Trump betrays Ukraine

I find myself thinking about my mother as I contemplate Donald Trump's betrayal of Ukraine. During the 1930s, my mother was a conventional, youngish, white, upper middle class, Republican woman living in a mid-American cultural backwater; that would be her Buffalo, New York. But before the Depression brought her home to help manage the collapsing family finances, she'd graduated from Smith College and traveled in Europe, "on the continent." 

And somehow, unlike most of her social class, she'd become aware that the ascendancy of Nazism in Germany, embodied by Adolf Hitler, was a threat to human decency and life. After World War II when I came along, she had both German refugee and European-origin Jewish friends, though I don't know if they came into her life later, or whether those connections dated from the 1930s. I do know that she spoke of hearing Ambassador William Dodd explain the horrors of Hitlerism to the highly respectable English Speaking Union in the late 1930s.

In particular, in describing those days, she pointed to the British capitulation at Munich in 1938 when the United Kingdom acquiesced in Hitler's dismemberment of the helpless country of Czechoslovakia. Rather than the "peace in our time" which the English prime minister called this betrayal, she assessed the events differently: "I just knew Munich would mean war for Europe and us all eventually," she told me. I believe this was not entirely hindsight bias; there were people in the 1930's who saw war coming.

Mother followed, with horror and terror, newsreports of Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland (alongside Stalin's Soviet Union) and then, in 1940, the collapse of western Europe before Hitler's armies. My parents had vacuum tube radios through which they listened to reports from the Battle of Britain, the German aerial assault on London when the UK was the last European hold-out. And then Hitler turned on his former ally, invading Stalin's Russia in June 1941. Mother remembered suddenly feeling sure she was seeing the turning point in the war. 

In December 1941, Germany's Japanese ally attacked the US base at Pearl Harbor; Germany declared war on the US; and the war spread worldwide. Mother remembered being confident in eventual Allied victory. She spent the war years rolling bandages for the Red Cross and acting as a volunteer ground spotter for the Air Force which was testing a newfangled devise called radar.

She was proud of her war work and proud of her country which she credited with defeating fascism.

• • •

Like me, Donald Trump was born just after that war. Maybe he didn't have good parents. Apparently none of what the world had just gone through was any part of his upbringing.

Donald Trump's betrayal of Ukraine communicates to Putin -- and Xi Jinping -- that he will do nothing to defend not only Ukraine, but also his own country. He's only interested in stealing whatever he can for himself; the tech bros who prop him up are cut from the same flawed cloth. 

I seldom think much of New York Times editorials, but their response to Trump's willingness of help Russia sell its oil and bombard Ukrainian cities drew an unusually clear denunciation: 

... Over the past two weeks, Mr. Trump has taken a sharp turn toward appeasement. Desperate to reduce gas prices before the midterms, he is now helping Mr. Putin wage war.

On Oct. 9, Mr. Trump announced he would lift sanctions on Russian diesel exports to the United States, a step that will help Russia’s economy and war production. On Friday, he went further, signing an executive order that waived other sanctions. He has also taken steps that do not have a clear economic rationale and instead seem designed simply to please Mr. Putin. Among them are new service restrictions for Starshield, the Elon Musk-run satellite network that Ukrainian forces use to defend against Russian airstrikes. ...

Let us be clear about the scope of Mr. Trump’s cynicism. He is aiding an autocratic leader and dangerous adversary of the United States who is waging a brutal war against a democratic neighbor. Mr. Trump is doing so partly in the faint hope that gas prices, which have jumped because of his reckless war in Iran, will fall over the next two weeks and help Republicans avoid big losses in the midterm elections. He is damaging America’s national interest, and likely sacrificing Ukrainian lives, for his own political interests.

The stakes in Ukraine are much larger than the fate of one nation. The war is a test of whether authoritarian expansion can succeed by military force in the 21st century — or whether the West can rally to protect democracy and innocent lives. 

Trump's perfidy is not unique to our time. There were plenty of Americans in the 1930s who looked at Hitler's Germany and thought "none of our business and maybe I can make a buck ..."  

But there were also plenty who came together, across race and class, who organized and fought in the hope of a better country and a better world. There are lots of us still who want better than Trump's ugly plutocracy. Let's keep working together to get there. Vote and protect the vote in our time. 

Republican decodes Democrats and much more: an unlikely oracle

Sarah Longwell listens to voters with a political messaging consultant's perspective and she knows whereof she speaks. How to Eat an Elephant – One Voter at a Time became a best seller because she translated what she learned from hundreds of voter focus groups -- Trump supporters and Trump critics -- into smart, appealing, and graceful campaign wisdom. This is book an easy read and very worth the time of anyone working to defeat MAGA -- and that project won't be over, even if we win a blue wave on November 3.

People out of my world -- folks loosely left of the Democratic Party -- are likely and probably rightly suspicious of Longwell. After all, she's a former Republican operative and the publisher of The Bulwark, the landing spot for Republicans who couldn't stomach their former party's fascist turn. But she's a dyke (that does help; we view our society from slightly outside) and committed to electing even Democrats she can barely stand if that turns back MAGA. I find her determination to ground her politics in listening to infuriatingly muddled American voters a sign of democratic (lower case "d") integrity.

I'm not going to try to summarize this book. Some of it I very much disagree with. But I really do urge you to read it if you aspire to use the Democratic Party to turn back fascism. I will share some charming tidbits. And then I'll take up one of her observations that that meshes interestingly with my experience over 30 years of deep electoral campaign involvement. 

First, some slightly random teasers from the book, not meant to convey a unified message, but to encourage your curiosity: 

• It’s true (sort of) that voters are the problem. But they’re also the solution. Which is why we need to persuade them by developing policy and messaging frameworks that grow the pro-democracy coalition. It won’t be easy. But there isn’t an alternative.

• The irony is, in elite Democrats’ good-hearted attempts to be maximally inclusive, they end up with a set of rituals and language that baffles most Americans and creates a barrier to connecting with voters.

• Trump’s revolutionary effect was that, first, he made his supporters stop pretending to care about virtue. And then he made them embrace vice. ...  Character doesn’t just not matter—bad character is a marker of authenticity when authenticity is the coin of the political realm. The snake who admits he’s a snake is now deemed more trustworthy than the politician who acts—and might actually be—virtuous.

• I’m struck by how personal and visceral COVID vaccine resistance has become. A woman in Alaska told me flatly: “I got the eight shots I got in the ’60s and I have managed to make it this far with those eight freakin’ shots and I am not getting another one pumped into this body.” This isn’t a policy disagreement. This is bodily autonomy fused with institutional betrayal. The grammar of hidden knowledge has colonized the most intimate domain: what goes into your own body. ...

• To do what I’m talking about, Democrats need to toughen up. Stop crying and start sweating. Sorry, you don’t get Fridays off. Democracy’s at stake. Sorry, you can’t work from home all the time. America is at stake. Put on real pants and go to the office. The fascists are outworking you. They’re out-organizing you. Out-communicating you. You’re talking about microaggressions when you need to prioritize the macroaggressions being committed on a daily basis against the American experiment.

• More good news: This is the kind of moment when new leaders emerge. The old guard is exhausted. The appetite for change is overwhelming. The voters are ready—desperate, even—for something new.

If these quotes whet your appetite, pick up this book. 

• • •

Now to one of Longwell's observations, only glancingly developed, which I think those of us trying to preserve the possibility of a participatory US democracy should attend to. She writes:

The Republican operative world I came up in was mercenary and entrepreneurial. We started companies: consulting firms, media ventures, direct mail operations, opposition research firms, PACs. The incentive structure was clear: deliver results, make money, climb the ladder. There was less hand-wringing about process and more focus on outcomes. If something worked, you did more of it. If it didn’t, you moved on. The culture was competitive, sometimes cutthroat, but it was honest about what it was. We worked weekends.  

The Democratic world, as I have observed over the last decade, operates via a different set of cultural norms. People default to starting nonprofits, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and foundations instead of for-profit companies. The culture is mission-driven rather than financially incentivized. There’s a lot of talk about work–life balance, making sure everyone feels included, centering the right voices. The vibe is values first, process oriented, unionized. There’s a lot of talk about mental health. Employees agitate for four-day workweek. ...

I wouldn't say this is a completely fair description of either side as I've observed them over 30 years of (mostly paid) work in progressive campaigns. But I also think there is some truth.

I've seen plenty of Republican campaign efforts which weren't the pure capitalist enterprises that Longwell describes here; they were just rip offs off of candidates and causes by campaign firms that had made a profitable industry of extracting tribute from the gullible and the semi-powerful. I've also seen plenty of the same from Democratic consultants who may have once had their day, but deliver very little value while skating on reputation. (Looking at you, James Carville.) 

Longwell's description of the Democratic side is something I've seen -- but it misses the essential truth of Democratic campaigns which Longwell is now living.  These campaigns, except possibly at the most local level, are inherently coalition efforts, unlike the Republican ones where the base will toe the line. The Dem base -- both funding and activist -- consists of mission driven fractions which agree (or not) to play alongside each other for a season. They are an arena of multiple cultures -- unions, civic groups, religious groups, racial justice advocates, enthralled candidate fans. Getting them to work together productively IS the campaign. 

When Dems win, it looks obvious and easy -- but it never is. And the building of the really large coalitions is largely imperceptible to participants. When it works, we work hard. We exude attractive purpose. We all think our fraction won the day, even when we are vaguely grateful for the larger whole. And the big Democratic coalitions are held together by mission, not primarily money. 

• • •

One other throwaway line from Longwell that I can't resist raising up. 

One of the stranger things about the success of The Bulwark is that it’s basically free. As [her colleague] JVL likes to say, “You can’t save democracy from behind a paywall.” ...  Despite not charging for almost anything The Bulwark puts out, we still have a robust paying subscriber base. What are they paying for?

Long ago, I was part of another movement/community which worked the same way: the Catholic Worker as founded by Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day. The cost for a subscription to its newspaper remained from its Depression era origin: "a penny a copy; more if you can, less if you can't." And the cash flow funded not only the paper, but multiple "houses of hospitality" for a community of the otherwise unhoused.

Some people have always known that financial stability flows from mission; the anomaly is that American society and democracy has forgotten this.

Trump makes all moments feel existential

Day in and day out, Jay Kuo chronicles "the condition our condition is in" at The Status Kuo. (Thanks, Kenny Rogers.) He's good at it, as befits an accomplished lawyer, chair of the Human Rights Campaign, Broadway show composer, and doting father.

Sometimes he waxes reflective -- which isn't easy in these times. In The Violence Is the Point,  he takes a careful long view of our ambitious autocrat in chief. 

... Historians and political scientists reviewing the regime’s recent escalations would recognize a familiar pattern.

In “On Violence,” which grew out of a 1969 essay, political theorist Hannah Arendt argued that power and violence are opposites. Power, as she defined it, belongs to people acting together, and it lasts only as long as the group holds. Violence, by contrast, stands in for power once that cooperation starts to slip. “Violence appears where power is in jeopardy,” she wrote, “but left to its own course its end is the disappearance of power.”

Political scientists have since measured the same dynamic. Governments’ use of repression to answer threats to their power and the status quo is so common that scholars gave it a name: the Law of Coercive Responsiveness. Christian Davenport, the University of Michigan political scientist most associated with the dynamic, notes that dissent “has increased repression in every single investigation of the topic,” making it “perhaps the only law” in the study of how states and dissidents interact. His study of the United States from 1948 to 1982 found something more unsettling. Repression tracked the threats that officials declared through speeches, hearings and laws more closely than anything protesters actually did. When those political threats were present, he wrote, “repression increased, regardless of behavioral threats.” A Somali “takeover” of Minnesota, an “invasion” at the border, two dead citizens branded “domestic terrorists”—in each case, the regime manufactures the threat and the crackdown follows. 

So we're recipients of escalating efforts to rub horrific state violence in our faces -- a home invasion by security thugs at a Somali Congresswoman's residence, a proposed public execution, a "whimsical" invocation of nuclear destruction of Los Angeles and San Diego.

Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s “Strongmen” follows authoritarian leaders from Mussolini to the present, from their rise through their rule to their fall. She identified Trump’s reliance on violence years ago. In the tradition of the fascists, she wrote, he uses his rallies to “train his followers to see violence in a positive light.” That’s why he’s switched from invoking Mobile, Alabama, as a target of nuclear annihilation to a bit about two blue California cities.

Last August, I wrote in The Big Picture about “sadopopulism,” the term coined by historian Timothy Snyder, now at the University of Toronto. He describes it as a kind of “populism where people actually don’t get anything except more pain.” The regime cannot deliver real gains, so it rations suffering and offers its base the consolation of watching others hurt more. I argued then that public opinion “is a barometer of whether Trump’s policies, including sadopopulism, are working or failing.” The barometer now reads failure, and so the regime has doubled down and is escalating.

... We’ve moved from UFC bouts on the White House lawn, to turning nuked California cities into a crowd pleaser to the ultimate spectacle of a planned public execution. In each case, the audience matters as much as the event, if not more. A Law & Society Review study of American executions from 1833 to 1937 found, for example, that the audience was itself part of the event, and that it could grant or deny legitimacy to the execution and to capital punishment as a whole. That’s the very reason why, in December, Hegseth hopes to give Hasan’s execution an audience of anyone with an internet connection. ...

Trump is flailing; all he can think of to do is kill someone.  On the other hand, he's a total chickenshit. His instinct is to TACO, to shy away from the worst in the hope of living to fight another day. 

If unrest reaches a boiling point, history suggests a TACO moment may follow. But just as we witnessed and endured with Jan. 6, the damage to our democracy and the rule of law before Trump finally backs down could be considerable. ...

There's much reason to worry that Trump can make things worse before they get better. but that's all the more reason to do all we can to strip this evil nutcase of as much power as we can in the present.  Read it all from Jay Kuo. 

No kings indeed

So many outrages ... so much to note with horror. DJT sticking his ugly mug on US passports is nowhere near the Mad Toddler's most egregious offense against our democracy and our human decency. 

But I appreciated Adam Gopnik's restrained reflections on the new image in the New Yorker.  

... The President is not a substitute tyrant or king, whose face, like that of the monarch of England (the enemy in the historic event celebrated this year), appears on currency, coins, and postage stamps, but just one more citizen who happens to have been handed a very big job. As that leftist provocateur Ronald Reagan once said, “You don’t become President of the United States. You are given temporary custody of an institution called the Presidency, which belongs to our people.”

... The absence of a living monarch on our money, or on our travel documents, was not an accident haphazardly arrived at but a declaration of equality meant to be flourished and displayed. In this way, a reasonable case can be made that the constant volley of insults to the dignity of our democracy is as grave as the bad policy choices: policy choices can change; the decorum of democracy, once defaced, can never be wholly restored.

So, pity the poor passport! To see it so reduced by the whims of a would-be autocrat at the soothing of a cynical sycophant [that would be little Marco Rubio] undermines our faith not just in free travel but in freedom itself. A U.S. passport should bear the image and the imprint of no officeholder of any kind; it should merely let us pass on our journey through the world freely and without hindrance, just as the old one does. 

No Kings - October 17. 

It's theft and attempted bribes all the way down

via Nathan Newman

Trump is desperate as the midterm elections come closer. He has reached the bribery stage of trying to hang on to power. He has cooked up ... 

• $90 payments to some 20 million Medicare recipients. I actually know people who got this. The money was heisted from a fund designed to explore ways to make Medicare a better program.

• $500 checks to about one million on people who have Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) insurance. ACA coverage became so popular under Biden that funds put aside to advertise the program were unused. The same recipients will learn when they go to reauthorize their coverage next year that their premiums will have been raised an average of 15 percent. 

• $5000 bribe he offers to all if somehow the voters keep his MAGA minions in control of the House and Senate in the midterms. Anyone who believes Donald Trump pays up on his promises hasn't been paying attention. I doubt if even his MAGA crowds in the GOP states he is now touring believe this one. The cost would be $1.2 trillion with no source specified. Apparently Americans don't believe him.

Dumb and dumber. And when it comes down to it, it's our money he is stealing.

The President has lost it

 

The truth is simple; he's an ignorant, generally malevolent, old guy who has lost his marbles. The contents of that brain always rattled around a bit, but they've gotten looser. There's little left but greed and id. 

 

And the people need to say so loudly, because the media won't. In fact, to sustain the only business model they know, journalism pretends he's functioning within the bounds of normal when he's batshit crazy. 

Trump on his Iran war: 

They can take out a city. Let them take, let them take out Los Angeles; let them take out San Diego. That’s — this is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.

Jennifer Rubin puts the reality succinctly:  

Legacy media’s sanewashing of Trump’s campaign appearances as “speeches” bears less and less resemblance to the reality of his verbal incontinence...

... Trump was more unhinged in Ohio on Saturday, where Trump blathered about James Talarico: “I see that ‘Tala-freako’ in Texas. So he’s been a vaygan' all his life. He’s a vaygan vaygan, I didn’t even know what the hell a vaygan was. A vaygan is vegetables. A vaygan is eating a piece of lettuce all day long.” Ignoring his apparent ignorance of the word ‘vegan,’ the nature of his obscene, irrelevant insults suggests a complete loss of impulse control. These are not “speeches,” but rather psychological breakdowns. But, unfortunately, you would not know it from mainstream media coverage. ...

... Similarly, Trump’s encounter last week with TIME was routinely labeled an “interview.” But an “interview” denotes responsive answers — not a stream of non sequiturs, insults, and outbursts. A few commentators ventured that the session was “grievance”-filled or “emotional,” but even those descriptions falsely suggest some orderly presentation of reality-based complaints in response to questions. ...

... The Mob boss mentality, lack of logical connection between sentence fragments, self-contradictions, and elementary-school-level vocabulary in a froth of vicious anger reflect a deeply unwell mind — albeit notably less so absent in the sanitized version. Obsessive efforts to explain what Trump must mean are indicative of PR; not journalism....

... Aaron Rupar, who assiduously records and posts Trump’s and his minions’ remarks arguably more thoroughly than any journalist, ... put it, “Trump is either unwilling or unable (or maybe both) to answer the questions he’s actually asked, so he just rants and raves while the interviewers do their best to provide structure to his random brain firings.”

As he ages, Trump’s decline will continue (maybe accelerate), meaning this is likely the “best” version of Trump we will see from here on out. Billionaire-owned media has essentially covered up that national crisis, refusing to acknowledge that he is deteriorating mentally and emotionally, just as he is physically (evidenced by bruising, swollen ankles, consistent somnolence). ...

We see it; long experience has convinced me that when the people lead, our "leaders" will eventually follow. When will the big media admit that he has no clothes?

Can this legal system survive Trump?

Another day, another legal kerfuffle raised up by the Trump regime. Okay, I admit I probably read too many substacks written by lawyers. Naturally lawyers think legal proceedings are where it is at. For most of us, most of the time, there are plenty of other aspects of life of equal or greater importance -- perhaps whether the developing El Nino weather system is going to flood large parts of the California coastline this winter.

But like many others, I try to keep up with the legal deluge. This morning David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo laid out where he thinks we are; he's not optimistic about the courts as a defensive line against the authoritarian, but he tries to define what he thinks they can do -- which is more than nothing.

In the defining legal struggle of our time — whether the federal judiciary will sustain the rule of law long enough to preserve the essential core of a democracy for us to repair, rebuild, and re-enlarge after Trump II — the jury is still out.

Important developments in three different cases yesterday — the Alien Enemies Act, third-country deportations, and Trump’s collusive settlement with the IRS — point in very different directions.

On the face of it, not much unites the cases or offers a common theme or collective takeaway. But in stepping back and reviewing the last 20 months of Trump II legal battles, yesterday’s developments are datapoints in favor of a tentative working theory that appeals courts are slowly coming around to the urgency of the current moment.

In the first six months of Trump II, district judges were on their heels, caught off guard by the ferocity of the rampage against the rule of law and still tethered to old norms and expectations for the Justice Department that no longer held true. It was a brutal stretch of watching the Trump administration seize some key early wins and capture important legal ground.

After being collectively kicked in the teeth, district judges pretty quickly adjusted to the new reality — but appeals courts failed to back district judges in key respects, missed the urgency of the moment, and surrendered more ground to the lawlessness.

More recently, appellate judges have begun to turn, too. Two glimmers of hope yesterday came at the appeals court level, with the en banc D.C. Circuit looking poised to allow U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to resume his contempt of court inquiry in the original Alien Enemies Act case and the 11th Circuit handing Trump a loss in his bogus settlement with the IRS.

That still leaves the Supreme Court, which — with a few notable exceptions — has been Trump’s greatest enabler. It played true to form yesterday with an emergency intervention that will allow the administration’s brutal third-country removals policy to continue past the election and until it rules after oral arguments in December.

Unlike the lower courts, the Supreme Court will not eventually come around. While we’ve already seen examples — most prominently on tariffs, birthright citizenship, and the USPS mail-in ballots rule — of the Roberts Court refusing to endorse some of Trump’s worst excesses, the high court is too deeply compromised and its six-justice right-wing majority too invested in the GOP’s partisan fate to emerge as a reliable bulwark.

But the appeals courts may buy us some additional time by slowing the speed of the descent. 

Kurtz looks at reality unblinkingly in this. He neither dismisses legal struggle against fascism, nor puts excessive weight on what a democratic people under siege can win in the courts. Courts and the laws may not save us, but their work can set an honorable standard. They can impose friction on the authoritarian project. 

Besides, courts can avert some of the sheer cruelty of the Trump/Miller project. Erudite Partner and so many others work to accompany people trying to navigate the morass of immigration courts. There too winning time may all that can be achieved, but time can preserve human decency and even life.

And meanwhile, the anti-MAGA majority can work to stymie Trump in other arenas, most immediately in the November elections. We can do this. And then we rebuild and re-found this country.

China rises. We suffer Trump.

 

So now we are in a moment when Donald Trump is making a big show of deference to China's President Xi. Xi is Trump's kind of guy, a personalist dictator, someone who replaced a collective leadership which bound itself to real limits despite claiming ultimate power over its country. The first among equals became top dog.

 

Trump is a weak imitator of his hero. American society remains resistant. In the photo, note Trump's full time sycophant Natalie Harp, her job to fluff his sick ego, trailing the big boys.  Sad.

 

Several weeks ago, New Yorker reporter Evan Osmos passed along a sober assessment of contemporary China. It's not alarmist; rather it's thoughtful.  Xi's China sees itself on top of the world, not without reason.

While the U.S. worries about whether it can continue a century of dominance, China is eager to restore its historical eminence, after two hundred years of what the Party sees as anomalous poverty. Zhou Bo, a retired senior colonel in the People’s Liberation Army who is now a fellow at Tsinghua University, told me, “Common sense says countries rise and fall in cycles.” But Americans, in his view, have lost that historical awareness. “They have been so strong for so long that every American believes, ‘I’m a member of the strongest nation on earth,’ ” he said. 

The Chinese are no less convinced of their ascendancy. A European diplomat who has attended meetings with Xi and his advisers told me, “They’re feeling like the champions of the world. They think they can contend with anybody.”

... Rush Doshi, a professor at Georgetown and a China specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations, sees in Trump’s pursuit of territorial control a recurring historical error. In the eighteenth century, while Russia fixated on conquering Eurasia, Britain developed the steam engine; in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, while Europeans fought over Africa, Americans mastered the assembly line. Today, while the U.S. tries to govern Venezuela and hobble Iran and Cuba, “China is focussed on winning the technologies of the future,” Doshi said. 

If the U.S. were to lose the competition over the next wave of industries—including A.I., biotech, and robotics—as it lost the ones over solar panels, batteries, and electric vehicles, “it would irreversibly change the balance of power.” ... To China, Doshi said, “autocracies are considered perfectly legitimate, and technology is used to strengthen them. China increasingly says to autocrats, Would you like to stay in power? I can help you with that.”

Yet Osnos reports that there are observers who don't see Trump's bow to China as indicating permanent global subservience. Rather we are spectators to a contest of somewhat precarious oligarchies -- this is unstable.

... Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations, told me that the international system the U.S. constructed after the Second World War—and ran, often to its benefit—is “definitely dead and beyond redemption.” He said that Trump’s dismantling of the country’s alliances signaled the end of the “willingness of the American public to play the role America has played for most of the last eight decades.”

But America’s diminished stature does not necessarily clear a path for China. Few people these days are enthusiastic about the prospect of a world dominated by either superpower. ...

... The likely successor to the American order, then, is not a Chinese order so much as what Leonard calls a period of “un-order”: a jungle in which every country hedges, arms, subsidizes, hoards, and searches for choke points to exploit. In the words of Suisheng Zhao, a China scholar at the University of Denver, it is the makings of a “twenty-first-century Hobbesian struggle of all against all.”

During the Cold War, as futurists on both sides of the Iron Curtain plotted to control the direction of history, another group coalesced around a more modest idea. Mankind 2000, as it called itself, was made up of European survivors of fascism who were wary of both Communist determinism and American hubris. They warned that man could be “absorbed by his machine” and declared, “The future belongs to all of us, not only to small oligarchic groups.”

Spend enough time in Beijing and Washington these days and the rivalry looks less like a clash of competing systems than like a race between small oligarchic groups—tight circles of men with immense power over everyone else’s future....

Scary, but not simple or inevitable. Oligarchs and aspiring monarchs always think they've solved the problem of pesky peoples who think they ought to get a say in how their lives are lived. Perhaps China's future is not so clear. New York Times correspondent Keith Bradsher, writing from Beijing,  sees a more complicated reality in the country he has watched develop for 30 years.

For China and its top leader, Xi Jinping, the biggest prize from a summit in Washington, notably free from confrontation, may be simple: time.

Time to cope with a housing market crash that has wiped away the savings of tens of millions of Chinese families. Time to deal with local governments running short of money as land-use revenue collapses. Time to make China even less vulnerable to economic pressure from the United States and other industrialized countries.

And perhaps most consequentially, time to prepare for the once-in-five-years Communist Party national congress next autumn, which will choose a new slate of top leaders to work under Mr. Xi.

“By trying to stabilize relations with the U.S., China can better concentrate on its own priorities,” said Wu Xinbo, a leading American studies scholar at Fudan University in Shanghai. ...

It ain't easy governing one of the most populated, fastest growing economies and societies the world has ever seen. China is big and on the rise, but its destination, and ours while in our relative decline, has not yet been written.

Fundamentally derivative, based in a rotten nostalgia

Like all human endeavors, the American experience is complicated; MAGA responds to complexity with fear and fury. New York Times opinion-monger Jamelle Bouie derives much of his understanding of Trumpian follies from looking back at what we come through as a people and nation. [Gift link.] 

... You can understand the two Trump presidencies as attempts to relive and re-enact the most atrocious moments in American history, as if the nation were led by toxic obsessives who relished the cruelty and criminality of the past and worshiped perpetrators as heroes — the supposedly hard men who built the country we know.

The president himself gestures toward this game of copycat when he hails Andrew Jackson or praises William McKinley as a man who made America great. And the administration itself seems to want to consciously emulate those moments of infamy and ignobility in the American past.

The administration’s hegemonic war in Venezuela and anti-Canadian saber rattling evoke the crudely imperial posture of the United States at the turn of the 20th century. 

Its racist nativism is a throwback to both the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 — which it recently defended in its tendentious critique of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History — and the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924, which effectively closed the country to African, Asian and Southern and Eastern European immigrants for more than 40 years.

 Its use of ICE and Customs and Border Protection as a roving deportation force, aimed at anyone who looks suspect, is more than a little reminiscent of the federal bounty hunters deputized under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It is also an echo of the first Red Scare, the Palmer raids and J. Edgar Hoover’s hunt for radicals during the Woodrow Wilson administration.

Of course this president, and this administration, would want to emulate the anti-communist hysterias of the 1910s and the 1950s. 

 ... Both Trump and his movement are, as you might surmise from the slogan “Make America Great Again,” fundamentally derivative. His vision of the future rests on a rotten nostalgia, and his plans for getting there were drawn from the wreckage of a shameful past. ...

We're faced with a president and a mob that don't want to learn, who experience contradictory realities as assault on their very being. Tough luck, MAGA. Reality doesn't work the simple way you wish it did.

Ignorance by intent

You have to love Marc Rosenblum's parting shot on leaving federal employment: 

“I’m thrilled to end my relationship with the current administration,” Rosenblum said in a LinkedIn post over the weekend. “Between the war on immigrants, the war on feds, and the war on facts (not to mention the crazy war in Iran and the brazen corruption), I just need a change.”

Rosenblum served as executive director of the Office of Homeland Security Statistics in the DHS (that's the Department of Heimat Security for the historically minded).

“He had one of the most interesting charges at DHS,” a former colleague tells WIRED of Rosenblum. “There's 22 component agencies, and so there are 22 different ways of aggregating data that were just completely siloed.”

“So Marc's charge was to consolidate all the data and put it in a way that internally, I at headquarters could know exactly how many Coast Guard interdictions happened off the Coast Guard station in Miami, and how many of those were Cuban, Haitian, Nicaragua, Venezuelan. And then kind of conceptualize that with the same population of people that were crossing the Southwest border,” the former colleague adds.

Knowing and showing that sort of information, it's no surprise he no longer felt he had a place in current government. Reconstructing the government's ability to understand what is going on in this huge, multifaceted country will be one of the more difficult tasks required when we evict the MAGA morons.

ICE kills

 

San Franciscans gathered Saturday outside the Tesla dealership on Van Ness Avenue.

The national movement follows two recent, horrific killings by ICE agents. On July 7, Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a beloved father and worker, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Houston, Texas, while driving a work van. On July 13, ICE agents killed 26-year-old Johan Sebastian Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, in front of his partner and toddler. There have now been 53 deaths in ICE custody since Trump was inaugurated, 33 deaths in fiscal year 2026 alone. 

ICE agents were not even looking for Lorenzo Salgado Araujo.

Salgado Araujo, 52, was killed during a traffic stop by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, prompting thousands of Houstonians to take to the street in protest and to demand justice. 

Salgado Araujo was a Mexican immigrant who had lived in the US for more than 30  years without legal status, according to his family. He was not the intended target of the ICE operation that resulted in his killing. 

... Democratic Congressman Christian Menefee said ICE needs to be “torn down to the studs” and rebuilt as an agency that recognises the “dignity of the people that it encounters”. 

“But we all know that that will not happen under this administration,” he added.

Johan Sebastian Guerrero, shot in Maine, again was not an intended ICE target. 

Investigators have not released details of the shooting in Biddeford. But a spokesman for Senator Angus King said this week that the senator had been told by senior officials that Mr. Guerrero was not the intended target of the immigration operation. Mr. Guerrero was in his car just after 7 a.m., as he headed to work.

Benjamin Gideon, a lawyer representing the Guerrero family, said at the news conference that Mr. Guerrero had been working in the United States lawfully. “The Trump administration issued him a permit to work in this country legally,” he said. “And they issued him a Social Security card and a Social Security number.”

“Do we accept the idea that innocent, loving partners and loving and devoted fathers of 3-year-olds can be collateral damage to this government’s policies?” Mr. Gideon asked. “Do we agree that this is just an acceptable cost of doing business?”

Passing motorists on busy Van Ness Avenue honked enthusiastically. The Tesla dealership is a regular weekly protest site and drivers know what to do. 

• • •

Later in the day, members of Indivisible hosted a more contemplative memorial for ICE's victims at Sue Bierman Park, gathering around an improvised altar.

What did she die for?

We can assume Stephen Miller thinks she was disposable, if not a pollutant in the blood of the white nation. Donald Trump certainly never gave her a thought.

She's dead in Trump's little error in the Orient, the war he's thoughtlessly dragged this country into. The same war which has also killed thousands of Iranians and thousands of Lebanese, all just collateral damage sacrificed to Don and Bibl's fantasies of total victory over their enemies.

 

Former GOP Congresscritter and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan Adam Kissinger brings the perspective of a person who has fought. The way Pete Hegseth's military is limiting what we know sickens him.

A missile strike does not end when the fire goes out. The pressure from the blast moves through doors, walls and the spaces body armor cannot protect. A service member may get back on his feet, answer a medic’s questions and return to work. On a Pentagon spreadsheet, that can look reassuring. 

In the body, it may mean headaches, vertigo, trouble sleeping or memory problems that persist long after the uniform comes off. The military’s own medical experts warn that blast exposure can produce symptoms that are delayed, difficult to detect and potentially life-altering.

That distance—between what an injury looks like in a report and what it feels like to the person carrying it—is where the Trump administration has chosen to hide much of the cost  [to American personnel] of its war with Iran.

Roughly 430 American service members have been injured since the war began on February 28. But in the week before an Iranian attack killed Pvt. Isabella Gonzales, 19, and 1st Lt. Tyler James Feehan, 25, at a base in Jordan, Iran struck American forces in the country three other times. Those attacks injured dozens of troops and damaged several helicopters. ...  After the latest deaths, Donald Trump wrote that Iran would “pay for that killing many times over.” Vengeance was announced before the administration explained what another round of escalation was supposed to accomplish. ...

Kinzinger knows the lessons of history that Trump doesn't know and would erase if he could. (Ever wondered what posturing pretty boy Pete serves his master for?)

A Pentagon that treats scrutiny as hostility will eventually lose the credibility it needs during a genuine emergency. That loss cannot be repaired by a patriotic video, an angry social-media post or a secretary declaring that casualties will stiffen American resolve. Credibility accumulates through disclosures that are often inconvenient to the people in charge. It disappears when every unwelcome fact is treated as aid to the enemy.

The Vietnam-era “credibility gap” did not begin with one spectacular lie. It widened as official optimism repeatedly failed to match what soldiers, reporters and eventually the public could see. Body counts became measures of progress. Internal doubts remained hidden while presidents and generals described success. ...

The deception can travel inward. When injuries are classified as minor, attacks go unmentioned and damaged aircraft vanish from public briefings, leaders may begin making decisions inside the same edited reality they have constructed for voters. A government that cannot admit what the enemy has done will have trouble judging what the enemy can still do.

Trump has made lying and incompetence central to his method of governance....

And Isabelles of this country die for Donald's deceptions.

• • •

Michael Tomasky makes some educated guesses about where this all is going. 

The World’s Worst Nightmare: Donald Trump in Charge of a Real-Live War: 
There are no best-case scenarios when a corrupt, vainglorious toddler is running the world’s deadliest military. 

Read and weep ...

Trumpism is our Brexit

Watching the British transition to a new governing Labour Party prime minister from afar, I had what is probably a very obvious insight about this country which seems worth musing on.

First the disclaimer: I know very little about British politics and the broad stroke observations that follow may be inaccurate. I only dare write this because the actual subject is our, American, political follies -- and those I know plenty about.

Andy Burnham's takeover as Prime Minister makes him the seventh person in the top British job in the last ten years. And there is overwhelming agreement that his country is not serving its citizens as well as they wish it would. There's a housing crisis; there's a health care mess; international standing is precarious; racial tensions are unremitting; and "affordability" seems a mirage. The level of government turnover suggests the political landscape is both full of pratfalls and beset with confusion.

From across the pond, it seems obvious that the passionate, the successful exercise of popular sovereignty that was the the narrow 2016 vote to leave the European Union has been a sad wrong turn. Without Europe, Britain is poorer and weaker and the governments trying to manage national assertion within economic and intellectual isolation have been feckless failures. They can't satisfy anyone. The majority of Brits seem to think that Brexit was a mistake; and also they don't want to jump back into heated controversy over it. That hurt. There's a sharp age difference among the people: 

It may also be, as one British pollster observed, that the 2016 majority for Brexit “has literally died out,” since the Leave camp at the time included a disproportionate number of elderly voters. And so the conversation in Britain is shifting to what can be done to reverse the damage ...

Sound familiar ... ?

There's flooding in Texas, there's strife in Iran ... Apologies to the Kingston Trio

Like the Brexiteers, the Trumpists in power destroy without building. Stick that old crank JFK Jr at Health and Human Services, throw out the scientists, and you get a cyclosporiasis epidemic. Two cheers for the microbes! Empower Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget and government ceases to be able to do its job. MAGA cheers while emergency management is cut until no one answers the phone as flood waters rise.

Like the Brits, when the American people shrug off our impulse to destroy government without building (I think largely we do this so as not to have to deal with brown people ...), reconstruction is going to be tough. You can't stop the clock and you certainly can't go backwards. When people experience Trump's grafting minions, his anti-science religious know-nothings, and the gloating of our domestic oligarchs, we don't like it. The reaction will and should be extreme.

I trust we'll take government back. The federal system and the country's vast wealth gives us a fighting chance to pull out of our Trumpist national nosedive into self-pity, perhaps more smoothly than the Brits. But what are we going to do with our chances?

Killing the fathers

 

Adrian Carrasquillo covers the Trump tribe's war on immigrants for The Bulwark. Sometimes I wonder how even such a professional journalist can bear the anguish that is his subject.

ICE's new permanent family separation

... In the first Trump administration, opposition to the president’s immigration agenda was galvanized by the horrors of family separation. As Adam Serwer memorably noted back in 2018, “The cruelty is the point.”

 

Today, the opposition is different, and the stakes seem far higher. It’s not separation that drives the fear; it’s disruption and death. There is deep mourning, but there is also a growing fury at these ICE killings all over Latino social media. It’s become clear that mass deportation comes with this type of violence—and maybe that’s by design.

 

Under images of Araujo and Guerrero as departed angels, the page Latino and Muslim Unity wrote,  “Our fathers deserve to come home to their families. We demand accountability.”
 

Carlos Espina, a social media influencer with 23 million followers across TikTok, Instagram and Facebook, posted videos at turns angry and heartbroken.
 

“The Colombian immigrant that was assassinated in a hail of bullets by ICE in Maine was in the car with his three-year-old baby,” Espina said in one. “It shows this agency has no type of respect for human life, much less the lives of our people. They see us as dogs, animals or worse.”
 

JC Frias, a Mexican-American activist with nearly 250,000 Instagram followers, shared the final words of both men: “Me estan matando” and “I tried to stop.”
 

“They were fathers. They were providers. They were loved. And they were HUNTED because of the color of their skin,” he wrote. In another post, Frias echoed a sentiment I’ve seen repeated often, including in private messages to me from Latinos and Mexican-Americans who saw their own father in Lorenzo Araujo.
 

“Lorenzo’s memorial says more than words ever could,” Frias wrote, describing the candles, Mexican flags, soccer jerseys, and families stopping to pray. “One message echoed over and over,” he said. “Lorenzo could have been any of our dads.” ...

Follow Carrasquillo at Huddled Masses.

Are the AI tech bros conning us? And also themselves?

Last month, I bought a new Apple iPad to use for travel. Since I bought the last one in the mid-2010s, I thought the $450 price pretty cheap for a very powerful tool. But I was also aware that the Erudite Partner had two weeks before bought the same iPad for notably less. What led to the price increase?

Alex Reisner, a staff writer at The Atlantic, blames the AI boom [giftlink]. He's provocative.

Generative AI Is an Engineering Disaster: A shockingly inefficient trillion-dollar project

... The prices of some laptops have gone up as much as 50 percent, and low-cost computers are being hit the hardest. Affordable entry-level computers may “disappear by 2028” according to one forecast. And the memory shortage is expected to continue for years.

The memory is being put into data centers, which tech firms are expanding at incredible speed. They are planning to multiply total U.S.-data-center capacity by a factor of eight over the next few years. The demand for electricity at these sites is already so great that some companies are repurposing jet engines to power them. ...

He thinks the tech moguls who are building the AI future have blithely launched themselves into a morass.

... The problem with generative AI, in the industry’s own jargon, is that it does not scale. The cost of growing from, say, a thousand users to a million is a key factor that venture capitalists examine when they evaluate start-ups. They want to see that the cost of adding each new user decreases over time, so that the company can support millions of users and make increasing profits. ...

With generative AI, the work of building efficient, scalable systems has not been done. And the problem is exacerbated by the ever-larger generative-AI models, which have grown from 175 billion parameters in 2020 to more than 1 trillion today, according to independent estimates (the actual sizes of the models powering products such as Claude and ChatGPT are secret). 

The large in large language model [LLM] should not be a selling point. But the industry’s observation that bigger models tend to outperform smaller ones has given rise to a totemic belief in “scaling laws” that suggest any problem can be solved by simply making models bigger. 

Yet the returns are diminishing. The bigger an AI model is, the less it improves with each added parameter, and so it must be made bigger at a faster rate just to sustain steady progress. I asked a few AI researchers whether they could name any other real-world software that scales so poorly. None of them could think of any. ... By economic and engineering measures, generative AI might be the worst technology ever deployed. 

But, Reisner concludes, the tech barons are enthralled by their messianic delusions.

Chatbot companies are aware that their products are inefficient. ... we seem stuck with LLMs, perhaps because they have been so aggressively marketed. They are now being added to everything, whether you want them or not. In 2024 and 2025, they were integrated into both Windows and MacOS, which means that more computing power is now needed to run a basic personal computer. Smartphones are also being sold with upgraded hardware as companies anticipate new AI features. Inefficient AI is also being added to common programs such as Adobe Photoshop and Microsoft Word, meaning that computers need to be more powerful to run this software.

This is all especially bad because computers are no longer improving at the rate they used to. Since the 1950s, manufacturers have learned to make microchips steadily faster, smaller, and cheaper, a trend known colloquially as Moore’s Law. But in the past few years, components have gotten so small that manufacturers have run into molecular-level limitations on shrinking them any further, which has slowed progress significantly.

Ultimately, inefficiency may be of little concern to the people within the tech industry who believe that they are replicating intelligence itself. There is an almost-religious conviction among many in Silicon Valley that something mindlike could arise from LLMs, which are ultimately just statistical language-generating software—this, despite the software’s inability to recall basic facts, its lack of common sense, and its complete dissimilarity to a biological brain. ... But the mythological lure of AI is so strong that many engineers believe that nothing should stand in their way. Not even the basic task of writing efficient software. 

Is Reisner correct that AI is powering toward a messy, expensive, debilitating dead end? I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate, but I'm glad to have read his case. You can do that yourself at this gift link.

What makes Reisner's case highly plausible to me is where it touches on an area in which I do think I have the capacity for discernment. (And you, the reader, likely do too.) In the US political arena, these tech boys act like intoxicated teenagers with unmerited riches to throw around. Nobody can directly gainsay them; with their kind of money, they are surrounded by supplicants, flatterers, and, of course, politicians eager for a piece. An experienced con man like the Orange Toddler may seem to them a mark, but he's the true professional swindler. 

Scientific and business "geniuses" have lent themselves to fascist regimes in the past. The results were not to their liking; the Trial of the Industrialists at Nuremberg exposed cooperation with Nazi war crimes and mass murders. (Yes -- many escaped justice become "the West" decided they were useful to the Cold War... but that's another story.) Some of these guys are making themselves targets for a future fall.

No more "consequence free world" -- thanks Donnie!

What's the Orange Toddler going to say in his national broadcast tonight? Looks like he wants to whine on about the 2020 election he lost -- and threaten the 2026 midterms which he is going to lose. I won't be watching; I've got something better to do.

But I know at least one purpose that inspires this unwanted intrusion in our evening: he's managed to start a war against Iran which he is losing. He is desperate for some distraction. He/we are being humiliated by a second rate theocracy with a lot more brains and a lot more guts than exist in the US government these days.

