Since their ignominious defeat in 2016, the Democrats in Congress have somewhat mended their ways and shown some willingness to present a united front and fight.  Senate Democrats stood strong and voted against Trump’s most horrendous cabinet nominees and supported the resistance to the GOP’s efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare.  While these are promising changes, it's hard to see how they will be enough to enable the Democratic Party to reverse the ill fortunes of what has been a catastrophic decade.  Instead of developing a plan to address the weaknesses demonstrated in previous campaign losses while maintaining Democratic principles, the party has concentrated on continually sending out messages asking for money.  It is, of course, true that money is needed to run a political party.  Nonetheless, in the absence of a new plan, it's difficult to see that money being raised now will be used for anything else other than what the Democrats have been spending large tranches of their money on -  consultants and advertising.  At the very least, Democrats should be using more of their funds to organize and ultimately convince voters to vote for Democrats.  

In the first 200 days of his administration, Trump has failed in his legislative agenda, but has succeeded in tearing apart many of the recent programs designed to protest Americans and the environment. (See Phillip Bump summary in Washington Post, What Trump has Undone.) He has also effectively torn the country apart and weakened our bonds with long-standing international partners.  Trump may be crazy or “crazy like a fox”, but whichever – his presidency with his strident base are natural consequences of the Republican Party’s evolution over decades.   We at Social Policy Research wrote about the Republican Party as the problem in February 2017.   We repost the article here with minor edits to remove references to Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, and other anachronisms.  
​

​Donald Trump is not the problem. Trump voters and the Republican Party are the problems that threaten American values and is on the verge of dismantling U.S. democracy.
​
GOP leaders are so intent on the promise of enacting their legislative agenda, they are willing to support a President who is neither fit in terms of temperament nor ability.  Despite his ignorance of government, his narcistic needs for adoration, and his devotion to conspiracy theories, the Republican Party and its voters selected Trump as their candidate to run against Hillary Clinton.  If, as the GOP claimed, Hillary was too corrupt to be President of the United States, it makes little sense that they would nominate Trump whose own record was certainly as dodgy as hers – especially when they had other prospects who more closely represented the values that they told us were theirs.   

​Trump has told a mythical story about Muslims that highlights how their religion, Islam, hampers their ability to wage war.  According to Trump’s story “U.S. General John J. “Black Jack” Pershing was having trouble with Muslim terrorists in the Philippines who were doing tremendous damage.  He caught 50 terrorists and took, lined them up, dipped 50 bullets in pig’s blood, and shot 49 of them.  The 50th person he told to go back to your people and tell them what happened.  For 25 years, there were no more problems.  You can read about this in history books, not a lot of history books because they dot don’t like teaching this.” 
 
Historians have totally debunked Trump’s story and proven it wrong on a number of grounds.  It is only by a stretch of the imagination bordering on white supremacy that one could conjure the Moros fighting against the U.S. soldiers who had invaded their country as terrorists.  Studies by historians of the Rebellion in Moro Province, where Pershing was Governor from 1909 to 1913, do not show the execution of 49 or 50 Moros.  Moreover, Pershing’s autobiography, My Life before the World War, 1860-1917, makes no mention of such an event.  In fact, most of the historians who studied Pershing’s leadership found that he fought with as much restraint as possible.  If the story were true, it would have had to occur around 1911.  And, the conflict persisted for at least another two years, strongly suggesting that fear of defilement by pig’s blood was not a magic wand for defeating Muslim terrorists.  The rebellion certainly did not end immediately as Trump’s fable claims.  
 
If this story is a myth, then where did it come from?  All myths are not supernatural fantasies; some are based on real people and events.  Was this myth made up out of whole cloth or was it exaggerated from actual events?  Myths give people a way resolving conflicts or handling difficult situations posed by circumstances beyond their control.  They reshape the truth to present an idealized image of reality while ignoring those things that contradict that image.  What purpose does this fable serve?  One clue about this myth is that it was circulated widely on the Internet following 9/11, suggesting that it assuaged the trauma many Americans felt. 
 
A second clue is soldiers in India mutinied against their British officers beginning in January 1857.  The Sepoy mutiny occurred against a backdrop of increasing tense relations between Indian soldiers and the British officers whom they served caused, in part, by the racism of junior British officers.  But, the key precipitating event happened near Calcutta when a rumor arose that the cartridges used in their rifles were smeared with pig and beef fat.  The Indian soldiers objected to using the cartridges because touching the cartridges were a defilement to their religions, predominantly either Muslim (pork is forbidden) or Hindu (beef is forbidden).  Within days some Indian soldiers had killed their officers and women and children.  By June, the British faced a full-fledged mutiny with many far flung garrisons and towns under attack by mutinous soldiers.  The mutiny did not end until January of 1858 when the
British exiled Bahadur Shah, whom the mutineers had proclaimed as their leader.
 
Although the mutiny was overthrown, it did accomplish two things that shaped the remainder of Britain’s rule of India.  First, it ended any attempt to convert Indians to Christianity and allowed Islam and Hinduism to remain the primary religions of India.  Second, the mutiny ended attempts to render Indian society into a slightly darker version of British society in which its morals and attitudes mimicked those Britain.  Thus, in the broadest sense, the mutiny was successful.
 
Because Muslims (and Hindus) defeated the whites who would completely conquer India and Muslims brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11, the fable articulated by Trump turned Muslim winners into losers.  And, Trump’s fable also turned terrorists who escaped usual punishment because they died into desecrated souls because of their defilement before death.  

​Diagnosing Democratic Party Problems
 
Following Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump and Democrats’ losses in four special elections, a favorite parlor game has become identifying the deficiencies in the Democratic Party’s organizing values and messaging.  While the analysts making these diagnoses cite the 2016 election, 2017 special elections, and state and local elections since 2010, many of the conclusions they draw seem at odds with the experiences of ordinary voters.  For example, some analysts seem so fixated on the demographic trends that are supposed propel Democrats to victory, they refuse to look at the unique issues and populations within the specific states and districts being contested.  As a result, they are surprised when national demographic trends fail to predict the outcome of these state and local elections, like in Jon Ossoff’s losing bid to win a House seat in Georgia’s Sixth District.
 
In addition, some analysts fail to recognize that the impact of demography on voting is mediated by social conventions (see How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev).  Already, there is a concerted effort by some right wing members to shift the definition of Latinos and Asians from people of color to white.  Richard Spence, one of the leading voices in the fascist, alt-right, has equivocated on how he views the racial status of Latinos.

​Wrath filled protesters brandishing torches, assault rifles, Confederate flags, or signs with swastikas filled the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia.  They were there ostensibly to stop the removal of a Robert E. Lee statute, but really to terrorize the town and the nation.  They shocked the country by how many white nationalists were there.
 
But, most disturbingly, after 6 months of demonstrating his own white supremacist tendencies and incompetence, the country was shocked that Donald Trump failed to provide presidential leadership or healing messaging.  By this time, however we should know what Trump is.  Let’s stop pretending that we have discovered some new insights about Trump in his refusal to condemn Nazis. 

​As we approach the 6 month mark of Donald Trump’s Presidency, many of us are incensed and frightened to see such a rapid assault on U.S. institutions, especially how fragile democracy itself now seems.  Donald Trump is an unstable, ignorant, and narcissistic sociopath who bashes through the civility and respectability of social and political decorum.  Trump is not only undermining our society and democracy, he is also enabling the GOP to accomplish what they and their billionaire donors have long set out to do – to replace U.S. democracy with an authoritarian government.  Despite his agitation with how the media are covering him, and his psychological limitations, he has been effective in undermining important government programs and agencies, considered essential for the  for the effective functioning of our country. 
 
  By and large, Washington pundits are still in agreement with political leaders as they speak about the safeguards that will withstand all Trump’s assaults.  But the primary mechanism of those safeguards is that the three separate branches of government have enough power to assure that no tyrant can easily overcome the entire structure of government.   Now that the Republicans hold the Supreme Court, Senate and House of Representatives, and the Presidency that mechanism is severely hampered, if not obliterated. Some political observers have reacted in astonishment and disappointment to the refusal of Republican leaders to defend and support institutions such as the courts and media.  Despite Trump’s Banana-Republic leadership behavior; abandonment of our democratic allies around the world; and what maybe permanent damage to the U.S., these Republican leaders refuse to act.   Some say that while many Republican leaders are offended by Trump’s boorish, un-presidential, and even un-American behavior, they need to stick with him as long as the base of Republican voters support him.  Although some Republican leaders have pushed back against Trump’s humiliatingly public attacks on his Attorney General, Jefferson Sessions, and his apparent intention to fire Sessions and Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, Republican resistance is neither widespread not geared toward specific measures to stop Trump. 
 
But, questions about why Republican leaders do not employ every measure they have to oppose Trump miss the point – there is no reason to question  whether Donald Trump is a fascist or an authoritarian  (It is probably more accurate to say fascist, rather than authoritarian, but the word fascist seems incendiary  to Americans.)   What is clear is that beginning with Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” the Republican Party has grown into a full-fledged an authoritarian party.   Authoritarians fear outsiders and seek systems with strong leaders, and express unquestioning loyalty to those leaders.  Authoritarians operate with little respect for “their people,” but still profess beliefs in nationalism, racism, and ethnic intolerance.  
 
They do not want one-man-one vote; they do not want all children to have the opportunity to get a good education.  They do not believe that healthcare is a right.   They do not believe that a free press is an important component of the American system.   They believe that the very wealthy are entitled to wealth and power because they are wealthy; they must be the deserving members of society.  Those who have not achieved wealth must be less deserving and their misfortunes are their own problems, and their votes are not ones that should be counted.   Measures of authoritarian preference (independent of political questions) are used to sample Americans over time.  The Washington Post reported such a study comparing authoritarian views between Republicans and Democrats over the last several decades.  While authoritarian preference was essentially equal among Republicans and Democrats in the early 1990s, Republicans have increased their authoritarianism and Democrats have decreased theirs.  (The definitive work on Republican authoritarianism is John Dean’s Conservatives without Conscience.)

It’s been just days since James Comey went before the Senate Intelligence Committee.  We learned many things from the well-considered and presented testimony on Thursday, June 8.  The news reports at the time summarized many of the individual points that Comey made, and several listed similar high points as the important “lessons learned.”  For example, most news reports seemed most taken with Comey accusing Trump of lying.  Of equal importance, although mentioned much less was Trump’s lack of interest in finding out more information about the Russian interference.  Few articles focused on Comey’s actual intention of using this highly visible opportunity to help Special Counsel Mueller construct the obstruction of justice argument.   

​While the Constitution clearly gives the Congress the responsibility to oversee the conduct of the President, the Republican House and Senate have not addressed the issue of potentially illegal payments received by Trump; reviewed Trump’s mismanagement of foreign policy and executive agencies; and only reluctantly moved to have its intelligence committees investigate Russian interference and its ties to the Trump campaign.  The reluctance of both the House and the Senate to exercise its constitutionally mandated oversight duties of Trump stands in stark contrast to its previous eagerness to oversee the Obama administration.
 
The GOP reluctance is all the more surprising because Trump is someone who many of the GOP do not consider a “true” Republican.  As a businessman and during his campaign for President, not only did he fail to espouse many of the policies Republicans consider sacred, but he openly supported antithetical policies.  And, although since winning office, he has pledged his support to the Republican agenda, one might reasonably suspect him to be viewed with enough suspicion to loosen the ties that would usually bind the Republican Congress to their party’s president.  Of course, one would only be surprised at the behavior of Republicans if one expected them to be principled. 

​The Trump protest marches (Women’s March, Muslim March, Tax March, Science March, Climate March, Immigration March, and March for Truth) in Washington DC, wind through the Capitol streets, formless, like an amoeba.  The people in the streets appear as the caricature of American before 2016: diverse, well intended, optimistic and engaged.   Now, marchers yell chants in unison, but with little conversation, except occasional comments about the sad strangeness that we need to march to express fundamental wishes.  Demands for truth, advancement of science, and freedom of the press reinforce how quickly we’re losing fundamental rights and values – too basic to actively cherish.  They were simply our gifts as Americans.  The marches are remarkable for the “spirit” shown, but there are few signs of actions being taken or planned that will keep us from losing our fundamental rights and values. We wonder if or how the resistance will develop from a movement that expresses our feelings about what has happened to one that is instrumental in changing what has happened?

According to various GOP spin meisters the reason Jared Kushner, while still a private citizen, proposed communicating with the Kremlin and the VneshEconomBank (VEB), using Russian encryption tools in a Russian facility, was to establish back channel communications without fear of interference by U.S. intelligence services that were viewed as agents of President Barak Obama.

Because back channel communications have been used to establish and facilitate diplomatic relations, GOP spin meisters have tried to normalize Kushner’s unusual activities as an example of diplomatic back channel communication rather than what they were: an attempt to establish covert communications with Russia.   When Henry Kissinger, as a government official, made secretive calls and visits to the Russians, he informed J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, about the meetings and their content. Attorney General Robert Kennedy, who also secretly communicated with the Russians, also notified the FBI.  As another example, the Obama team used back channel communication to re-establish normalization of communication with Cuba.  These meetings were held secretly to limit interference from press and other agencies but were made by government officials who had the authority and security clearances and represented the US government – not when there was another President still in office.  Back channel communications are used by government officials to facilitate communication between their respective governments.  When Jared Kushner, a private citizen proposed secret communications with Russia, a US adversary, he was suggesting the establishment of what is referred to in espionage as a covert communication channel