Reichstag Fire Moment, Continued

Reichstag Fire

 It has been almost a month since I asked whether the Charlie Kirk assassination was our Reichstag Fire moment.  Since then I have been too paralyzed with fear to write any more.  And the answer appears to be that there are some very disturbing developments taking place below the surface, although most have not yet sprung into view.

The ICE blitz in Chicago actually began the day before the Charlie Kirk assassination and National Guard deployments have been delayed, so the most visible aspects of Trump's crackdown seem unrelated (though no less alarming for that).

Plans are being laid in Washington that sound very much like an attempt to shut down all opposition organizations, though it is not yet clear when this will come into view or how far it will go.  Stephen Miller is spearheading an integrated attempt to shut down donors and organizations the Administration defines as "terrorist" or "Antifa."  Naturally, anonymous officials insist that they are not targeting activities protected by the First Amendment, but Team Trump seems to regard the First Amendment as protecting only speech it approves of and treats all criticism as criminal incitement.  ICE is beginning to be directed to surveil opponents as well as immigrants.

Officials in the article cited deny targeting any specific organizations.  However the IRS has been given a list of specific organizations and individuals to target.  Ordering the IRS to target specific individuals or organizations has been a felony since the 1970's.  This is very much a thing I feared from the start.  I just misjudged how long it would take to implement.

ICE has been given a massive spyware contract that will allow it to bypass any warrant requirements on spying and go through tech companies instead.  It is hiring contractors to look into “individuals who pose a danger to national security, risk public safety or otherwise meet ICE enforcement priorities.”  In other words, it is being turned into a true secret police with powers to spy on political opponents.

And Ted Cruz -- who, to his credit, condemned government attempts to force Jimmy Kimmel off the air -- is calling for anti-Trump protests to be prosecuted as RICO violations.  In fact, Republicans all across the board were denouncing the No Kings protests as terrorists acts by Antifa.  (Once the protests finished without violence, Republicans are dismissing them as a bunch of out-of-touch old white guys).

These things are all in early stages.  But collectively, they look like an attempt to shut down the Democratic Party and all its donors and supporting non-profits.  In other words, to create a one party state.  

I will also note that within a month of the Reichstag Fire, the German parliament voted itself out of existence.  Given the importance of Congress's power of the purse strings, I would dismiss that out of hand here, except that Mike Johnson seems to be doing his utmost to prevent Congress from ever convening again.

Buckle up.

Is This Our Reichstag Fire Moment?

Reichstag Fire

So, is the Charlie Kirk assassination our Reichstag Fire moment?

For starters, we should really consider what the Reichstag fire moment meant.  

Hitler was named chancellor on January 30, 1933.  (Point of contrast: Donald Trump was sworn in as president on January 20, 2025.  So the two men's tenure is comparable).

Hitler promptly called for elections on March 5, which is doable in a parliamentary system.

In early February, Goering took over the Prussian police, deputized his Brown Shirts, and authorized them to shoot real or imagined Communists on sight.  (Street battles and intimidations between Communist and Nazi paramilitaries were common at the time).

On February 27, the Reichstag burned down in a fire apparently set by a Communist fanatic acting alone.  Nazis promptly blamed all Communists for the fire, declared it the opening salvo of a civil war, and denounced Communists in the most inflammatory of terms.  On February 28, President Hindenburg issued a decree suspending civil liberties and states' rights -- particularly state control of the police.  Goering promptly began mass arrests of Communists in Prussia.  Within two weeks, the Nazis had taken over all state police and made mass arrests of Communist and Social Democratic leaders, shut down their newspapers, and the like.

The elections took place on March 5.  Nazis won 44% of the vote, and rightwing parties won a  majority.  

The next day Nazis seized control of all state governments.  Opposition politicians fled for their lives.  The prisons were so overwhelmed by the number of political prisoners that the Nazis began a makeshift prison in an abandoned munitions factory, named for the nearby medieval town of Dachau.  Dachau opened on March 22, 1933. Widespread reports of torture and murder circulated by early April.

On March 23, 1933, the Reichstag met, under the intimidating presence of the Brown Shirts, and voted itself out of existence.  By July, all parties but the Nazis had been banned.

So what has happened with us?  It is really too early to say.  So far we have seen:

Right wingers have been declaring a civil war and using the most demonizing and inflammatory terms to condemn anyone who might be broadly defined as "left," blaming them for Charlie Kirk's murder.

The digital mob is on the loose, harassing and threatening, demanding the firing of anyone they deem disrespectful of Charlie Kirk.  An unknown number of people have lost their jobs.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr as threatened the licenses of ABC unless they fired Jimmy Kimmel, a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Donald Trump is ranting like a complete dictator.  Administration member JD Vance, Steve Miller, and Pam Bondi are little better.  All are threatening RICO actions against who-knows-who.  Trump is designating Antifa a terrorist organization.

At the same time, Trump has beaten a tactical retreat from his plans to send the National Guard to Chicago.  Most of us are just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

So what should be expect?  I am expecting Team Trump to start doing what I feared, and what -- so far as we know -- it has not done yet, such as using the IRS to shut down organizations that oppose it, or sending FBI informants to infiltrate opposing organizations to disrupt them.  And now there are threat of RICO investigations against a very vaguely defined leftwing terror network and its funders.

I believe that many right-wingers really do believe their wilder conspiratorial ideas about organizations on the left -- that all the 2020 riots, and probably the January 6 riot, were organized and directed by Antifa.  That every organization that has ever received a donation from George Soros' Open Society Foundation is controlled by Soros.  That virtually all leftwing activists and protesters are paid and controlled by Soros.  And so forth.  

Certainly a RICO investigation will not turn up any such conspiracy.  But so what?

I do not know much of anything about RICO, other than that it allows any organization that commits two or more listed crimes to be declared a criminal enterprise, subject to extensive criminal and civil penalties.  The crimes include numerous types of fraud.  I imagine if you comb through any organization's books closely enough you can find at least two questionable transactions.  And that just might be enough to declare it a criminal enterprise and shut it down.

Scary stuff!

Spock's Brain

 

I changed my mind about "Spock's Brain."  "Spock's Brain" is the Star Trek episode that features a planet in which all the men, known as Morgs, live in the surface in paleolithic conditions and all the women, known as Eymorgs, live in underground caverns with a super high tech computer that runs everything for them.  (Not explained -- where little Morgs and Eymorgs come from).  When their computer wears out, they steal Spock's brain to take its place.

Clearly the episode is bad. It is agreed on all hands to be one of the worst, if not the worst Star Trek episode ever.  But I went too far when I said, "If there is anything of value that can be salvaged from that episode then I, for one, cannot detect it." 

Bad as the episode is, there is one thing about it that seems disturbingly prescient.  All the women (Eymorgs) have gotten so accustomed to having a computer think for them that they have forgotten how to think for themselves and are complete airheads.  While it is disturbing how often the series equates attractiveness in women with stupidity, it does raise some troubling questions about what happens when computers start doing our thinking for us.

We are starting to find out.

My Own Thoughts on the Jeffrey Epstein Files

So, since everyone else is weighing in on Trump and Epstein, what do I have to say on the subject?  

First and foremost, I would say the number one lesson here as that our side really doesn't understand MAGA and has no idea how Trump supporters will react to any of this and should not make predictions.  I don't think any of us had this on our bingo card, and yet here it is.  So, after warning against making any predictions here, let me offer a few:

What is in the files?

I don't know obviously, but I am going to guess nothing anywhere near as bad as our most lurid imagination.  I have two reasons for believing this.  One is that nothing is ever as bad as one's most lurid imagination makes it out to be.  The whole Russia scandal should have shown us that.  Don't make the same mistake twice.

The second reason is that it simply passes imagination to believe that if there is something truly explosive in the files, Trump is the only one damaged by it.  It seems only minimally more plausible that everyone damaged is someone Trump wants to protect.  So if there is anything really damaging there about people Trump wants to hurt, or even people he doesn't much care about one way or the other, why not make selective releases?  Release that part the hurt other people to sate the base's bloodlust while withholding the parts the hurt Trump and his allies.  

The lack of selective release strongly suggests that there is really not much there.

What should our side do about it?

We should refrain from wild speculation about what might be in the files and focus on the coverup instead of the crime.  We should ask Patel and Bondi when were they lying, when they said they were about to release the files, or when they said there was nothing there.  

Will this sink Trump?

No.  It's simply too early in the game to sink Trump.  I am betting that he manages to push this off the pages -- at least for now.  His base will not turn against him so soon, although its faith may have taken a blow.  I would expect Epstein stories to fade, at least for now, and Trump's popularity to stabilize in the low 40's for August, September, and October, and even improve a little.

Why?  Well, economic statistics for late July/early August showed some signs of softening in the economy and a slight uptick in inflation, but really nothing conclusive.  This could be the beginnings of an adverse supply shock or even true stagflation, or it could be just statistical noise.  I expect it to take about till November to become clear whether the economy is taking an actual hit.  Clearly, the direction of the economy will go a long way toward determining Trump's overall popularity.  

Also, even if this does turn out to be statistical noise and the economy is still humming along in November, November is also when the first effects of the One Butchered Barbarous Blunder will start to be felt, mostly in the form of reduced insurance subsidies.  That will be unpopular.  And if the economy tanks Trump's popularity badly enough, maybe, just maybe, the Epstein files will make a comeback.

When might it sink Trump?

My guess is, the very earliest possible is around March to June of next year.  Why March to June?  Because that is when the Republicans will be staring at the midterms and and wondering if they are in a hole that no gerrymander can dig them out of.  My guess is that would happen if we were starting to see serious, obvious stagflation.  I would also guess that Trump's peril would subside after June because then the midterms would be close at hand and a Republican civil war would be disastrous.

As for what might happen after the midterms, it is way to early to guess.

How will we know if Trump is losing his grip?

That is easy.  We will know Trump is starting to lose his grip if the right wing media starts expressing concerns about his physical and cognitive health, praise of George Washington for his statesmanship in getting out while he was still in peak form, and concern that after all Trump has achieved, it would be a shame for him to end up like Biden.  Whether this will be an actual prelude to 25th Amendment remedies or simply an attempt to persuade Trump not to run for a third term I could not say.

So those are the predictions of one who does not pretend to understand MAGA or to be able to guess what they will do.  We will see how this shakes out.

So What Can We Do?

 So, let us suppose that I am right, that the current ICE reign of terror will lead to labor shortages that are unsustainable and therefore won't be sustained.  Sooner or later it will have to end, the question being when and how.  

My guess was that it will end in about 3-4 months, with some sort of system of allowing employers being allowed to vouch for employees, creating an extremely exploitive system that allows employers to keep their work force in line with the threat of deportation.  ICE would have to respect such a certification and therefore be forced to relent somewhat in its lawlessness, but would still have open season on anyone with out such a certification, including immigrants with various other kinds of legal protection.  On the plus side, the arrest quota -- and with it, Stephen Miller -- would have to go.

But that is purely guesswork on my part.  Even assuming the current reign of terror comes to an end well short of the mass deportations Trump has promised, it might end sooner or it might end later.  It might end on better terms, or it might end on worse.  Political pressure will be a major factor.  So far, Trump is facing a lot of political pressure, both from the hardcore MAGA who will accept nothing short of complete ethnic cleansing, and from financial interests who want it to end.  

What can we do?  My own view, from 30,000 feet up, is that we should think of this as a replay of the Civil Rights Movement -- a fight for public opinion and moral authority.  Whatever builds our moral authority helps to sway public opinion.  And we need to focus, not just on the overall public, but on those specific parts of the public that might have Trump's ear.

What do I suggest?  Here are my ignorant suggestions, from someone who has not idea how to achieve any of this.

Flood social  media with images of ICE outrages.  I realize the difficulty here is that we cannot tell in advance when and where ICE will strike.  On the other hand, I understand there are networks that watch ICE and tracking apps.  There should be ways to move rapid response teams.  Also, reach out to social media influencers and hubs.  If Joe Rogan can turn against Trump on this, maybe others can, too.

Send Congress to investigate detention centers.  ICE is demanding 72 hours notice to allow them to manage appearances.  But if inspections are frequent enough, it will have to be constantly managing appearances and maybe have to do more than appear.  Obviously, regular folks can't do this, but we can urge our Democrats in Congress to do it.

Deploy white people.  There are two advantages here.  White people are much less likely to be ICE targets and therefore are safer.  White people are also at an emotional remove from the issue and therefore less likely to get violent or abusive or do something else that hurts our moral authority.  When Black Lives Matter protests were breaking into riots, it occurred to me the danger might be reduced if you had a Black Woman's March, carrying signs saying "Marching for our men" or a Black Senior's March, carrying signs saying, "Marching for our sons and grandsons."  Downtown LA is a flashpoint, dangerous for Latinos and the scene of riots.  Why not send white people from suburbs with signs saying "Marching for our neighbors."

The Virgin of Guadalupe

Have a song and a symbol.  What song?  Well, not being an immigrant myself, it is not for me to say, but I can give some characteristics.  Make it something catchy and easily learned that becomes the signature tune of the movement.  (The Civil Rights Movement had "We Shall Overcome.")  Make it something that conveys moral authority.  In the case of immigration, that means assuring people of your allegiance.  For that reason, songs in Spanish, with a Mexican beat, are dangerous, just as the Mexican flag is dangerous.  Make it something that comes from the heart.  I get that these two things may be in tension -- a song vowing allegiance to the US may come across as insincere, especially given how the US is behaving now.  I am inclined to think the best bet is some sort of song celebrating the dignity of labor, to stress the point that immigrants are hard workers who contribute to society, and not the moocher their enemies say.  As for symbols, protestors in 2006 wore white to show their peaceful intent.  That sounds good.  I also heard the suggestion of using the Virgin of Guadalupe instead of the Mexican flag as a symbol of ethnic pride.  That sounds good, too.

For white supporters -- carry the US flag and pictures of the Statue of Liberty.  An upside down flag and Lady Liberty covering her face in shame work, too.  Carry posters with the slogan, "No PERSON shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," Fifth Amendment. And "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself, for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt," Leviticus 19:34.  Since patriotic songs that a liberal can sing from the heart, "This land is your land," or Neil Diamond "Coming to America," or Disney, "It's a Small World."

Stephen Miller

Make Stephen Miller our hate sink.  Making Elon Musk the target of anger worked for DOGE.  Immigration offers three possible targets -- Kristi Noem, Tom Homan, and Stephen Miller.  But it is best to focus everything on just one, and to me the choice is obvious.  ICE Barbie is just a (purportedly) pretty face with nothing behind it.  Tom Homan talks out of both sides of his mouth -- saying in one breath that we are only going after criminals, the worst of the worst, and when confronted with someone completely harmless, says that unauthorized border crossing is a crime, after all.  In other words, he is a PR flack.  He knows how to tack with the wind.  Stephen Miller is the evil genius behind all of this, the one who set the impossible quotas in the first place and, rumor has it, the one running the entire Administration.  And he has none of Trump's or even Musk's charm.  If it is possible for charisma to be negative, he has negative charisma. The mere sight of Steven Miller is enough to make most people want to wash very thoroughly.  

Avoid causing violence or disruption.  Yes, I know people's anger is justified, but it plays badly with public opinion.  My advice -- protest about a block away from federal facilities -- close enough to be seen and heard, but not close enough to start a fight.   Have peace keepers present and isolate any trouble makers.  I have no objection to civil disobedience -- seeking to physically block ICE and so forth, but this should be limited to people who are trained in civil disobedience and not responding to provocations.  If you are not trained, leave the civil disobedience to people who are.

Create a pipeline for ICE officers who want to quit.  At least some ICE officers are reported to be unhappy.  To my mind, ICE breaking apart is the best case scenario, though not a very likely one.  Still, it can't be easy to leave.  Half the people will hate you for having belonged to ICE and the other half will hate you for leaving.  Anyone who wants to be a hero and come forward should be welcome.  But presumably most will want to stay anonymous and get on with their lives with as little fuss as possible.  We should facilitate that.

Above all, seek out allies and minimize enemies.  The broader the coalition, the better the chance for success.  I realize also, the broader the coalition, the greater the chance of it breaking  up once it achieves its narrow goal, ending the current reign of terror, as people disagree on what is to follow.  But that is a different problem for a different day.  Ending the reign of terror comes first.  Who are our allies?

Immigrants and immigration activists.  Obviously.

Anti-Trump activists.  Ditto.

The Catholic Church.  Latinos are no longer as uniformly Catholic as was once the case, but the transnational nature of the Catholic Church makes this type of nationalism anathema to it.  Many  Catholic clergy have come out against the mass deportation regime.

Evangelical megachurches.  Yes, really.  Many of these have large numbers of immigrants in their membership who they will want to protect.  They might want a carveout to allow churches, as well as employers, to vouch for immigrants.  If we can make an alliance here, it is one that Trump will listen to.

Veterans.  Veterans have two roles here.  One is that many are troubled the Trump mobilizing the National Guard in Los Angeles.  Active duty personnel are strictly limited in what they can say.*  Veteran voices can speak up instead.  The other important role is specifically Afghan War veterans arguing for Afghans who put their lives on the line for us and now face being turned over to the Taliban to be tortured and killed.  Vietnam veterans as well -- we admitted Vietnamese who put their lives on the line for us, and they assimilated well.  Come to think of it, Vietnamese Americans may have something to say here also.

Animal lovers.  And now it appears that pets are being abandoned as their owners are arrest.  If nothing else reaches the heartstrings, this should.

Texas and Florida Republicans.  Both states have large Hispanic/Latino populations who vote Republican, but for how much longer?  At least some polls have shown in under water in both states.  And, in fact, a Florida Republican has introduced the Dignity Act, that would give unauthorized immigrants a pathway to legal status.  Nine other Republicans have endorsed the bill as well.

Police.  Maybe not a comfortable alliance, but a useful one.  Most police prefer to focus on street crime and not waste resources on people whose sole offense is unauthorized border crossing, and who pose no threat to public safety.  Besides, when ordinary police start asking immigration questions, non-citizen crime victims are afraid to come forward.  And -- lest certain MAGA types see this as a good thing -- non-citizen witnesses who may help solve a crime may also fear to come forward.  So yes, let us make this alliance even if it is not always comfortable.

Unions.  Many laborers being deported are union members.  If the Republicans want to make themselves into a working class party, unions should carry some weight with them.  And unions will have a strong interest in fighting for a non-exploitive arrangement, on behalf of working people of all ethnicities.

Employers.  This is the most controversial of all.  It means aligning ourselves with big money interests who we traditionally see as the enemy.  And big money interests are apt to seek a very exploitive arrangement.  But they are also the ones most likely to carry sway with Team Trump.  The stakes being what they are now, I don't believe we can afford to alienate any potential allies.

So those are my thoughts.  And I have no idea how to translate any of them into reality.

___________________________________________
*Tom Nichols has written about refusing an unlawful order and says that -- thus far -- what Trump has done falls well short of that.

ICE Compared to DOGE: How Does it End?

 

It didn't take me too long to recognize that Elon Musk's rampage through the federal government was not sustainable and had to come to an end, albeit with great damage.  The same applied to the worst of Trump's tariff's -- the markets cracked the whip, and he retreated to tariffs that were merely damaging, rather than ruinous.*

I would like to think that the same rule applies to mass deportations, that deporting so much of our labor force will become so ruinous that it just has to stop.  But at the same time, Team Trump has invested so many resources in mass deportation, and Republicans are so committed to it that it seems hard to imagine them pulling back.

The case for pessimism

The One Botched, Bungled Boondoggle increases the budget for border enforcement from $34 billion to $168 billion -- nearly a five-fold increase.  This is approximately the combined total of all local police budgets in the US.  It also seeks to hire another 10,000 ICE agents, up from the current 20,000 and as much as a 13-fold increase in the detention and surveillance budget.  Many of these facilities are already built, so there will not be much delay.  And detention and surveillance will be a strong interest group fighting any cuts.  Firing tens of thousands of unionized federal employees is not politically feasible (although DOGE has set an interesting precedent here).  ICE has tasted blood and will be extremely difficult to reign in.  And this seems to be broadly desired by Republicans across the board, being offered as a spoonful of sugar to sweeten the bitter medicine if Medicaid cuts.  The only Republican to have questioned the expansion is Rand Paul, whose only objection appears to be a desire for greater accountability for the expense.  And when Trump briefly relented for farms and hotels he quickly reversed, apparently in response to Republican outcry.

Opinion polls are also revealing.  It appears that Americans believe that ICE has gone too far by 54% to 44%. But 80% of Republicans approve, with 31% even saying that ICE has not gone far enough.  So long as 80% of Republicans support ICE brutality, it will be very hard for Republicans to go against it.

In short, Republicans in general and Trump in particular have made mass deportations their signature policy, created a huge bloc of interests in mass deportations, have a rabid base, and will have great difficulty backing down.

The case or optimism

At the same time, sooner or later the economic consequences of deportations on such a scale will make themselves known.  At the same time, immigrants make up about 19% of the US labor force.  Yes, granted, many of them have legal status, but neither ICE nor hardcore Republicans seem to care.  Including undocumented only, Republicans are proposing to deport nearly a third of the workforce in construction, nearly half our workforce in agriculture, nearly a third of home health workers, and perhaps one out of four or five residential care workers.  Deporting so much of our workforce is going to be seriously disruptive and lead to growing pushback.  Donald Trump is showing signs of wavering, proposing exemptions for workers in agriculture and hospitality, though so far not following through.  Immigrant-heavy industries are beginning to experience labor shortages, especially in agriculture.

And now we are getting reports that even ICE is getting tired of this.  At least some ICE officers disapprove of their agency's lawlessness, although I think it is obvious that others love it.  But it does seem plausible that even agents who like the work are getting tired of starting at 4:00 a.m. and working weekends.  And even pushing so hard, ICE is still falling well short of Stephen Miller's goal of 3,000 arrests a day -- an average of 1,200 per day and only two days with 2,000.  The latest budget seeks to expand ICE's workforce by half -- from 20,000 to 30,000.  It seeks to more than double detainee capacity -- from 41,000 to 100,000.  Even with such an expansion, Miller's quota seems like a stretch. At the same time, this has not (thus far) led to widespread resignations or internal protests, and in the absence of such a response, discontent is not much use.  But it does suggests that the ICE rank and file might be more open to being reigned in than one might expect -- so long as the pressure from above relents.

What to Expect

Well, Elon Musk got kicked out when the rest of Trump's cabinet revolted.  All of them, no matter how rightwing, had actual work to get done and were tired of the disruptions.  Is there a chance of that happening here?  Other departments are being asked to divert more and more resources to deportations.  Some of them must be tired of being diverted from their normal missions.  A lot of employers, many of the Republicans, are getting frustrated with labor shortage.  And even Homeland Security is offering a sweetener to its threats -- the opportunity for anyone who self-deports to apply for readmission.  Tr

Sooner or later -- my guess is about 3-4 months, but that is purely a guess -- labor shortages will get so bad that the Team Trump will see no choice but to relent, at least in agriculture.  And if Trump relents in agriculture, how long can it be before other industries want in as well?  He has already proposed an exception for hospitality.  Construction and healthcare will also want in.  And no doubt others.  Trump has proposed to allow employers to "vouch" for their workforce to protect them from deportation.**  A few points are in order here.  

One is that this sounds terribly exploitive.  It makes it essentially impossible for a laborer to change jobs without a sponsor's agreement, and it allows employers to hold the threat of deportation over anyone they consider out of line.

At the same time, not all employers are purely exploitive.  Many will no doubt be willing to vouch for an employee purely as a protective matter.  In fact, I would expect that even if right wingers can eventually be brought around to such a system, they will be absolutely paranoid about fake certifications.

And finally, this will require at least some relenting in ICE's reign of terror.  An end to workplace raids at farms, obviously.  But ending workplace raids will be of limited value of employees can be arrested any time going to and from work, buying groceries, picking up children from school, attending church, etc.  Granted, ICE can continue random sweeps of these place.  But it will at least have to give people the opportunity to present proof of protection by an employer, and will have to respect such a certification.  That might even mean ending outrageous quotas in favor of a more targeted system.  And that, in turn, might require getting rid of Stephen Miller.

Hey, I can dream.

___________________________________________

*And now he is once again threatening ruinous -- starting August 1.  We will see how long that lasts.

**He raised the issue in agriculture only, but one can easily imagine a similar system in other industries.

A Few Mildly Encouraging Things About OBBB

 

Clearly, the One Bad, Bonkers Bill can't be considered good by any definition of the term.  But there are some things about it that could be worse.  Horrible though the policy is, and the rushed execution, there are a few things that might seem reassuring.

Consider:

The original version did not set Medicaid cuts to begin until 2029.  This means that Republicans anticipated that there would be a free and fair election in 2028 that a Democrat might win.  It might not be too much of a stretch to say they welcomed a Democrat winning so they could escape the blame.

Current Medicaid cuts take effect after the 2026 election.  That means that Republicans expect a free and fair 2026 election, or at least that they might lose their seats for cutting people's benefits.

Republican Senators deferred to the Senate Parliamentarian.  When she stripped out provisions as violating the filibuster rule, they accepted her judgment and refused calls to fire her.  The one exception was that they treated the existing revenue as baseline, which shocked Washington watchers, but seems to me a non-crazy way of doing things.*  The means Republican Senators think there could be a future government with Democrats controlling the White House and the House and at least 50 Senate seats and so they want to protect the filibuster.

Donald Trump threatened Thom Tillis with a primary challenge if he opposed the bill.  Tillis decided not to seek re-election.  Threatening one's political opponents with a primary challenge is, of course, completely legal and well within accepted norms of American politics.  Tillis, having decided not to run again, now feels free to speak freely.  Neither Thomas Massie nor Rand Paul show any fear of Donald Trump either.  Given rumors that Trump was keeping his caucus in line, not just with threats of primary challenges, but with physical threats by violent supporters, this is reassuringly normal.

Speaking of the Senate Parliamentarian, she removed a provision that would have prevented courts from enjoining government actions.  She also removed a provision limiting judges ability to hold defiant officials in contempt.  I will admit I never considered that provision quite as dangerous, since it is not clear to me that contempt proceedings have played any significant role in whether officials obey court orders, but it is nice to have.

The ban on artificial intelligence regulation was also removed, and by a 99-1 vote, no less!

A provision allowing the IRS to unilaterally declare any non-profit a supporter of terrorism and shut it down was rejected.  I don't know for sure, but it was possible the fear that a Democrat might be President some day have have this power may have played a part.

A proposal to increase taxes on charitable foundations was also rejected.  Republicans have insisted for a long time that government is too powerful and that everyone is too dependent on government money.  Given the rampage Trump has been on, many of his opponents have begun to agree.  The original House version sought to make it harder for even private charity to step in where government stepped out.  The Senate removed this provision.

In generally, the impact of the provisions will grow over time.  This will give time for public outcry to build and the most damaging provisions to be reversed.

In short, what ultimately passed is a horribly bad set of policies.  But at least the parts of it that threatened democracy were taken out.  Except for the very most dangerous one.  The expansion of ICE.

_______________________________________
*Aside from the craziness of the entire procedure of requiring a 60-vote super-majority and treating a simple majority as a radical action.