought to create in the Constitution.

2. Support for a Republic, Not a Pure Democracy:

  • Thomas Jefferson, who favored more direct democracy, might have seen some positives in the idea of populist sentiments rallying the people. Jefferson believed in the wisdom and virtue of the common people and was a strong proponent of more direct engagement of citizens in governance. He might have supported the notion of the populace having more influence, as long as it didn’t descend into mob rule.

  • However, even Jefferson would likely have had reservations if populism turned into an unchecked, emotional force that undermined the rights of minorities or the rule of law.

3. Fear of Demagogues:

  • George Washington, in his Farewell Address, warned against the dangers of political parties and divisive partisanship, which could easily be exacerbated by populism. He feared that these factions would lead to the rise of demagogues who could manipulate popular sentiment for personal or partisan gain.

  • He might have expressed concern that too much populist energy could lead to instability or the rise of a leader who leveraged public opinion for personal power, potentially undermining the republic.

4. Balance Between Popular Sovereignty and Stability:

  • The Founders recognized the importance of popular participation in government, but they also believed in mechanisms that would temper that influence. The Senate was designed to be a more stable body, less susceptible to fleeting popular sentiment, and the Electoral College was a buffer against direct democracy in presidential elections.

  • The Founders likely believed that any connection with populist sentiment should be balanced with structures designed to ensure stability, reasoned debate, and protection of minority rights. They were wary of majorities using their power to trample on the rights of the minority or to make hasty decisions that could harm the nation in the long run.

5. Populism as a Double-Edged Sword:

  • The Founders would probably have seen populism as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it was important that the government reflected the will of the people, but on the other, they recognized that unchecked populism could lead to chaos, instability, or authoritarianism. They would have likely advocated for structures and practices that ensure populism is channeled in a way that serves the greater good, not just short-term passions.

6. Economic Policies that Benefit Certain Groups:

  • Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate for a strong central government and economic development, might support policies that benefit certain industries, especially if they align with building national infrastructure or strengthening the economy. However, he would also caution against favoring specific groups at the expense of others, as this could create inequality and injustice.

  • Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, would likely be wary of policies that disproportionately benefit certain groups. He was a proponent of agrarianism and believed that a nation's strength lay in a balanced economy. He would likely view policies that create too much disparity between different classes as dangerous and potentially destabilizing.

  • James Madison might have a similar concern, fearing that economic policies favoring specific groups could create factions that undermine the common good and lead to a concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few, which was contrary to the ideals of a democratic republic.

7. Clear and Charismatic Leadership that Appeals to National Pride:

  • George Washington himself embodied clear and charismatic leadership, and he understood the importance of national pride in uniting the country. However, in his Farewell Address, Washington also warned against the dangers of excessive partisanship and personality-driven politics. He would likely support strong, principled leadership but would caution against a leader who stokes national pride for personal gain or uses it to divide the nation.

  • Thomas Jefferson might appreciate the appeal to national pride but would be cautious about the leader's charisma overshadowing democratic principles. He believed in the importance of the people's role in government and would not want a leader to become too dominant or manipulative of public sentiment.

  • John Adams would likely be concerned with the cult of personality surrounding any leader, as he was a strong advocate for reason and deliberation in governance. He might see a charismatic leader as potentially dangerous if it led to the erosion of democratic institutions and principles.

Overall Summary:

The Founding Fathers would likely have mixed views on these aspects of governance. While they would support policies that benefit the common good, they would caution against economic favoritism that deepens divisions or concentrates power in the hands of a few. They would also recognize the value of clear leadership, but only if it did not overshadow democratic checks and balances or cultivate dangerous, personality-driven politics that could destabilize the republic.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT