[ad_1]



Politics


/
August 30, 2024

We will have to overcome the MAGA project’s attacks on the electoral system even after the November election.

A Trump-themed flag is flown by supporters across the street from Trump Tower as former President and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump holds a press conference after being found guilty over hush-money charges on May 31, 2024.

(Photo by Angela Weiss / AFP)

The announcement on Tuesday by special prosecutor Jack Smith that his office intends to revive the election interference and hoarding-of-secret-documents cases against Donald Trump is a reminder—if any is needed—of just how destructive Trump can be when he abuses political power for personal gain.

But perhaps what’s worse is how the former president draws people into his criminal orbit, turning them into faithful followers no matter how legally dubious the task at hand. At Mar-a-Lago, he allegedly convinced a series of low-level assistants to share his criminality in moving boxes of documents around in an apparent effort to avoid handing them over to federal authorities. In the election interference case, he convinced dozens of lawyers, political aides, and others to engage in a national pressure campaign to get state legislators and elections officials to challenge the vote counts in states that he had lost.

Almost certainly, neither of these trials will begin before the election—yet the granular level of detail of malfeasance and abuse of power contained in these indictments ought to give pause to any independents still seriously thinking about handing the keys of power back to a man with Trump’s felonious qualities.

Recently, the MAGA-captured Georgia state election board has shown just how far Trump-acolytes might be willing to go were he to lose yet another presidential election in November. Its far-right majority has been on a summer tear, setting in place rules that basically give any local county the right to endlessly delay vote certification on almost any pretext. Members of the supposedly nonpartisan board have attended Trump rallies where they have been personally feted by the candidate himself, to the raucous cheers of attendees. Trump has called these election officials “pit bulls” who are “fighting for victory.”

This is all in keeping with Trump’s endless drumbeat of warnings to his followers that the 2024 election will also be stolen from him, as he has baselessly, and continually, claimed for nearly four years now regarding the 2020 contest. After months in which Trump was steadily rising in polls, the polls have shifted in Harris’s favor, and Trump has now fallen marginally behind Harris. And as his odds of winning the White House have declined, the intensity of his attacks on the electoral system have grown.

Trump allies are already hard at work suing several states, alleging that they are not adequately purging voter rolls of inactive or dead voters. Trump himself has repeatedly refused to say unequivocally that if he loses he will accept the results of the November elections.

This behavior is, of course, deeply corrosive to the culture of democracy. It encourages voters to think of those who vote differently from them as enemies engaged in vast, shadowy conspiracies to deprive the MAGA-leader of his God-given right to ultimate power. And it legitimizes any and every shenanigan aimed at boosting the electoral position of Donald J. Trump.

It also deepens fissures at the most local of levels, turning everyone from small-town mayors to county supervisors into foot soldiers in the larger MAGA project.

Over the past decade, as Trump’s personality cult has picked up steam, communities such as California’s Shasta County have swung far to the right, with board of supervisors’ meetings coming to resemble mini-MAGA rallies, complete with screaming audiences and playing-to-the-galleries political hucksters.

Out on September 3, my new book, Chaos Comes Calling: The Battle Against the Far-Right Takeover of Small-Town America, details what happened in Shasta County, and also in Clallam County, Washington, to the north, as local political figures sought to use MAGA language and tactics to gain control over their political terrain. In each instance, lynch mobs confronted public health officials; online trolls threatened death and destruction against their political opponents; basic governmental functions were subjugated to far-right ideological campaigns; and moderate, pragmatic, political figures were exiled by the MAGA base.

In Clallam County, a good-governance league eventually organized to successfully defeat MAGA candidates over the course of two election cycles; but in Shasta County, which had always hewed further to the right, the braking mechanisms failed to kick in, and over the course of a few years the county became a poster child for the chaos triggered by the hard right’s burn-it-all-down brigades. School boards were taken over by Christian nationalists; the public health officer was fired; numerous other county officials also lost their jobs; the county leaders attempted to make Shasta a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County”; election-deniers were invited in to give long presentations before the board explaining how and why the 2020 elections were stolen; and local militias ended up as political kingmakers.

This is, unfortunately, the trajectory that too many communities are following. The long tail of Trumpism is thrashing as wildly today as it was eight years ago, in some ways even more so.

The Republican Party wants to paint all of this as being somehow normal. It’s not. There’s nothing remotely normal about heading into the homestretch of a presidential campaign with a candidate facing multiple federal felony indictments, stirring up local election boards to preemptively cast doubt on the legitimacy of elections, and prepping his followers to rise up in insurrection once more should he lose in November. Down that route lies nothing but chaos and the tearing apart of community fabric.

Can we count on you?

In the coming election, the fate of our democracy and fundamental civil rights are on the ballot. The conservative architects of Project 2025 are scheming to institutionalize Donald Trump’s authoritarian vision across all levels of government if he should win.

We’ve already seen events that fill us with both dread and cautious optimism—throughout it all, The Nation has been a bulwark against misinformation and an advocate for bold, principled perspectives. Our dedicated writers have sat down with Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders for interviews, unpacked the shallow right-wing populist appeals of J.D. Vance, and debated the pathway for a Democratic victory in November.

