If I Were to Choose My Own Adventure

I don't play fair when I do choose your own adventure stories.  Invariably, when I choose a course of action, I end up backtracking to see what would happen if I made the other choice and end up charting out the various outcomes.  What if Trump Wins is no exception.  But, of course, real life is not like that.  In real life, once you make a choice, there is no going back to see what would have happened if you had done something else.  

 So, if the options the book offers had been my real life options what would I have done?  The authors recommend taking one of four alternatives -- protect people being targeted, defend existing institutions, envision what comes after Trump, or strategize forms of resistance.  They also comment that these categories may not be so different overall.  The choose-your-adventure only allows you to pick one.  I think that point is that you should not attempt to do it all.  Doing it all will spread you too thin and mean not doing any of them very well.  Better to stick to one area and do it well and trust that other, like-minded people will take up the things you do not.

At the same time, the authors comment that these categories may not be so different after all, and seem to implicitly acknowledge that some people may do more than one.  At least, non-resistance people are invariably approached by a "longstanding volunteer" who has been a "steady volunteer" in whatever the non-resistance person does, but whose work is mostly with the resistance.  So in the actual world, people may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

However, let us assume, in the real world, that those four choices present themselves.  Let us assume that my local Indivisibles chapter responds to Trump winning to setting up four committees -- one to protect people being targeted, one to defend existing institutions, one to envision what comes after Trump, and one to plan strategies of resistance.  The say that all four are important, but urge everyone to stick to just one thing and do it well.  Which one would I pick?

I do not see much doubt.  I would pick the committee defending existing institutions.  Why?

Well, I am too timid and too conflict-averse to be a good choice for the resistance.  Envisioning what comes after Trump sounds like a lot of fun, but I am the sort of person who is more likely to be the wet blanket, telling everyone why the things they want to do are not practical.

But why would I choose protecting institutions over protecting people.  Well, for one thing, there will always be people needing help and protection.  Of course, there will be more once Trump gets going (true!), but still, the difference is one of degree and not of kind.  I would anticipate Trump launching an assault on our institutions that is wholly unprecedented.

And besides, when you look at the broad sweep of history, what is it that makes America truly great and truly exceptional?  (And I do believe that we are great and exceptional, for all our flaws).  Well, it is obvious not the absence of oppression against individuals or communities.  Our history is a sorry parade of dispossession of the indigenous population, slavery, racial terror, segregation, and wave after wave of nativist hostility to immigrants, often accompanied by violent riots.  

And yet we have managed to move past these things -- not perfect by any means, but a vast improvement on our past.  All of these shameful episodes in our history were matched by struggle against the oppression -- often failing, but ultimately successful.  And what made this improvement possible?  Independent institutions.  Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote about Democracy in America, the final chapter of his first volume addressed the existence of racial oppression in the US and cast a deep shadow on everything else he may have to say.  One may, by all means, consider this to be grossly inadequate.  But he marveled at our freedom of association and proliferation of independent institutions -- a proliferation then unmatched anywhere in the world. 

Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds—religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools. If it be proposed to advance some truth, or to foster some feeling by the encouragement of a great example, they form a society. Wherever, at the head of some new undertaking, you see the government in France, or a man of rank in England, in the United States you will be sure to find an association. I met with several kinds of associations in America, of which I confess I had no previous notion; and I have often admired the extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object to the exertions of a great many men, and in getting them voluntarily to pursue it.

And later: 

There is only one country on the face of the earth where the citizens enjoy unlimited freedom of association for political purposes. This same country is the only one in the world where the continual exercise of the right of association has been introduced into civil life, and where all the advantages which civilization can confer are procured by means of it. In all the countries where political associations are prohibited, civil associations are rare. It is hardly probable that this is the result of accident.

Oppression of disfavored groups is nothing new in this country.  The threat to independent institutions is new and threatens what would otherwise be instruments of resistance.  And I have come to the conclusion that old school conservatives are right -- that independent institutions are the basis of a free society, and that we have all become too dependent on federal largess, and that such largess, in the wrong hands, is a threat to the independence of institutions.

So it came as something of a surprise that the section on defending institutions focused specifically on government institutions.  This section has more of a government focus than any other.  The section on helping individuals being targeted does so entirely through non-governmental entities -- mutual aid societies, fundraising for non-profits, and an underground railroad.  The section on envisioning what comes next offers two alternatives.  One is providing cultural grounding, which obviously is not governmental.  The other is a constitutional convention, which proposes government reforms to advocate, but is strictly the work of private citizens.  As for the resistance section, one option is strikes, which are not governmental.  One is withholding taxes to oppose government.  And one, though somewhat unclear, appears to be an organization of civil servants pledged to refuse unlawful orders, which is something within government (I think).

Still, let us suppose that I join Indivisible's protecting institutions committee and it turns out to focus on governmental institutions.  I do believe that some degree of insulation of the government bureaucracy from the President's unlimited discretion is necessary for preserving the rule of law.  The authors offer three examples of government institutions whose independence must be preserved -- the military, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the elections infrastructure.  

Obviously keeping the military out of partisan politics is essential to the survival of democracy.  Some day we may face Donald Trump ordering a coup and the survival of democracy may depend on their refusal of the unlawful order, so this is very important.  The authors suggest reaching out to veterans and their families, and active duty military families to use their influence to remind the military of the need to stay out of partisan politics.  I have neither the connections nor the networking and persuasive skills to do this, so this one would not be my choice.

The next option they offer is assisting the EPA as a citizen scientist.  I do approve of this and think it is useful, both as a force multiplier, and for weaning ourselves off the federal teat.  If I were playing the choose your adventure properly, I might pick this option.  However, in the real world I do not have the scientific knowledge and skill to do testing for the EPA as a citizen scientist, so I would pass on that as well.

The final option is protecting elections.  This is also very important; indeed, the survival of our democracy may very well depend on it, so if these were my options in the real world, that is the one I would pick.  The adventure than has me searching for election grants and preparing a spreadsheet of what is out there.  That sounds well within my skill set, so I suppose if the choose your adventure were taking place in real life, this is the option I would take.

Back to What if Trump Wins?

So, as we draw close to the Semiquincentennial, my thoughts go not just toward the vulgar display Trump is making and his appalling escalations in cracking down on opponents, but also to the choose your own adventure story, What if Trump Wins?  The reason for my obsession is simple -- What if Trump Wins assumes that our make-or-break moment happens some time in the first half of this year.  

Actually, the authors are somewhat less than clear on the timeline, for obvious reasons.  They offer two possible showdowns.  One is that Trump decides to defy the 22nd Amendment and seek a third term, which seems plausible.  The other is that he attempts to forcibly shut down an electric vehicle plant, which seems a bit far-fetched.*  In all such cases, the authors assume that Trump will fail if the resistance and non-resistance wings of the opposition join forces, and that he will successfully crush the resistance if they do not join forces.  

In all cases, if non-resistance movements decline to join forces with the resistance, then by the Semiquincentennial (July 4, 2026), non-resistance opposition hear about the resistance being beaten up and arrested.  Trump stays in power for a third term and democracy fails.  They are also weirdly precise about that happens to the resistance if they do not reach out to the more moderate opposition.  The strike committee attempts a general strike on February 21 (presumably 2026), fails, and is crushed.  The tax resistance committee peters out after Tax Day, April 15 (again, presumably 2026) and is crushed.  If the resistance and non-resistance wings join forces over an electric vehicle plant, the authors envision Trump's power being shattered, and him losing his grip on the Republican Party.  He limps out as a lame duck until the end of his term and then loses.  If the resistance and non-resistance wings join forces over Trump seeking a third term, the authors appear to envision it happening in the lead-up to the 2028 election, which makes sense.  But failure to join forces means defeat before July 4, 2026??  Does this make any sense?  Actually, many of their scenarios are rather vague about a lot of things, which makes sense, sine the more precise the prediction, the more ways for it to go wrong.  