Military historian Phillips P. O'Brien provides an apt and accurate description of what's going on:

The US-Iran War is a war of superlatives, because it is so absurd. It has already been the most “corrupt” war in US history (easily), the most “strategy-free” war in US history, and the most pointless war in US history. It might also be the stupidest. Another thing it is, without a doubt, is Donald Trump’s War (indeed that might be its name in history). This makes it a war with the stability of Donald Trump’s personality (i.e., very little). This week, for instance, the ceasefire between Iran and the USA completely broke down (yes, four days of constant bombardment means it has broken down) but if it instantly reasserted itself today, no one could be surprised because that is how Trump operates. ....

... The most recent polls are pretty consistent—somewhere between 60-66% of Americans do not support the war and consider it a failure. Only the GOP/MAGA base still supports this unending war (ironically enough). Also, the Iranian regime has consolidated its hold on power and seems to have rebuilt some of its military assets. However that is an irrelevance in Donald Trump’s War. He will do anything not to accept defeat for now.

... Look, Khamenei was a terrible guy, but the USA had pursued and legitimized a policy of leader assassination. Now it complains about this policy that has made Trump himself a legitimate target for Iran. What did he think? Did Trump believe he could assassinate whomever he wanted in Iran and Iran would not contemplate retaliating in kind?

The US believed for too long that it was living in a consequence free world, where it could do what it wanted and was so powerful that other states would simply bow to its magnificence, accept all insults, and grovel for its friendship. Well guess what? Actions have consequences, and the US has deliberately chosen policies with pretty terrible ones.

Wake up and smell the roses America. You planted these ones.

Actually, I am not sure Donald Trump's War on Iran is the stupidest war in our history. I could make a case for what we call the "War of 1812" and what Europe, if it remembers it at all, thinks of as minor skirmish adjacent to the Napoleonic wars which shaped the modern era. The USofA got lucky in that one; the world powers were distracted by their own quarrels and couldn't follow up on the blows they'd dealt the Americans. (I'm an interested student of that one; one of its failures laid the basis for my family's subsequent well-being.) 

ICE out of the Bay

Enil has friends. And so, when he had to report in to immigration court on Sansome Street in downtown San Francisco today, his posse showed up.

According to Bay Resistance: 

Enil is a loving father of three and longtime community member who was brought to the U.S. as a baby and has lived most of his life here.

He is an advocate for immigrants’ rights and has strengthened our community through his leadership and care. ICE is trying to detain him again and rip him away from his family.

A long line of other migrants waited outside the doors. Every day dozens of anxious people show up for their various ICE check-ins, never quite knowing if this will be the day the regime arbitrarily decides to take them into custody. The occasional larger protest against ICE, like this one, they sometimes find confusing and a little scary, according to one of the Faith in Action regulars.

So far San Francisco has been spared one of the Trump regime's murderous immigration enforcement surges, but we never know -- and try to be ready.

The local legal community has done a valiant job of decoding and stymieing the multiple illegalities in the process. Immigration law is a snarled nightmare even in benign circumstances. The San Francisco Chronicle has produced a detailed, easy to understand account of how the San Francisco bar is working to protect migrants. Read it! [gift link]

Trump is a crook, any way you think about it

It's hard to avoid thinking about "corruption" these days. Every pundit who isn't a MAGA stooge agrees that Donald Trump is the most corrupt leader/office holder the nation has ever empowered. Some might wonder whether Andrew Jackson, or Ulysses Grant, or even Warren G. Harding might give Trump a run for the title. But even a little digging says no. The barons of the Jim Crow system like Huey Long might give Trump competition, but their state level corruption is a different league. In the corruption games, Trump is a legitimate winner.

And yet discussions of Trump -- and his sons' and MAGA acolytes' -- corruption often bemuse me. Let me try to pick this apart ...

For about ten years back in the '70s and '80's I was a small scale construction contractor. That meant that jobs that I worked on were sometimes subject to inspection by the San Francisco Building Department. In that era, the inspectors were mostly old Irish guys who had worked the trades when younger; I think it is possible that my boss passed along a bottle of Irish whiskey to the inspector when we passed the final, but this was closer to solidarity than bribery. I don't think anyone thought you paid the inspector to get a sign off. These inspectors liked good work when they saw it: one of my happy memories of that era was having a white haired, retired, inspector, a Glen Park neighbor of the job, come over to where I was building an entry staircase and announce that I'd engineered the thing as well as any boy he'd trained. He cared that no one would stumble because of my errors. That was the ethos, at least most of the time. 

In subsequent years, the San Francisco Building Department became a sinkhole of corruption facilitated by payoffs to "expediters" and sometimes allowing complete neglect of inspections, all for a price. It took a federal investigation to clean up some of this.  I was glad I was out of the business.

That's what first comes to mind when I hear "corruption" -- bribes and payoffs to authorities for favors. And there certainly is plenty of that in Trump's various pay-to-play schemes.

But a great deal of commentary on Trump and the Supreme Court describes what we're seeing as "corrupt" -- and these writers don't just mean that Thomas and Alioto seem to float happily along on gifts from their rich benefactors, some of whom have cases on the docket.

What we are up against isn't just run-of-the-mill bribery, quid pro quos.  It's rot that lives and grows embedded in the system: the "moth and rust [that] doth corrupt," to be exploited by the thieves.

David Kurtz, via Henry Farrell, makes the point that we are up against this systemic meaning of "corruption."

"To understand corruption properly, we shouldn’t think of it as an individual level phenomenon. Classical thinkers, like Machiavelli, understood corruption as a condition that could afflict governments and indeed societies. But if we value democracy as the best way to order our affairs, we should understand corruption as not a moral phenomenon but a political one, which involves the corruption of democratic processes."

… and applies it to the Roberts Court:

"Across an apparently unrelated range of issues – campaign finance, executive immunity, political corruption and gerrymandering – the Roberts Court’s decisions have persistently corrupted the workings of democracy, so as to undermine equality in decision making and voice in favor of processes that are both duplicitous and exclusive." 

Our Constitutional state has rotted from within at the encouragement and for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Such rot overrides citizen democracy. Yet citizen resistance remains and in our history has again and again overcome robber barons, against both sorts of corruption. 

Note that this broader meaning of "corruption" was well understood in Shakespeare's English: Hamlet's friend, contemplating the drunken revels of the usurpers, summarizes: "there's something rotten" here. 

We are forced to reclaim this usage.