Stories like these and the one you just read are vital at this critical juncture in our country’s history. Now more than ever, we need clear-eyed and deeply reported independent journalism to make sense of the headlines and sort fact from fiction. Donate today and join our 160-year legacy of speaking truth to power and uplifting the voices of grassroots advocates.

Throughout 2024 and what is likely the defining election of our lifetimes, we need your support to continue publishing the insightful journalism you rely on.

Thank you,
The Editors of The Nation

Sasha Abramsky



Sasha Abramsky is The Nation‘s Western Correspondent. He is the author of several books, including The American Way of Poverty, The House of Twenty Thousand Books, Little Wonder: The Fabulous Story of Lottie Dod, the World’s First Female Sports Superstar, and most recently Chaos Comes Calling: The Battle Against the Far-Right Takeover of Small-Town America.

More from The Nation

Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz sit for a joint interview with CNN's Dana Bash.

Harris and Walz held their own during an interview driven more by media-made controversies than substance.

Joan Walsh

Delegates wearing keffiyehs hold up signs with the names of people who died in the Gaza war on the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the United Center in Chicago on August 20, 2024.

But the hope I felt when she became the nominee has been curdling into despair over her refusal to allow a Palestinian to address the convention—and her continuing silence on Gaza…

Benjamin Moser

Donald Trump smiling next to J.D. Vance

The GOP’s new league of fringe figures tries to replicate the party’s winning formula of 2016. And it just might work again.

Jeet Heer

Vice President Kamala Harris takes the stage alongside Andrea Campbell, who is being discussed as a possible attorney general pick.

Should Kamala Harris win in November, her attorney general pick will be among her most critical cabinet appointments. Progressives should start organizing now.

