But that is really not true. The truth is that Trump has been worse than my worst fears in some ways, not as bad in other ways, and sometimes equally bad, but a different kind of bad. At least one fear has not come to pass. Trump is not a smart authoritarian. He has not saved the unpopular actions until after consolidating power.
Consider, then, my worst fears, Trump's actions, and the marks of a smart authoritarian.
ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY
What I feared: My worst fears assumed a Trump Presidency and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress which, of course, has happened. I feared Congressional Republicans would summon all lobbyists and tell them to tell their clients that they had until a certain date to cease all donations to Democratic candidates, parties, and non-profits, and that any business making donations beyond that date would never see any legislation introduced into Congress. They would also broadly hint that the prospects of getting any sort of legislation onto the floor would be proportional to donations to Republican candidates, parties, and non-profits.
So far as I know, this would be completely legal.
The Administration would give similar instructions to government contractors. Contracts would be awarded in proportion to donations to Republican candidates and causes and any donation to Democrats would mean an end to all government contracts. That would violate Federal procurements law, and presumably at least some contractors would challenge the provisions as violations of procurement laws. Trump would challenge the laws as unconstitutional infringements on the President's power and, given the history of the present Supreme Court, I would expect him to win.
I also feared he would direct the IRS to deny tax-exempt status to any non-profit that opposed him. I also anticipated a lot of discriminatory enforcement of regulations based on companies' political donations, or on general ideological grounds.
I feared the upshot of all of this might be that in the next election, Democrats would have their institutional donations cut off and their aligned non-profits shut down and be unable to compete. Republicans would win a large landslide and cement their gains.
I also feared that Republicans, having succeeded and largely shutting down the Democratic parties and its non-profits might then start attacking companies that advertised in media outlets that criticized Trump or donated to college endowments. I also thought that any serious attempt to shut down college endowments would generate enough of a backlash by people who either loved their alma mater or wanted their children to have the chance to go to college that it would fail.
And I expected the Trump Administration to use the threat of loss of Federal funds to bring state and local governments and school districts into line.
What has happened: Nothing that systematic has happened. And, quite honestly, DOGE has fired so many people and made such arbitrary denials of grants as to make such a systematic approach difficult.
On the other hand, the Administration has made a systematic attack on the independence of universities. It has threatened to withhold all federal funding from Columbia unless the university allowed the government to dictate its internal discipline procedures and take its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department into academic receivership for a minimum of five years. It demanded that Harvard end all affirmative action based on race or ethnicity, institute affirmative action for conservatives, and submit all of these programs to federal oversight. When Harvard refused to submit, Trump threatened its tax-exempt status.
I expected Trump to attack the independence of universities. After all Orban did the same. I did not anticipate that Trump would respond to legal challenges to his actions by attacking elite law firms -- cutting off their security clearance, canceling their contracts, and barring them from government buildings. Needless to say, this is a very serious threat to the rule of law.
And now most recently he has ordered a Justice Department investigation of Act Blue, the Democratic fundraising platform. This looks very much like an attempt to defund the opposition.
In short, the game is young. The so far the Trump Administration's attack on independent and elite institutions has been real, but less thorough-going than I feared. But there is plenty of time to escalate.
What a smart authoritarian would do: A smart authoritarian would combine Trump's actual actions -- attacks on universities, elite law firms, and Act Blue -- with my worst fears -- attacks on a wide range of other institutions as well, and attempts to cut off all Democratic funding. I may have underestimated the difficulty and institutional safeguards preventing the line of attack I fears.
But here is the thing. A smart authoritarian would take care not to combine these attacks with unpopular actions. While there is some evidence of disapproval of these actions, this is simply not the sort of thing any normal person is going to care about, or be out in the street protesting. A smart authoritarian would make attacks of this kind and only hardcore political junkies would ever notice.
THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY
What I feared: I feared Schedule F firings -- replacement of middle management and everyone with policy making power in favor of Trump loyalists. I feared the subversion of the Federal bureaucracy into in instrument of Donald Trump's will that would entirely disregard the law. I feared this would turn the executive branch into in instrument of one man's whims in the short run, and in the long run into a patronage instrument for promoting the fortunes of the Republican Party.
Certainly, I assumed that the Trump Administration would drop all employment discrimination cases except for allegations of discrimination against White people. If, say Target were to sell trans-friendly baby clothes, or Bud Lite were to hire a trans influencer as a promotor, these things would be clearly protected by the First Amendment and government could not ban them outright. But Trump appointees could harass the companies with a raft of wage and hour investigations and other discriminatory enforcement actions and investigations, to be dropped upon the company pulling the offending products and making a large donation to the Republican Party.
I feared the use of regulatory actions to harass political and ideological opponents. And I feared the use of threats to funding as an explicit form of coercion, primarily of state and local governments, but possibly other actors as well.
What has happened: In a word -- DOGE. Instead of focusing on managerial employees, Elon Musk has been firing "probationary" employees -- anyone who was hired or promoted within the last year. The point here is to avoid legal challenges because the "probationary" status makes such employees easier to fire. DOGE has completely ignored the law when it comes to invading Federal agencies, hijacking computer systems, cutting off funds, and locking employees out -- both of the computer and the building.
Grants have been cut off for having words some computer program considered too DEI. Employment and grant cuts have frequently shown no rhyme or reason, attacking everything from cancer research to national parks to weather forecasting, none of which seems particularly political or ideological. There has also been use of funding cuts as a political weapon -- against universities or state school systems.
The problem, of course, is that firing in such a random, haphazard manner seriously disrupts operations without actually achieving anything (other than reducing the federal work force). Services are being disrupted, grants are being cut off for no discernable reason, and such widespread firings are making weaponization of government more difficult instead of easier.
Then again, apparently the Administration has finally issued an executive order seeking to implement Schedule F and replace middle management with loyalists. As of now it is way too early to know how that will play out.
In short, this is been worse than my wildest fears in terms of damage to government function, random harm to the wider society, and general lawlessness. But it has also been much less targeted or systematic than I feared, with much less method to its overall madness.
What a smart authoritarian would do: A smart authoritarian would choose Schedule F over DOGE. A smart authoritarian would fire managers and replace them with loyalists, not smash things at random. A smart authoritarian would not fire park rangers, shut down weather stations, defund cancer research, and take other, obvious actions that would upset people. Replacing middle management with loyalists might still hurt the quality of government services, but it would do so more slowly and subtly, such that most people would not notice anything was wrong until it was too late.
WEAPONIZATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
What I feared: Certainly I expected Trump to pardon all the January 6 rioters and generally use his office and the Department of Justice to shield political allies from all consequences. I was not all that afraid of Trump arresting his political opponents because of the constraints of an independent judiciary. There was some loose talk about martial law and deploying the military against citizens or to shoot protesters. I was willing to give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt and assume they only meant shooting violent rioters. What I was afraid of what that the Administration would harass opponents with the IRS and regulatory actions. I also feared that Trump would incited the Proud Boys and other militias against his opponents.
What has happened: Not too different from my fears. Certainly Trump has pardoned all January 6 defendants and shielded allies from prosecution. He has made some scary comments -- challenging the validity of Biden's pardons, for instance, or calling for investigation of officials who said the 2020 election was not rigged -- but so far nothing has come of that. Some of his more hardcore supporters are disappointed at the lack of action on that front. Acting US District Attorney for DC Ed Martin has made a lot of threats, but nothing has come of them so far.
What about weaponization of regulation? Brendan Carr of the FCC has been harassing networks. So far the media has held firm. And, as discussed above, there is the threat to Harvard's tax-exempt status and the order to investigate Act Blue. And there has been a great deal of use of federal funding as a tool of coercion, but this is different from weaponization of law enforcement or even regulatory agencies.
And then there is the matter of militias. Certainly there are rumors that Republicans caved to Trump on appointments because of physical threats from militia. That may be true, or it may not. Certainly judges have not been intimidated. Widespread protests have taken place and not drawn violent attacks, either from the government or from militias. A wide range of opponents operate in the open and without fear. More on this later.
What a smart authoritarian would do: A smart authoritarian would probably be more effective with regulatory harassment, but I think the Administration has generally been both smart and authoritarian here.
No comments:
Post a Comment