At present, all signs point to the real showdown taking place during the buildup to and aftermath of the midterm elections, a topic the choose-your-adventure never so much as mentions.**  This is strange when you get down to it.  The midterms are highly salient for all Presidents.  And really, the book totally ignores normal electoral politics, lobbying, and government outside of the federal executive -- a significant omission.  

So, I want to take an extensive backward look at What if Trump Wins before the Fourth is upon us, interspersed with posting about what is actually happening in the real world, and maybe a little Sherlock Holmes.

_____________________________________________

*Actually, it has three possible showdowns, one for each resistance group.  One has the showdown over forcibly closing an electric vehicle plant, and two over an attempt to seek a third term.  More on that later.

**Not quite true.  For people working on safeguarding elections, there is a single throw-away mention of worrying about the integrity of the midterm and future elections.
 

A Very Depressing Thought

It would seem that that no one -- either in the US or anywhere else -- really cares about democracy.  It is too abstract to resonate. Democracy or dictatorship, it is all the same to most people.  Only the economy matters.  It is a depressing thought.

But you know what is even more depressing?  When the Germans threw away democracy, at least they had the excuse of an unprecedented economic crisis with 25% unemployment.  And they were only a decade out from experiencing 100 million percent inflation.

We voted to throw away democracy with a strong economy, just because inflation had reached nine percent.
 

The 1970's and the Current Economy

 

The current oil shock, and the COVID shock before, have drawn comparisons with the great stagflation of the 1970's.  Over the decade, inflation never fell below six percent and often went into the double digits, topping out at 14%.  At the same time, economic growth slowed and unemployment was persistently high.  What finally broke the inflationary spiral was that the Federal Reserve, led by Paul Volker, put a severe squeeze on the economy, running interest rates as high as 20%, with predictable results to the overall economy.  This tightening caused a severe recession, with unemployment rising to ten percent.  Once the inflationary spiral was broken, the Fed lightened up and the economy quickly bounced back.  It was in full swing recovery by the 1984 election and it was "morning in America" with people convinced that recessions were gone forever.  Inflation rate when we considered the spiral broken -- about four percent.

Compare that with the post-COVID inflation.  In that case, inflation topped out at nine percent and came down, being only slightly above target of two percent on Liberation Day.  Furthermore, the Fed achieved the storied "soft landing," i.e., it managed to tame inflation without inducing a recession.  Even now, when everyone is freaking out over rising inflation with rising oil prices, the latest rate reported was 3.8% -- at or below the rate when it was "morning in America."  Yet consumer sentiment is hitting an all time low, below the rate during the 1970's stagflation, because nominal prices have not fallen to pre-pandemic levels.

This has led some to conclude we have reached an absurd paradox.  Consumer sentiment is a victim of the Fed's own success.  If nine percent inflation has persisted for years, people would have gotten used to rapidly rising prices, stopped looking for a return to the good old days, and just been grateful to see prices stabilize.  Or if the Fed had induced a recession, people would have focused on the recession instead of inflation and been so happy when it ended that they would stop worrying about nominal prices.  It would seem by this analysis that what is really needed to restore consumer sentiment is a recap of the 1970's -- prolonged inflation, followed by a severe recession to wring it out.  

Alternately, maybe we have just become a nation of spoiled brats, unwilling to endure any hardship.

A Modest Proposal That Should Make Everyone Happy

There has been a great deal of talk about this article, warning that the US is effectively checkmated in its war with Iran and left with two unpalatable options -- accept defeat and allow Iran to open the Straits of Hormuz on its own terms, or resume fighting and expect Iran to retaliate against regional oil facilities, causing a drop in production that will take years to recover.  

What is remarkable is not that the author concludes that the war is not turning out so well.  That much is obvious.  It is that the author is Robert Kagan, a well-known neocon --, a national security conservative, an extreme foreign policy hawk, especially in the Middle East, and that his conclusion is that rather than hitting them harder, our best bet is to accept defeat as quickly as possible and move on:

Unless the U.S. is prepared to engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold; unless it is prepared to risk the loss of warships convoying tankers through a contested strait; unless it is prepared to accept the devastating long-term damage to the region’s productive capacities likely to result from Iranian retaliation—walking away now could seem like the least bad option. 

 The trouble is that Trump's vanity never allows him to admit defeat, witness the 2020 election.  By contrast, JD Vance, for all his failings, seems to be willing to admit defeat and move on.  

But how to remove Trump from power?  There are usually seen to be four options.

1.    Trump dies.  Not within our control

2.    Trump has a wholly incapacitating medical event, leading Vance to take power under the 25th Amendment.  Also not within our control.

3.    Trump wigs out so badly that the Cabinet has no choice but to invoke the 25h Amendment.  But the Cabinet seems too afraid of Trump's reaction to pursue this option.

4      Impeachment and removal.  Calls for a Democratic majority in the House and a 2/3 Democratic majority in the Senate.  This would have to happen after the midterms and the chances of such a majority are effectively zero.

Reflecting pool

So let me make my own Modest Proposal for how to handle this situation.  Remove Trump under the 25th Amendment and just don't tell him about it.  Vance can leave his family out of the spotlight at the Naval Observatory and move into the White House, hoping it is big enough that he can avoid being noticed. Or, better yet, convince Trump that living in the White House is slumming and he really should stay at Mar-a-Lago.  

It should be obvious by now that Trump has no interest whatever in governing.  He just wants to do his building projects.  He wants to install marble armrests at the Kennedy Center (don't ask) build a monster ballroom, paint the reflection pool at Lincoln Memorial, put up his monstrous Arc de Trump, and so forth.  So be it.  Somewhere on Earth 2.0, some normie (of either party) is serving as President and Trump is a major campaign donor and demanding to be rewarded with some cushy job.  Norm E. President is appalled at the thought of appointing Trump as an ambassador (the usual such reward) and instead puts him in charge of the Kennedy Center on the theory that (1) it seems more like something Trump would like doing than being an ambassador and (2) he can't cause too much harm no matter what he does. If Kennedy Center doesn't cut it, President Norm can give him a general job redesigning landmarks.

Trump and his ballroom design

Granted, there can be some difficulties in keeping Trump in the dark about his removal.  He would probably want to hold Cabinet meetings now and then, but that shouldn't be too much of a problem.  Just have the Cabinet do their usual groveling praise and not bore him with any substantive policy discussions.  He will probably also want to do press conferences, but that shouldn't be too big a problem.  Just have reporters stick to fawning questions about Trump's latest building projects, which is all he really wants to talk about anyhow.

The next and obvious question is what about the public.  Well, there is strong evidence that Rupert Murdoch despises Trump and would be happy to keep Fox News and the rest of Murdochistan from taking about it.  Just pay non-Murdoch rightwing influencers not to mention that Trump has been removed.  Sure, the despised mainstream media will discuss the subject, but neither Trump nor any of his supporters ever follow mainstream media, so they will never know.  A more serious problem is that once Trump is no longer President, all his donor money for the projects will dry up.  But that should not be insurmountable problem.  Doners will surely find pretending to be willing to fund the projects and finding excuses and delays to be infinitely preferable to actually having to live in fear of Trump actually wielding power.

In short, if we can just get Trump to focus on his goddam building projects and quit trying to govern, we might finally begin to recover.

Another Unoriginal Thought

Not so long ago, I commented that I thought one reason Trump was focusing so much on foreign policy was that his power in the domestic sphere was slipping away.

His attempt to use the government shutdown for a power grab had failed.  The Supreme Court had limited his power to impose unilateral tariffs and deploy the National Guard domestically.  ICE failed to subdue Minneapolis and had sparked a public backlash.  The Senate refused to end the filibuster.  More and more Epstein material kept leaking.  Anthropic was taking the Administration to court.  And the midterms looked really bad.

So Trump focused on foreign policy and war, because there is very little that can be done to constrain a President in foreign policy and military matter.  Except, of course, that "very little can be done" means that little can be done domestically.  The enemy still gets a veto.

And now that Trump's overseas war is not going so well, it appears he is turning back to domestic matters, with some success.  The Supreme Court has not only authorized, but mandated Republicans to gerrymander the South in their favor.  Indiana Republicans who defied Trump have lost their primaries.  The Attorney General is pursuing indictments against James Comey (for seashells) and the Southern Poverty Law Center for using informants, with who knows what to come.  And now he is proclaiming political opponents to be terrorists.

Look, there are signs of growing push-back against Trump's power.  But he is becoming more abusive the more he feels threatened. 

Buckle up.
 

Some Obvious Points About Donald Trump

 

Trump famously embodies the Dunning-Kruger effect, whereby people who know very little about a field think they know much more than they actually do.  He is also the walking embodiment of H.L. Mencken's maxim that complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers.

That is, of course, a major source of his appeal.  He appeals to people who don't know any more about policy questions than he does and assume that there are simple solutions out there that politicians have not adopted because they are too stupid, corrupt, or weak-willed.  Trump claims that he will cut through the red tape and fix everything by not being half-hearted about it.  Of course, when his profoundly ignorant claims run up against reality, things tend not to go so well.

In his first term, Trump appealed to people's complaints about Obamacare.  "We'll have great health care at a fraction of the cost and it will be so easy."  It was, after all, what people wanted to hear.  After working on it a while, Trump complained, "Who knew health policy was so complicated."  Not many people, Donald, just anyone who knows anything at all about health policy.  Admittedly, this is a fairly small portion of the total population.  He ended up with a plan to repeal Obamacare with no replacement and thereby strip 20 million people of their health insurance.  I think even the least informed members of the pubic would have noticed that.

Much the same applied when Trump agreed to a summit with the North Koreans.  He only cared about the pomp and pageantry and was not interested in trivial details like what agreement they might reach.

For his second term, Trump promised to end the war in Ukraine in one day.  Presumably he believed that his friend Pooty, would happily end the war as a personal favor.  To the extent the Ukrainians were unwilling to agree to Putin's terms, a little arm twisting should bring them into line.  Well, this failed for much the same reason -- Trump thinks of foreign policy solely in terms of personal relationships and has no idea that countries have interests that transcend the individuals in charge.  

So too with the Iran war.  The Iranians' clear wish up until February 28 to avoid war with a much stronger country made Trump think they were pushovers and easily intimidated.  What he didn't understand was that the regime was never going to agree to its own destruction, or that it would fight fiercely when cornered, although both points should have been obvious.  He appears to have believed that Iran would be intimidated into submission by the mere presence of US forces or, failing that, that he would have been able to swap out the name at the top for someone more compliant, just the way it has worked in Venezuela.

When that failed, Trump's advisors apparently convinced him that if he blockaded the straits, pressure would build up in Iran's oil storage and threaten to blow up in a matter of days, which would presumably force their capitulation.  Well, spoiler alert, that didn't happen either.  Trump now seems to believe that if he threatens and cajoles enough the Iranians will agree to his terms in a matter of days.  He has no patience for the long, drawn-out process of diplomacy.  

In the case of Obamacare, the dying John McCain made one last appearance in the Senate to save his party from itself and vote down repeal.  No deal was reached in either Korea or Ukraine, so the situation continued -- bad, but ultimately something most Americans could live with.

Well, the war in Iran is looking to be the most intractable problem yet.  Continuing that status quo is clearly not acceptable and bound to get worse, but there is no easy out.

Maybe next time don't elect President Dunning-Kruger.