Elie Mystal

The complex Kennedy legacy has reactionary as well as liberal strands. Former Republican presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Donald Trump shake hands during a campaign rally at Desert Diamond Arena on August 23, 2024, in Glendale, Arizona. When he endorsed Donald Trump last Friday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) ignited a family drama. His famous family name is one of RFK Jr.’s main political assets, so it was not surprising that in explaining why he was suspending his campaign and backing Trump, he claimed the posthumous support of the two most famous members of his clan, his father, Robert F. Kennedy (RFK), and his uncle John F. Kennedy (JFK), both assassinated in the 1960s. RFK Jr. claimed that the two deceased statesmen “are looking down right now and they are very, very proud.” This audacious and galling claim was too much for Kennedy’s family. Five of RFK Jr.’s siblings issued a statement saying the endorsement was a “a betrayal of the values our father and our family hold most dear.” This letter was signed by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Courtney Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy, Chris Kennedy, and Rory Kennedy. In an interview with MSNBC, Kerry Kennedy said she was “outraged and disgusted by my brother’s gaudy and obscene embrace of Donald Trump.” She added that her father “would have detested almost everything Donald Trump represents if he was alive today.” Another RFK descendant, brother Max, wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times that denounced RFK Jr.’s support of Trump as “sordid,” as well as “a hollow grab for power, a strategic attempt at relevance.” Max Kennedy noted that prior to backing Trump, his brother had unsuccessfully approached the Harris campaign with a quid pro quo, a possible endorsement in exchange for a position in her administration. It appears that Trump made the kind of deal RFK Jr. wanted, so if Trump returns to the White House there will be a position waiting for the black sheep of the Kennedy dynasty. RFK Jr. boasted to Tucker Carlson that he’ll be part of Trump’s transition team and “help pick the people who will be running the government.” Writing in The Washington Post, columnist Karen Tumulty lamented that “RFK Jr. has sullied the Kennedy name and the dimming aura of Camelot.” It’s undeniable that RFK Jr. has betrayed the liberalism that his family, in its best moments, embodied. Indeed, RFK Jr. also proved disloyal to his own stated values, since only a few years ago he condemned Trump as a “threat to democracy,” “a terrible president,” and “a sociopath” whose politics was based on “bigotry,” “hatred,” and “xenophobia.” Given this abrupt about-face, it’s not surprising that former close collaborators with RFK Jr., notably the investigative journalist Greg Palast, openly speak about the politician as someone who has “lost his mind” But as manifestly corrupt as RFK Jr.’s behavior is, we should be wary of the narrative of Camelot betrayed, which relies on the attractive fiction that there is a unified and unsullied Kennedy legacy. In truth, the Kennedys, who have been national figures for more than a century, have been all over the map politically—not always in admirable ways. The family have long been Democrats, but at times very reactionary ones, in a manner that does decidedly show an affinity for Trumpism. As the historian Garry Wills documented in his classic book The Kennedy Imprisonment (1982), the most searching of all books about the dynasty, the family’s patriarch, Joseph Kennedy (1888–1969), imprinted on his large brood a host of bad habits. The grandchild of Irish immigrants and son of a successful Boston politician, Kennedy rose to stratospheric wealth through the stock market and liquor (although not, contrary to popular myths, by bootlegging). But his plutocratic success didn’t win Kennedy many friends among Boston’s Brahmins—snooty WASPs who saw the Irish as inherently low-class. Stung by social rejection, Kennedy pursued alternative paths to status via Hollywood (taking, among many other starlets, Gloria Swanson as a mistress) and politics. Although a Democrat who was appointed as ambassador to England from 1938 to 1940, Kennedy fought bitterly with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. During his disastrous term as ambassador, Kennedy threw in his lot with the aristocratic Cliveden set in England who wanted to accept Hitler as overlord of Europe in order to build a bulwark against communism. When his own government rejected this embrace of Nazi domination of Europe, Kennedy concluded that FDR’s mind had been poisoned by a cabal of wicked Jews (such as Felix Frankfurter and Sidney Hillman) who were dragging America to war. A primordial patriarch, Kennedy saw the world in belligerent macho terms: All men were rivals; all women existed for sexual conquest. He passed along this attitude to many of his sons, sometimes, as Wills and other historians have documented, sharing his mistresses with his boys. As Wills conclusively shows, this macho attitude was a pervasive part of the life of JFK and RFK (although RFK, who had a streak of devout Catholicism, was not a compulsive womanizer). During the 1950s both Kennedy brothers were classic Cold War militant anti-communists. JFK was pals with Joseph McCarthy, even going on double dates with the Wisconsin demagogue. RFK served on the staff of McCarthy’s Senate Subcommittee on Investigations and wanted to be chief counsel, a job that was won by Roy Cohn (who would go on to be Donald Trump’s mentor in the art of dirty politics). In 1960, JFK ran to the right of Richard Nixon on foreign policy, decrying a fictional missile gap. As Wills notes, the failed invasion of Cuba in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs was a pure distillation of the Kennedy style of masculinist politics. The Bay of Pigs, Wills argues, was taken to heart because it was so clearly marked with the new traits of Kennedy’s own government. It had for its target the man who obsessed Kennedy. It had for its leader the ideal of Kennedy’s “best and brightest.” It was a chess game backed by daring—played mind to mind, macho to macho, charisma to charisma. It was a James Bond exploit blessed by Yale, a PT raid run by Ph.D.s. It was the very definition of the New Frontier. To the credit of the Kennedys, they also had a capacity to learn from their mistakes. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK discovered how dangerous brinksmanship could be. A new openness to diplomacy can be heard in JFK’s address to American University, delivered on June 10, 1963, just five months before he was assassinated. JFK’s counterinsurgency program and meddling in South Vietnamese politics (including turning a blind eye to the assassination plot against President Ngo Dinh Diem) entangled the United States in a disastrous war. But by the late 1960s, both RFK Jr. and Edward Kennedy were outspoken critics of that war. Edward Kennedy went on to be an outstanding liberal senator, although his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a manslaughter case covered by Kennedy cronies, is a reminder of the family’s outrageous license. And Edward Kennedy remained unchecked in his sexual harassment of women, a lasting family trait. Last November, I appeared on the podcast Know Your Enemy to talk about Wills’s Kennedy Imprisonment. The show’s cohost Sam Adler-Bell noted that, on many points, the JFK in the book reminded him of Donald Trump: an aggressive and exploitive womanizer with vulgar taste who was saturated with media culture (Frank Sinatra and the Rat Pack in the case of JFK, reality TV in the case of Trump). The Kennedy presidency was the first really media-dominated administration, obsessed with “charisma” (an idea taken from the sociologist Max Weber but popularized in that era) and image-making (a concept expounded in 1962 by the historian Daniel J. Boorstin). The traits of charismatic leadership, as detailed by the sociologist Reinhard Bendix and distilled by Wills, are eerily prescient of the Trump era: a loose, personal style of leadership that prioritizes the loyalty of cronies and transactional deal-making above consensus building, democratic accountability, or following norms. Further, the aristocratic ideals JFK inherited from his perversely Anglophilic father, the belief that strong societies require great leaders who can transcend the blindness of the masses, was the seedbed of antidemocratic impulses that still bedevil American society. The Kennedys, therefore, have a mixed legacy. If they have been leaders of American liberalism, they’ve also at times embodied anti-liberal impulses that are antithetical to democracy. One way to describe RFK Jr.’s politics is that in endorsing Trump he is abandoning the liberalism of Edward Kennedy and reverting to the America First authoritarianism of his grandfather. It’s easy to understand why RFK, his siblings, and his cousins all remain haunted by the legacy of their family. To be the children of great men who were killed young is a heavy burden. This is part of what Wills means by the Kennedy imprisonment. But both the family and America would benefit from finding a way to escape this prison. The problem is not just that RFK Jr. has betrayed his father’s legacy, but also that he and America need to be more clear-eyed about how limited that legacy is. Camelot was always a myth. To move forward, that myth has to be left behind.

Pamela Price, the Alameda County DA, is fighting a recall vote and to defend her unwavering refusal to over-criminalize young people.

Piper French




[ad_2]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *