politics – Page 3 – Progressive Without Apology

What to do about Kash Patel?

Given Trump’s pick to head the FBI, it is clear we are in for a long four years. The most important thing is to get ready to fight. But fight how? What are progressives–and for that matter conservatives and moderates who care about democracy–going to do about this sycophantic lackey?

Much attention has been given to the prospect of intensive litigation, and that has its place. But litigation alone will not be enough with a Supreme Court stacked with Trump appointees. Litigation will be hard when the opposition knows that if they appeal to the highest court in the land they will win, and progressive organizations will be out tremendous amounts of money on failed legal efforts.

That isn’t to say we should all throw our hands up and sink into despair. Trump is unwilling and incapable of delivering on promises to fix what is broken in the American government. Instead, MAGA embodies dysfunction: hyperpartisanship, an unwillingness to go about the business of government, caring about one’s own power above what is best for one’s constituents, gridlock. This is MAGA’S Achilles heel.

Patel will never deliver on his promises to reform. Instead, he will compound the dysfunction he says he is prepared to eliminate. When it becomes clear that reform is not a part of his agenda, we need to be there to make sure the world, and I mean the whole world, knows it. With the American people distracted with polarization, international pressure may become a critical component of any resistance against a second Trump presidency.

It begins now. As the nomination process moves forward, it is abundantly clear that “reform” is a smokescreen. We know Patel exists solely to carry out Trump’s bidding. The question is how to convey that message in a meaningful and convincing way. This sounds simple enough, but in actuality it will prove to be very difficult, demanding work. But it can and must be done. The point is to start the conversation and start the conversation as quickly as possible.

We need to frame the argument in simple terms–MAGA and Patel are a future disaster for the functioning of the American government. Eventually, Patel will prove inept. Patel will weaken the ability of the FBI to do its job. He will create chaos, or worse yet so distract the Bureau as to make it impossible for them to do their job. An institution Americans both rely on and take for granted will be hobbled. Patel’s “reforms” are going to further weaken an agency the American people rely on in their everyday lives. When the Bureau just isn’t there, people will think twice about Trump’s promises.

Right now, the American electorate is distracted with a disconnect between what the numbers and economists say and the realities of people’s economic lives. But they are taking their institutions for granted. When the real-world consequences of an appointment like Patel’s hit, many Americans will begin to regret their vote.

Left, Right, Forward, and Backward

As Democrats commence with an “autopsy” of their defeat by Donald Trump and his lackeys, over and over it is being said that part of the problem is that Democrats took a position “too far to the left” on the issue of transgender rights. The goals of the Democratic party were not in step with the political middle of America. They should have staked out a position less “extreme.” There is something to be said for the idea that Democrats’ standing up for transgender rights helped Donald Trump win the White House. The most effective ads against Kamala Harris were the ones that targeted her support for a tiny but increasingly important minority.

Having said that, there is no “left” when supporting transgender rights. Either you do or you don’t. Admittedly, Kamala Harris was between a rock and a hard place. Supporting transgender rights may have cost her the election. Not supporting transgender rights would be a betrayal of everything that the Democrats were fighting for in the first place.

If the transgender community were really asking for “extreme” things–a.k.a. incremental progress–I might feel differently. I might say take the fight one step at time and be patient. Changing hearts and minds takes time. But that was not what was at stake in this election cycle. Transgender people are under attack from all sides. People are having to move out of state to get health care. The simple act of having to go to the bathroom is now a contentious issue. Increasingly, transgender people do not feel safe. More importantly, the people in the business of making them feel safe are being criminalized. People fail to connect to the reality of how unsafe any environment, even a home environment, can be for transgender people. This is not a “cultural” issue. It is a bigotry issue.

The reality of it is there is a serious and frightening backlash against the progress transgender people have made over the last generation. If Kamala Harris wanted to campaign on not going back, she could not and should not have ignored the need for people to stand up for transgender rights. People are not supporting bills to roll back transgender rights because they are “more moderate.” They are rolling back transgender rights because a small but vocal minority has been extremely successful at reigniting familiar tropes and stereotypes about transgender people. The mood of the nation is moving backward. The American electorate is regressing. The legislation that has been passed is predicated on ridiculous myths and conspiracy theories. Transgender people are “grooming” children. They are predators in locker rooms. My favorite one was the Trump campaign’s claim that schools were facilitating sex change operations for transgender teens without parental permission or knowledge, something universally regarded as unethical.

This kind of rhetoric is about making transgender people targets of discrimination, exclusion, and hate. Ultimately, there is no right or left to transgender rights. There is forward–and there is backward.

A Question of Character

Is Trump a fascist? This seems to be the perennial question. But it is not the most important question. Time and again, I am struck by how, if you stop and think, the conflicts around Trump have nothing to do with ideology. It is important to not treat Trump as an ideolog. That isn’t to say that he isn’t racist and transphobic. It’s to say that his bigotry is not part of a cohesive set of arguments. It is his personal prejudices combined with what he thinks is politically salient at any one given time and place. His ideology is whatever he thinks it needs to be at that moment. If we can hold out any hope for the next four years it is that Trump has said he believes anything and promised to do anything that mobilizes his base in the moment. When it comes time to make good on those promises, it may prove harder than he thinks. More importantly, the time may come when he has to prove that he truly believes the things he has said he believes. It may become clear to those people whose ideas he has pledged loyalty to that he believes in nothing but his own desire for power.

People say they like Trump’s policies even as they don’t like his character. This is a cop out. Character is central to democracy. Actually, it’s impossible to have a properly functioning democracy when citizens and representatives lose sight of the fact that leaders in a democracy need to have certain moral characteristics. No amount of checks and balances will protect a democracy if an entire party, or half of the electorate, abdicate their responsibility to ensure they support someone who holds basic democratic values. This isn’t to, as they say, “blame the electorate.” It is to point out that something has gone fundamentally wrong with the way America selects its leaders. In our hyper-partisan environment, on both sides, character has taken a back seat to political litmus tests. People have come to care only about a handful of divisive issues and not the big picture–the person they are helping to elect. Political “nose holding” has become a way of life at the expense of American democracy.

What is at stake is just how screwed up the character of Trump and those that surround him really are. Take Hegseth, for instance. What is most relevant is not what philosophical approach he is going to take as Secretary of Defense. He is dangerous because he doesn’t have the character to serve his country. He faces serious allegations of rape, and, perhaps even more importantly, has supported armed service personnel convicted of war crimes. They can talk all they want, but in the end MAGA is a movement that cares nothing about the character of the people it sends to the government that is supposed to be serving the people. And that is just plain wrong. It is undemocratic. Since when did character not count?

The Real Reason Joe Must Go

Let us start by saying that Joe Biden is a decent human being. He is full of empathy. He works hard and has developed the skills needed to be a great statesman. But after his disastrous debate performance, is it critical that he step aside now, and I mean today. That there is no one who could potentially step up to replace him is simply untrue. There are many people within the Democratic party who are capable of being a standard bearer even though they are much less well known. There is still time to introduce a candidate to the American people.

At this point, it is not simply a matter of age; it has become a matter of character. Joe Biden may be a decent guy, but even good people can be blinded by selfish pride. Joe Biden wouldn’t be acting the way that he is if he did not sincerely believe that he was the best man for the job, and that is exactly the problem. However good a person, he has succumbed to his selfish pride by convincing himself that he is best suited to take on Donald Trump. If he truly wanted to do what was right for the nation, he would accept that he is not the man for the job and bow out with grace. I am not suggesting in any way that Biden is selfishly holding onto power. I am saying that it is selfish of him to assume and to continually insist that he is the man to beat Trump. If he had more humility, he would admit that even if he can do the job, someone else could do it better.

He is minimizing his disastrous debate performance instead of it being a wake up call to himself and all involved that he simply has aged too much to commit to being able to carry out the office of the presidency for four more years. What he is going through is completely normal. Sometimes it is hard to breach the question “is this task harder for you than it once was?” It can seem insulting. We all know the story of adult children trying to convince their elderly parent that it’s time to turn in the car keys. This is what should be happening inside the Biden campaign. It’s hard. If Biden were even just 5 years younger I might feel differently, and there is nothing else to disqualify him as a candidate. It’s human. But with democracy at stake it is also wrong.

It is a sad way to end what should be remembered as an illustrious career. If he wins (which is now doubtful), he will not make it through his term as president. If he loses, he will be remembered as the man who wasn’t able to protect democracy, while the world braces for the horror of a second Trump term. Why not retire in dignity, accepting that he has served his nation the fullest of his capabilities?