Wait, WHAT?!

 

This sounds truly alarming!  The FBI has raided the offices of a voting rights organization in Ohio and seized its assets.  Over a hundred agents showed up at the houses of members to question them, sometimes with subpoenas for their electronic devices.  This is the first time so far that voter intimidation has gone from empty talk to serious action.  To call it alarming is a major understatement.

So why did I accidently stumble across it when scrolling through Facebook?  The raid apparently happened on Thursday.  Why is this the first I have heard about it?  I follow many progressive media/social media accounts.  Not one of them has so much as mentioned this alarming incident! They seem obsessed, instead, with whether Trump's name will finally come off the Kennedy Center.

What the *&^%$#@!!! is going on here???!!!

What if Trump Wins: What the Authors Got Right, What They Got Wrong, and What They Missed Altogether

 

Category	Activity
Protect people being targeted	Mutual aid society Fundraising for nonprofits Underground railroad
Defend existing institutions	Outreach to veterans/families/military Citizen scientist to assist EPA Find grants to strengthen elections
Envision what comes after Trump	Cultural/psychological grounding Constitutional convention
Resistance	Paperclip movement among civil servants Strikes Tax resistance

It has been over a year since I looked at What if Trump Wins' predictions about how he might act to compares with what he actually did.  It has been interesting, at least in part for some of the obvious things the authors left out.

Certainly, they got many things right, predicting Trump would:

• Pardon the January 6 rioters (true)
• Withdraw from the Paris climate agreements and delete all mention of climate change from government websites (true)
• Close the border (true) 
• Make deep cuts to healthcare and other social spending (true)
• Make widespread layoffs of federal employees (true)
• Attack emissions standard (true)
• Gerrymander (true)
• We also have to look at what it implicitly predicts Trump will not do.  As previously mentioned, it assumes that civil society will continue to flourish (true) and liberal media will still feel free to criticize Trump (true).

Other guesses were mostly right but missed some details, such as predictions Trump would:

• Engage in mass deportations with little or no due process -- true, but seriously understates just how bad it would be, as it failed to foresee mass incarceration or the true scale of the reign of terror in some area.
• Appoint far right judges -- certainly the plan, but just getting started
• Reclassify 50,000 to 100,000 federal employees as Schedule F, i.e., lacking civil service protections -- completely arbitrary firings have been much worse than they foresaw, and many federal employees have just quit rather than do what Trump wants, but true Schedule F has just gotten started and covers only about 8,000 employees.  So, this is both worse and not as bad as anticipated.
• Violence against peaceful protesters -- only when ICE is involved
• Calls to prosecute opponents -- some attempts, but mostly duds, except where ICE is involved

And some things have not materialized:

• Abortion restrictions.  Trump knows better than to touch this hot potato.
• Attempts to outlaw electric vehicles.  Elon Musk is probably a factor there.  On the other hand, Trump really does seem determined to outlaw solar and wind power.
• Widespread rightwing terrorism.  There appears to be some hiding in the shadows, in the form of threats to judges and politicians.  Still, judges and politicians have shown a lot more courage than one might expect.  And there has been no visible rightwing terrorism targeting the general public.  The authors predicted rightwing militias terrorizing immigrant communities and burning down minority-owned businesses, and a surge in workplace violence with a (related) decline in prosecution.  Again, this hasn't happened.  Although ICE has been worse than the authors predicted, rightwing violence has not surged.  I would expect it to surge if Democrats ever come to power again.

But equally interesting are the things that the authors either don't mention, or mention only in passing.

The economy is mentioned only in passing, and only in the "resistance" sections.  tariffs to do not get mentioned at all. When addressing Trump's reaction to the resistance, it says that Trump's approval ratings are sagging, and the economy is "shaky" due to his erratic policies.  That sounds about right.  The economy has really not been all that bad, but Trump's erratic policies have caused damage, and this has been a major factor in hurting his approval rating.*  So, I would say this is right, but gets a lot less emphasis than it should.  The success of Trump's entire presidency will rise or fall on this factor.

There is only one mention of foreign policy, in the entire book.  That is in the military section, which has Trump propose to withdraw from NATO and the military convince him to do a "partial withdrawal" that keeps the US in NATO.  He hasn't gone quite that far, at least yet, but the overall picture with regard to Europe sounds about right.  And some things the authors predict with regard to the military are clearly worse than anything that has happened, at least yet.  The authors predict that the rank-and-file will be more pro-Trump than the leadership, which looks about right.  But their feared surge in rightwing terrorism by military personnel hasn't happened (so far).  They also have Trump get so frustrated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he appoints a first lieutenant to the job!  Nothing that insane has happened.  While General Dan Caine appears to be somewhat unconventional in being a retired three star general instead of an active four star, he also appears to be one of the few grownups in the room.  What the authors totally fail to foresee is Trump's enthusiasm for military intervention.  On the one hand, Trump did run on a promise to stay out of wars.  On the other hand, how surprising can it be that he likes beating up on weaker countries?

And, astonishingly, there is essentially no mention of electoral politics below the presidential level.  Midterms rate a single mention in the protecting elections section.  "You look ahead to the midterms future elections and you see much to worry about."  The authors go on to propose finding grants to strengthen election infrastructure and say that election workers can now explain how elections work ahead of time.  Their sole mention of a non-presidential election is to propose that, thanks to grants, when ballots are destroyed in a climate-change-related fire, the grants make it possible to quickly send out new ones.  But no mention whatever is made of the outcome of any non-presidential election!  That seems like an important omission!

I will game out their proposed potential scenarios in an upcoming post.

______________________________________________

*It was also presumably an important factor in his decision to end the Iran war and, if successful, will probably show some recovery to both the economy and Trump's popularity.

What if Trump Wins: How We Have Responded

To recap What if Trump Wins?, the authors recommend four main categories of actions:

• Protecting people being targeted
• Defending existing institutions
• Visualizing what happens after Trump and
• Strategizing forms of resistance

Within each category, they recommend two or three (usually three) courses of action, although these are presumably not intended to be exhaustive.

Protect people being targeted:

• Mutual aid society
• Joint emergency fundraising for non-profits
• Underground railroad

Defend exhibiting institutions:

• Work with veterans and their families to encourage the military to stay out of politics
• Citizen scientists supplementing the EPA with environmental testing
• Find grants to strengthen elections.*

Visualizing what comes after Trump:

• Give cultural and psychological grounding to the movement
• Constitutional convention to propose amendments

Resistance:

• Paperclip movement.  Originally introduced as a symbol of resistance, later appears to be a movement in the civil service parallel to the military movement to refuse unlawful orders.
• Strikes
• Tax resistance

Another way to categorize these activities is as legal, semi-legal, and illegal.

Legal:

• Mutual aid society
• Joint emergency fundraising for non-profits
• Citizen scientists supplementing the EPA
• Grants to strengthen elections
• Cultural grounding for movement
• Constitutional convention
• Strikes**

Semi-legal:

• Underground railroad
• Outreach to military 
• Paperclip movement
• Strikes**

Illegal:  Tax resistance.  In fact, the book shows non-resistance groups being reluctant to work with the tax resistance precisely because it is illegal.

One of the really notable things here as that all iterations assume that our basic civil society continues to flourish enough to allow these organizations to operate more or less in the open.  Of course, the openness varies.  Mutual aid groups and joint emergency fundraising operate in the open and often attract adherents widely across the political spectrum.  Indeed, the authors envision some members quitting in protest when these organizations become too overtly political.  But they never envision any sort of danger to these groups.  Nor do they envision danger to groups offering cultural grounding and psychological support, even though these groups are sometimes portrayed as coordinating action among other groups.  And the constitutional convention operates in the open, drawing in large numbers of participants, and not being harassed by either the government or private militias.  

Thus far, at least, this prediction appears to be accurate.

Not everyone is quite as open.  Naturally the underground railroad has to maintain operational security, but is open about its existence and has at least some members who are open about belonging.  This is apparently based on the experience of the historical Underground Railroad and (the authors comment) is necessary for people to know where to go for help.  But electronic security is essential and the fear of infiltration is constant.  The authors also envision that the protecting institutions people will have to watch their electronic security if they want to scale up.  This certainly seems true for anyone reaching out to the military to encourage them to resist being politicized.  But the authors see the need for at least some digital security for citizen scientists assisting the EPA and people finding grants for election workers.  Those seem a lot less dangerous, but who knows.  

As for the resistance wing, the authors can imagine Trump either allowing them to operate at first or cracking down, but do assume that sooner or later he will crack down if the resistance does not join forces with the others.  That is when the non-resistance -- mutual aid societies, fundraisers for non-profits, people giving cultural grounding, members of the constitutional convention, citizen scientists, grant finders for elections, and even members of the underground railroad and people reaching out to the military -- go on openly and peacefully with their activities and are celebrating the semi-quincentennial when they learn that the resistance has been crushed.  Whether they are eventually targeted is not addressed.

Again, the semi-quincentennial is less than a month away and I do not anticipate any major crackdown between now and then, although I suppose anything can happen.  

How realistic is this?  Well, it depends.  First and obviously, incipient dictatorships don't destroy civil society immediately or all at once.  Under Orban, all these groups continued throughout, though not without being pressure.  Under Hitler, all were destroyed in a matter of months.  Then again, we know now that when Orban lost, he actually stepped down.  Trump did not go so quietly.  But he falls far short of Hitler.  If we put incipient dictatorship on a spectrum with Orban as the mildest and Hitler as the harshest, Trump has already proven himself harsher than Orban.  But he still falls well short of Hitler.  And second, Trump still has a long way to go.  We don't know how it will end up.

So how do these activities stack up to what is actually happening?  The honest answer has to be that I don't know.  In a country of over 300 million people, it is not possible to know everything that is happening.  I know that a lot of opposition is taking place through conventional government channels -- litigation in the courts, state and local government, pressure on Congress, filibusters, a surge of new candidates for office, and so forth -- all of which the authors neglected altogether.  I also know that there have been a lot of street protests, and that groups like Indivisibles are probably putting more stock in street protests than the authors recommend.  

I know that when SNAP benefits fell short during the shutdown, out state legislature attempted to fill in the gap.  I know that in our local community food banks and food pantries also stepped up.  Restaurants offered free meals to families with children who lost their benefits.  And many individual citizens made donations to food banks, pantries, and participating restaurants.  Other businesses donated bulk purchases of food to participating restaurants, and people ate there as a gesture of solidarity.  The crisis passed.  The authors would undoubtedly approve.  Whether we will pull together so well when SNAP benefits are permanently cut remains to be seen.  

There has not been a large-scale constitutional convention or anything like the proposed resistance movements.  What there has been, and what confirms the view that these four activities are not altogether distinct, is a strong resistance to Trump's policies of mass deportation.  The part that has drawn the most attention are the ICE watchers -- people who film ICE in action, people track ICE and know where they are going, people who honk horns and blow whistles to warn that ICE is present, and protesters outside ICE facilities, including ones who try to obstruct access.  Such activities have been most visible in cities experiencing a major ICE blitz, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, or Minneapolis, but they happen on a smaller scale everywhere.  And they are backed by quieter, assistance-minded members -- mutual aid societies, people who escort children to school, people who shop and deliver groceries and take trash out and so forth.  Attempts to maintain sanctuary areas such as churches, schools, medical facilities, and government offices might be seen as attempts to protect existing institutions.  And any number of plans are circulating on what to do when Trump is gone.  In Minneapolis, ICE harassment of anyone who was not white and anti-ICE resisters co-existed with huge, open protests.  There was even a general strike in Minneapolis, with smaller solidarity actions across the country.  And, after all, Team Trump ultimately backed down from its most extreme measures and dismissed Greg Bovino and Kristi Noem, replacing them with people who kept a lower profile.  And the number of arrests appears to have modestly declined -- at least for now.

Next:  What the book got right, what it got wrong, and what it overlooked entirely.

________________________________________________

*Probably what I would do if these were my options.

 **There are laws governing when strike are and are not allowed and how they may be conducted.  I am not familiar with these laws and (unsurprisingly, the book does not address them).

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.