Jane Mayer interviewed the author of “The Art of the Deal,” Tony Schwartz, in July 2016. The story was published in The New Yorker, where Mayer is a staff writer and has written many brilliant exposes.

She begins:

Last June, as dusk fell outside Tony Schwartz’s sprawling house, on a leafy back road in Riverdale, New York, he pulled out his laptop and caught up with the day’s big news: Donald J. Trump had declared his candidacy for President. As Schwartz watched a video of the speech, he began to feel personally implicated.

Trump, facing a crowd that had gathered in the lobby of Trump Tower, on Fifth Avenue, laid out his qualifications, saying, “We need a leader that wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ” If that was so, Schwartz thought, then he, not Trump, should be running. Schwartz dashed off a tweet: “Many thanks Donald Trump for suggesting I run for President, based on the fact that I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal.’ ”

Schwartz had ghostwritten Trump’s 1987 breakthrough memoir, earning a joint byline on the cover, half of the book’s five-hundred-thousand-dollar advance, and half of the royalties. The book was a phenomenal success, spending forty-eight weeks on the Times best-seller list, thirteen of them at No. 1. More than a million copies have been bought, generating several million dollars in royalties. The book expanded Trump’s renown far beyond New York City, making him an emblem of the successful tycoon. Edward Kosner, the former editor and publisher of New York, where Schwartz worked as a writer at the time, says, “Tony created Trump. He’s Dr. Frankenstein.”

Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with Trump—camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the Trump family. Until Schwartz posted the tweet, though, he had not spoken publicly about Trump for decades. It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, Trump appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, “If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything.”

Please open and read.

Ron Filipkowski is a fount of information about political news, both on Twitter and as editor of Meidas News, where he is editor. This is his latest roundup. My favorite tidbit: The Trump Bibles that sell for $60 are made in China for $3.

… Trump continued to lash out at 60 Minutes and CBS, demanding that all media companies lose their right to broadcast on public airwaves and calling for an investigation because they edited Harris’ interview down to fit the time slot like they do all interviews. Most likely what Crybaby Trump is upset about is their brutal opening where they detailed the lies he told to justify chickening out of his own interview on the show.

… Speaking of chickening out, Trump also reiterated in a post on Truth Social that he would not debate Harris again since he won so convincingly last time. I’m sure that must be the reason. Harris then accepted CNN’s invitation for a town hall. Trump is invited but not likely he will show.

… RFK Jr’s mom Ethel Kennedy died today at age 96. She had to raise 11 children of her own after her husband was assassinated. None more difficult and caused her more pain and stress than his namesake. RIP to a strong woman.

… Trump filed a motion with Judge Chutkan today to block the release of any additional evidence in pre-trial court filings by Jack Smithuntil after the election, claiming that they are designed to interfere in the election. Judge Chutkan issued an order hours later permitting Smith to publicly file all his exhibits but delayed it a week to give Trump time to file an appeal. 

… The NYT is getting roasted for another insane headline as they continue their quest to both-sides their way to autocracy while sanewashing the Orange Menace. In response to Trump’s latest comments about migrants being predisposed to murder because of “bad genes,” the Times headline said that he “invoked his long-held fascination with genes and genetics.” Just like Heinrich Himmler.

… Ron Desantis had another one of his Angry Bobblehead press conferences where he wanted to make it clear to everyone that he is in charge of hurricane response and not the federal government. Because that’s what people really care about. He did concede that he was working well with the feds and getting everything he needed from them, but still wanted to make it clear that he was The Man.

… Anna Paulina Luna, who previously voted against FEMA funding and had her district take a direct hit from the storm, said she spoke with Biden and appreciated his comments, then called for Mike Johnson to reverse course and call the House back into session for additional FEMA aid. It’s all socialism until something affects their districts and threatens their reelection.

… Pretty obvious Luna is in trouble in her reelection as a do-nothing angertainment specialist. She continued to push the right-wing lie that FEMA only provides $750 in assistance for storm victims. She knows damn well that is just the initial payment for immediate necessities like food and gas, but she wants to be able to claim credit for it when they get more – as if she got Biden to come up with more with her phone call. It is probably the only district in FL that Dems have a shot at flipping, so fun to watch her panic right now.

… Mike Johnson posted that he was praying for hurricane victims but wasn’t calling his Members back from the campaign trail in their districts to vote on storm aid. They get Mike’s prayers but none of Uncle Sam’s money.

… Joe Biden held a press conference and forcefully called on Johnson to call the House back in session “immediately” to pass more storm aid. Johnson issued a statement late in the day that under no circumstances will he be calling for a session to deal with FEMA funding. He doesn’t want to pull his people off the campaign trail for trivial matters like storm aid.

… Barack Obama spoke to a packed house in Pittsburgh tonight for Harris. It’s all hands on deck now.

… Whoopi Goldberg responded to Trump’s long rant about her last night where he claimed that he once left a party she was at because she was too loud and profane. Whoopi said he knew she had a filthy mouth when he hired her to work at his casino, and said she might still be working there if he hadn’t run it into the ground with his incompetence.

… After being challenged repeatedly to produce proof of his claim that he was named ‘Michigan Man of the Year,’ Trump unveiled his “proof” today in his speech to the Detroit Economic Club – an article in a local paper quoting a MI county GOP official who says he gave him the award in 2013. The paper then immediately issued a retraction and said the GOP official lied to them in the original story.

… In his speech, Trump continued to argue that the US should return to an 1890s-style mercantilist economy with massive new tariffs on imported goods. This comes two days after we learn he makes his $60 Bibles in China for $3.

… Kari Lake referred to IVF as UFV three separate times during her debate with Ruben Gallego

… The Harris campaign just made a big ad buy on two major hip/hop/R&B radio stations in PA. Both camps going all-in on crucial PA.

… The Atlantic endorsed Harris for president, stating that Trump is a threat to American democracy.

… ATL Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms was denied service at an Atlanta area restaurant because she was wearing yoga pants. She complained about several white people being seated in shorts and tee shirts. The manager told her that he could seat her in an hour. She left.

… Inflation numbers were out this morning and they continued to drop for the 6th consecutive month, returning to pre-pandemic levels. Should be good news for Harris, but it doesn’t seem like Biden/Harris are getting the credit they deserve from voters for a soft landing after inheriting Trump’s mess.

… Trump gave a speech today at the Detroit Economic Club where he claimed that today’s inflation report is double what was projected – a flat out lie. He then repeated his claim that the stock market is only up because he’s leading in the polls. The problem for him is that this time he’s speaking to people who know better instead of his rally cultists. 

… He also told the audience in Detroit that their city was a hellhole and the whole country would turn into Detroit if Harris was president. Interesting strategy. Gov Gretchen Whitmerresponded on Twitter than Trump needed to “keep Detroit out of your mouth” and vowed that Michigan voters would end his political career for good.

… Trump also continued to rant about CBS and 60 Minutes in his speech today, which was supposed to be about the economy.

… We also learned from Trump today that California has had virtually no electricity for many years since they have blackouts every week. Thoughts and prayers my friends on the west coast, I had no idea how much you have been suffering.

… Liz Cheney has been a key surrogate campaigning for Harris in WI, where moderate Republican Haley voters make of the majority of the undecideds. She is the right person to connect with those voters with the exact message that will resonate with them – they may think Harris is too liberal, but Trump is a threat to the Republic and our allies abroad.

… DoritoGate – A video of Gretchen Whitmer feeding a Dorito to a podcaster has gone viral all over right-wing social media. They claim she is mocking the Eucharist and is another sign the the Left hates and mocks Catholics. Stephen Miller, who is Jewish, claimed the Dorito incident was going to cost Harris the Catholic vote and the election. MO Senator Eric Schmitt was the most prominent politician to weigh in feigning religious persecution. A spokesperson for Whitmer said she was promoting Biden’s CHIPS Act in a nod to humorous issue-oriented food TikToks that many pop culture stars have done such as Billie Eilish and Kylie Jenner. I’m not a TikToker, but I guess this is a thing. 

In case you need to be reminded of what a great speaker looks and sounds like, watch President Obama. He spoke yesterday about the race for the Presidency. He explains: Trump is an untrustworthy buffoon: can you imagine him changing a tire? Kamala Harris is ready for the Presidency. Vote!

Thom Hartmann writes that Jill Stein is determined to help elect Trump, as she did in 2020. Her votes in swing states were enough to give Trump the electoral college. She’s pushing the same strategy now, aiming to tip the balance in crucial states towards Trump. As Hartmann points out, Stein has a relationship with Putin. NBC noticed that she sat Putin’s head table with Mike Flynn in 2015. Cozy. Why is a Green Party leader dining with Vlad?

Hartmann writes:

Jill Stein doesn’t give, as the old saying goes, a flying f*ck about democracy. Instead, she’s all about how famous she can become and how much money she can grift off her repeated presidential campaigns. It’s a damn dangerous game.

Fresh off her 2016 political quacksalvery, in which she handed that year’s election to Donald Trump, this professional grifter — who’s been doing real damage to the Green Party for over a decade — is trying to get Trump back into the White House.

As her Wisconsin campaign manager, Pete Karas, told Politico:

“We need to teach Democrats a lesson.”

Arguably, Democrats have already learned that lesson. 

In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost Wisconsin to Trump by 22,748 votes; Stein carried 31,072 votes. In Michigan the story was similar: Clinton lost to Trump by 10,704 votes while Stein carried 51,463. Ditto for Pennsylvania, where Trump won by 44,292 votes and Stein pulled in 49,941 votes.

Had Clinton carried those three states she would have become president. 

Those slim margins may be a distant memory, however, given how hard Stein is pounding on Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania Democrats against President Biden’s unfortunate support of Israel’s brutal bombing campaign in Gaza. As Newsweek reported last week:

“In Michigan, a battleground state where the Greens are campaigning hard, and which has a large Arab American community, 40 percent of Muslim voters backed Stein versus just 12 percent for Harris and 18 percent for Trump, according to a late August poll by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

“Michigan has more than 200,000 Muslim voters and 300,000 with Middle Eastern or North African ancestry. Biden won there in 2020 by 154,000 votes, while Trump carried the state with a victory margin of just 10,700—or 0.23 percent—in 2016.

“In Wisconsin, the CAIR poll showed Stein on 44 percent and Harris on 29 percent, while she also leads the Democrat candidate among Muslims voters in Arizona.”

moderated the 2012 presidential debate between Stein and Libertarian Gary Johnson; she and Johnson both had the smell of cheap political hustlers to me then, a feeling that’s only been reinforced in the years since.

Stein certainly hasn’t done much to advance the stated goals of the Green Party. Back in the day, it was the Greens leading the charge against climate change and in favor of instant runoff voting, having considerable success with the latter.

David Cobb, a Texas environmental attorney, ran on the Green ticket in 2004 and was a regular on my radio program that year. He explicitly told people listening to my show in swing states to vote for John Kerry instead of him, calling it his “safe states” strategy.

He refused to campaign or even appear in battleground states, a statement of both high integrity and real patriotism.

Stein has neither. This is her third run for president (Howie Hawkins was the Green candidate in 2020 and was not on the ballot in most swing states.)

Instead, she’s bragging about how she’s going to hand the 2024 election to Donald Trump. Presumably, since her dinner with Putin, she’ll be spared the imprisonment that Trump says he’s preparing for the rest of us in politics and the media. As Stein boasted to Newsweek:

“Third Way found that, based on polling averages in battleground states, the 2020 margin of victory for Democrats would be lost in four states — Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Wisconsin — because of third party support.

“So they can’t win. There’s a fair amount of data now that suggests the Democrats have lost. Unless they give up their genocide.

“We’re doing outreach all the time to a lot of different groups, but it’s really been the Muslim Americans and Arab Americans who have really taken this campaign on like it’s theirs — like they have enormous ownership over this.”

Running for president and keeping an iron grip on the once-noble Green Party has become Stein’s singular mission. And she’s killing the Party — and its once-sterling reputation — in the process. As Alexandria Ocasio Cortez said:

“If you run for years in a row, and your party has not grown, has not added city council seats, down ballot seats and state electives, that’s bad leadership. And that to me is what’s upsetting.”

As Peter Rothpletz wrote for The New Republic in an article titled Jill Stein Is Killing the Green Party:

“As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.”

Stein brought along a Fox “News” film crew when she crashed the 2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, cementing her reputation as a hustler who’ll hook up with anybody who’ll provide her with fame or fortune.

There are, apparently, no Democrats in America clean or pure or virginal enough for Stein; as Rothpletz reports, she even attacked Bernie Sanders for being a “DC insider” and “corrupted” by corporate money. 

Meanwhile, her campaign, theoretically opposed to giant monopolies and defense contractors, has taken money from Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and McKinsey.

Stein is working hard to win the votes of disaffected Muslims in Michigan and Wisconsin, among other swing states, and could well deny Harris the White House this year just like she so proudly did to Clinton in 2016.

The unfortunate reality is that our system of democracy — created way back in 1789 — essentially requires a two-party system because we have first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections. The result is that third parties alwaystear votes away from the major party with which they are most closely philosophically aligned.

And the Electoral College, by creating swing states, amplifies the problem.

Most other advanced democracies use a parliamentary or proportional representation system where the party that gets, for example, 12 percent of the votes gets 12 percent of the seats in Parliament. This allows for multiple parties and a more vibrant democracy.

However, it wasn’t until the year the Civil War started, 1861, that British philosopher John Stuart Mill published a how-to manual for multi-party parliamentary democracies in his book Considerations On Representative Government.

It was so widely distributed and read that nearly all of the world’s democracies today — all of them countries that became democracies after the late 1860s — use variations on Mill’s proportional representation parliamentary system.

The result for those nations is a plethora of parties representing a broad range of perspectives and priorities, all able to participate in the daily governance of their nation. Nobody gets shut out.

Governing becomes an exercise in coalition building, and nobody is excluded. If you want to get something done politically, you have to pull together a coalition of parties to agree with your policy.

Most European countries, for example, have political parties represented in their parliaments that range from the far left to the extreme right, with many across the spectrum of the middle. There’s even room for single issue parties; for example, several in Europe focus almost exclusively on the environment or immigration.

The result is typically an honest and wide-ranging discussion across society about the topics of the day, rather than a stilted debate among only two parties.

It’s how the Greens became part of today’s governing coalition in Germany, for example, and are able to influence the energy future of that nation. And because of that political diversity in the debates, the decisions made tend to be reasonably progressive: look at the politics and lifestyles in most European nations.

But until America adopts proportional representation nationwide (which would require a constitutional amendment) or instant runoff voting (which could be done by law), a vote for a third-party candidate will always damage the party most closely aligned with it. Jill Stein understands this well, but chooses to ignore (or to intentionally exploit) its consequences.

The Green Party — that I safely voted for in 2000 when I lived in non-swing-state Vermont — deserves a candidate who’ll work to produce real change rather than simply run repeated vanity campaigns that cripple our admittedly flawed electoral system.

It’s time to say “good bye” to Jill Stein and rescue — and then improve — our democratic republic.

Greg Olear writes about Chief Justice John Roberts and his lifelong passion to destroy voting rights. To those who thinks Roberts is a moderate, Olear says that the facts prove otherwise.

He writes:

Donald Trump is certainly going to lose the popular vote, like he did in 2020 and 2016. 

Donald Trump is probably going to lose the Electoral vote, like he did in 2020. 

But if the latter is close—and thanks to the antidemocratic architecture of the archaic Electoral College system, it may be—the House of Representatives might wind up deciding who will take the White House on January 20. Trump would probably win in the House (which, despite its intended purpose and its name, is not accurately representative of the American people).

And if it ever got that far, Trump would certainly win in the Supreme Court. There, Leonard Leo’s far-right drones are chomping at the bit to return FPOTUS to the Oval Office. Amy Coney Barrett would join with the four hateful men in robes in holding with the Donald. And proudly, eagerly joining them in such a nightmare scenario would be Chief Justice John Roberts, the reactionary in moderate’s clothing, whose raison d’être is to make the United States as antidemocratic (or, if you will, as fascist) as possible—all the while convincing the media that he’s merely an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Roberts may well be an umpire. But umpire-ness does not automatically guarantee objectivity and neutrality. Like, I’ve seen the baseball scenes in The Naked Gun. Who better to rig the game than the umpire, who can call a slider under the chin a strike and a fastball right down Broadway a ball? 

That’s exactly what Roberts has done. In his court, balls are strikes, white is black, up is down, Radiohead is Coldplay. Words have no meaning. On his watch, SCOTUS decided that “well regulated” means “not regulated at all, even a little,” and that, in the case of Trump being removed from the ballot in Colorado for leading an insurrection, “Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability” means that it’s not actually necessary for Congress to do such a thing. Roe, legal precedent for half a century, is overturned, but the Comstock Act is okay.

There is not, and will never be, an internal logic to these decisions. Leonard Leo and the rightwing machine decide what outcomes they want, they game the lower court system to get the Supreme Court to take on the requisite cases, and then Roberts & Co. pull shit out of their collective ass to produce a ruling that pleases their rightwing whoremasters. And who pays the price? Pregnant women who cannot access necessary healthcare. Children who get gunned down by the score in schools all across the country. Minorities who have seen their federal civil rights protections evaporate. Consumers of tainted cold cuts. And, just to pull something out of today’s news, homeowners in the path of Hurricane Helene, victims of the climate change the GOP and its stooges on the Supreme Court will deny until Florida is underwater.

At the heart of all of this is voting rights. A country is only as democratic as its system for electing its leaders. By that measure, the United States is not all that democratic. State legislatures devise lopsided redistricting maps; that ensures a significant number of extremists in the House. The Senate, meanwhile, is inherently fucked by its construction, which vouchsafes New York the same number of senators as North Dakota. Thus has a minority of reactionary weirdos managed to hijack our federal government. And no one has done more to make this a reality than John Glover Roberts Jr.

“This is who he is,” David Daley, author of the excellent and exigent new book Antidemocratic: Inside the Far Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections and my guest on today’s PREVAIL podcast, tells me. “And John Roberts has so successfully maintained his reputation as an institutionalist, as an umpire, as a caller of balls and strikes, that he’s gotten away for 25 now with being what I call the most effective Republican politician of the last fifty years—who has delivered the right victory upon victory that they never could have won at the ballot box.”

In 2013, Roberts gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, torpedoing Section 5, which required historically racist states like Alabama and Mississippi to “preclear” any proposed changes to laws, policies, or maps related to elections. In the disgraceful Shelby County decision, the Chief Justice assured us that the South “has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Section 5, he wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”

Incredibly, a white Republican who grew up in a whites-only town in Indiana was somehow ignorant of what was happening to racial minorities in the South. As Daley writes in Antidemocratic:

Spend some time with the Justice Department files from this era and two things become immediately clear: First, across small-towns in the South, the VRA helped to promote parity in voter registration numbers, but preclearance prevented the adoption of many new-school methods of voter suppression designed to keep the past alive in little locales where no media played watchdog and officials could not be trusted. And second, the five Supreme Court justices who declared that preclearance should have been a vestige of the past spent little time examining these stories. 

They likely knew nothing of the majority-Latino town Seguin, Texas, about a half hour east of San Antonio, where the white population accounted for a third of the population but two-thirds of the City Council. That imbalance persists because officials simply refused to redistrict for more than two decades, after both the 1980 and the 1990census. Latino leaders filed a lawsuit using Section 5 and won—only to see the city respond by rushing the filing deadlines forward for candidates so that no Latino candidates could qualify. To stave off that latest scheme, the Latino majority had to rely on preclearance—and another successful lawsuit.

Seguin, Texas is hardly the only example. Daley recounts many of them in his book. They are nauseatingly, infuriatingly unfair. To this day, and contrary to Roberts’s assurances in Shelby County, voter suppression in the South remains a big deal. And that’s just how the Chief Justice likes it.

“[P]eople on the left still say, ‘Oh, John Roberts is going to save us on this really important thing,’” Daley tells me. “And John Roberts is not going to save you. John Roberts is not an umpire. John Roberts is not your friend. John Roberts was raised in a town for whites only, that was still advertising itself as a place for Gentile Caucasians, even after the United States outlawed housing discrimination.”

Sam Alito is the most pompous of the current Leonard Leo justices. Clarence Thomas is the most corrupt. Brett Kavanaugh is the most nakedly partisan. But John Roberts is the most dangerous, the most insidious, the most fascistic, and, worst of all, the most appealing in the eyes of the press—despite the severe and possibly fatal damage he’s done to our democracy.

“This is who John Roberts is,” Daley says. “Curtailing voting rights has been John Roberts’s life’s work—and he’s really really good at it.”

Well, by now, we have all grown accustomed to Trump’s mad ravings, so they are no longer newsworthy. So says Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic. Some readers of this blog will say that he suffers from NY Times‘ derangement syndrome, but hear him out. To be fair, Tomasky almost forgave the New York Times after he read Peter Baker’s article about Trump’s incoherence and cognitive decline, which appeared soon after he wrote this piece, titled “The Media Is Finally Waking Up to the Story of Trump’s Mental Fitness.”

He wrote:

It’s a pretty sad commentary on the way our mainstream media cover Donald Trump that if you really want to know what Trump said at a given rally, you would be wasting your time going to The New York Times or The Washington Post and you really need to read Aaron Rupar.

He writes:

Who is Rupar? He’s a liberal Substacker and prolific tweeter who prints all the news The New York Times doesn’t deem fit to print. The latest case in point is Trump’s weekend rally at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin—an appropriately named venue for a speech in which Trump was barking out hatred and bile like a mad dog.

If you’re the sort of person really steeped in campaign coverage, you may have read about what went down; if you missed it, spoiler alert: Trump said something at this rally so insane and offensive that even the Times finally roused itself to cover it. Trump called Kamala Harris “mentally disabled” and added: “Joe Biden became mentally impaired; Kamala was born that way.”

That statement, whatever else we might call it, was obviously news, so the Times couldn’t help leading with it. Ditto the Post, which decided to produce a story that emphasized Trump’s violation of politically correct manners. The Post piece quoted a mental health advocate scolding Trump for his insensitive language—as if what he said was offensive only to people struggling with mental illness!

Meanwhile, here are some other things Trump said at the rally, which you had to read Rupar’s X feed to know about.

 “These people are animals” (referring to migrants).

“I will liberate Wisconsin from this mass migrant invasion of murderers, rapists, hoodlums, drug dealers, thugs, and vicious gang members. We’re going to liberate our country.”

“You gotta get these people back where they came from. You have no choice. You’re gonna lose your culture.”

And, finally, this gem: “They will walk into your kitchen, they’ll cut your throat.”

Let’s tarry over that last one for a bit. Here’s a man who wants to be the president of the United States saying of immigrants—all immigrants: women, children, old people, everyone—that they will invade your home and attack you in one of the most violent and painful (and terrifying) ways possible. They will cut your throat.

Maybe it’s just me, but I find that shocking, even coming from Trump. It’s one thing to say that Mexico is “sending rapists,” as he infamously did in 2015. Even making a general statement about how these people come here and commit crimes, while bad enough, isn’t nearly as bad as this. This is saying directly to every American that they will break into your house and cut your throat.

That sure seems like news to me. Yet it didn’t appear in either the Times or the Post account. The Times piece did have a sentence noting that Trump “continued to vilify” migrants and called them “stone-cold killers,” so let’s give them that, at least. But the plain implication of Trump’s statement here is that migrants are an imminent threat to one’s safety. This is an unambiguous incitement to preemptive violence. How can such a vicious statement not be thought of as news?

Here’s how. If your definition of “news” is simply that which is new, then OK, maybe. Calling his opponent who happens to be the sitting vice president of the United States “mentally disabled” was new, and ergo it was news. That I get.

But Trump attacking migrants isn’t new. Obviously, I would argue that a candidate for president raising the specter of people breaking into people’s homes and cutting their throats is new. Perhaps reasonable minds can differ on that, I guess. And if it isn’t new, it isn’t news…

Why is age fair game for discussion but mental infirmity taboo? Is it because of basic human emotional responses to each matter—that is, we all see people age, it’s familiar, we’re comfortable talking about it—whereas with respect to mental health, talking about it makes us uncomfortable? If so, that’s a pretty lousy excuse. It’s journalism’s job to raise uncomfortable questions.

My commentary:

As for me, I don’t think that the issue is Trump’s mental health, although he is apparently suffering cognitive decline as video clips of his meanderings demonstrate.

The fact is that his campaign is based on demonizing immigrants, without regard to facts. He has launched a hateful campaign against them, making them targets of fear. It seems as though he is encouraging his followers to beat them up.

If he carried out his proposed mass deportation of millions of immigrants, not only would it be an act of inhumanity, but it would cripple important sectors of our economy: agriculture, tourism, meat and seafood processing, construction, restaurants, and more.

In an opinion piece in Scientific American, Cecilia Menjívar of UCLA and Deisy Del Real of the University of Southern California contend that the United States and other nations are sliding toward autocracy. They believe we can learn from the experience of other nations.

They write:

An autocratic wave has crept up on us in the U.S. and over the world in the last decade. Democracy and autocracy were once seen as two separate and distant worlds with little in common, and that the triumph of one weakened the other. Now, however, autocrats across the globe, in poor and wealthy nations, in established and nascent democracies, and from the right and left, are using the same tactics to dismantle democracies from within.

As of 2021, of the 104 countries classified as democracies worldwide, 37 had experienced moderate to severe deterioration in key elements of democracy, such as open and free elections, fundamental rights and libertiescivic engagement, the rule of law, and checks-and-balances between government branches. This democratic backsliding wave has accelerated since 2016 and infiltrated all corners of the world.

With the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November, questions about the future of American democracy take on urgency. As the American public seems increasingly receptive to autocratic tactics, these questions become even more pressing. Will the U.S. slide into autocracy, faced with a presidential candidate in Donald Trump who promises to be a dictator on his first day in office? Can lessons from autocracies elsewhere help us detect democratic backsliding in the U.S.?

To answer these questions, we first need to identify how the new breed of autocrats attains and retains power: their hallmark strategy is deception. How does a roll call of modern autocrats, and wannabe autocrats, like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, India’s Narendra Modi, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro implement this modus operandi for the latest model of autocracy? They twist information and create confusion within a façade of democracy as they seize power. They do not overthrow democracy through military coups d’état but by undoing core democratic principles, weakening the rule of law, and eliminating checks and balances between branches of government.

Rather than eradicating democratic institutions as leaders like Chile’s Augusto Pinochet or Zaire’s Mobutu Sese Seko did in the past, today’s established and emergent autocrats (as is the case of Maduro or Orbán, for instance) corrupt the courts, sabotage elections and distort information to attain and remain in power. They are elected through ostensibly free elections and connect with a public already primed to be fearful of a fabricated enemy. Critically, they use these democratic tools to attain power; once there, they dismantle those processes. Autocratic tactics creep into the political life of a country slowly and embed themselves deeply in the democratic apparatus they corrupt. Modern autocracy, one may say, is a tyranny of gaslighting.

We gathered a group of scholars who have looked at successful and failed autocracies worldwide in a special issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, to identify common denominators of autocratic rulers worldwide. This research shows that modern autocrats uniformly apply key building blocks to cement their illiberal agenda and undermine democracies before taking them over. Those include manipulating the legal system, rewriting electoral laws and constitutions, and dividing the population into “us” versus “them” blocs. Autocrats routinely present themselves as the only presumed savior of the country while silencing, criminalizing and disparaging critics or any oppositional voice. They distort information and fabricate “facts” through the mediaclaim fraud if they lose an election, persuade the population that they can “cleanse” the country of crime and, finally, empower a repressive nationalistic diaspora and fund satellite political movements and hate groups that amplify the autocrats’ illiberal agenda to distort democracy.

In February, Bukele, the popular Salvadoran autocrat and self-described “world’s coolest dictator,” spoke at the 2024 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an annual convention for U.S. right-wing elected officials and activists. There he received a standing ovation after he flaunted his crackdown on crime in his country and suggested the U.S. should follow his tactics. His speech demonstrates how, regardless of political history and ideology, or their nation’s wealth and place on the global stage, autocrats today deploy a similar “toolbox of tricks” aimed at legalizing their rule. That’s because they copy from one another and learn from one another’s successes and failures. Vast interconnected networks enable autocrats to cooperate, share strategies and know-how, and visit one another in public shows of friendship and solidarity to create an international united front. Just ask Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister and autocrat, who received a warm reception when he spoke at the CPAC in 2022, reminding the crowd of the reason for his visit: “I’m here to tell you that we should unite our forces.”

Global networks of autocratic regimes also provide economic resources to other autocrats and invest in their economies, share security services to squash popular dissent, and sometimes interfere in each other’s elections.

Modern autocrats do not act alone; their connections with one another are complemented and sustained by a varied cadre of legal specialists, political strategists and academics who tend to be economically secure, well-educated and cosmopolitan. These individuals, like Michael Anton and those tied to the Trump-defending Claremont Institute, the over 400 scholars and policy experts who collaborated on Project 2025— the extreme-right game plan for a Trump presidency—and Stephen K. Bannon, who called for the “deconstruction of the administrative state” by filling government jobs with partisans and loyalists, move in and out of government positions and the limelight. They are nimble and, moreover, fundamental to the autocrats’ strategies, as they create videos and podcasts and write books to fabricate good images of the autocrats, write detailed blueprints for an autocratic form of government, and consult aspiring autocrats on best practices.

Evidence indicates that we are in a critical moment in U.S. democracy. Will the U.S. inevitably descend into autocracy? No, not with an alert and well-informed electorate. Recognizing the strategies that autocrats use and share, veiled behind a façade of democratic elections and wrapped in fearmongering, equips us to understand the harmful consequences of these strategies for democracy, and perhaps to stop the wave in time.

Juan Sebastián Chamorro, a Nicaraguan opposition politician and prospective presidential candidate, was accused of treason, arrested and banished simply for running as an opposition candidate by the regime of President Daniel Ortega and Vice President Rosario Murillo (who is also first lady). In exile, Chamorro has described a danger countries face: autocrats who come to power through democratic systems are “like a silent disease—the early symptoms of this silent disease are usually dismissed, but once it begins to consume the body, it is usually too late to stop it.”

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

John Thompson an an historian and a retired teacher in Oklahoma. Here he reviews Max Boot’s new book, Reagan. He wrote this review for this blog.

He writes:

In 2018, Max Boot recounted “his extraordinary journey from lifelong Republican to vehement Trump opponent.” Although Boot once idolized Ronald Reagan, his Reagan: His Life and Legend tells the story how Reagan planted the seeds of “Trumpism.” Boot concluded that “Reagan was both more ideological and more pragmatic than most people realize–or that I realized before starting this book project more than a decade ago.” But, even when retelling Reagan’s success stories, such as working with Gorbachev, Boot exposes his weaknesses, such as those that could have led to nuclear war.

Boot starts with the way Reagan’s rhetoric and falsehoods led to Trumpism. For instance, his advertising for General Electric led to a “convergence of conservatism in the 1950s.” Boot recalls a number of Reagan’s statements that were “all false,” and how they helped “inure the Republican Party to ‘fake news.’” 

First, Reagan’s false mythology about preventing a communist takeover of Hollywood contributed to his political rise, as he “avoided becoming tarred with the excesses of McCarthyism,” even though he “served as an FBI informant and an arbiter of the blacklist.”

Moreover, Reagan called John F. Kennedy a “fellow traveler.” He also said America was adopting “temporary totalitarian measures” such as social services and federal regulation, and “we have ten years … to win or lose –by 1970 the world will be all slave or all free.”

But, Boot adds that the press wouldn’t call him out for lying, supposedly because he was sincere in believing his falsehoods. As his spokesman, Larry Speakes, said with a shrug, when asked about Reagan’s repeated lies, “If you tell the same story five times, it’s true.”

Similarly, Reagan’s allies remained silent about what they really believed about him. After visiting Reagan in the White House, Margaret Thatcher “pointed to her head and said, “There’s nothing there.”  Thatcher later criticized his war in Grenada, saying, “The Americans are worse than the Soviets.” President Nixon called Reagan a “man of limited mental capacity” and Henry Kissinger said he was “a pretty decent guy” with “negligible” brains.

Reagan said similar things about his allies, for instance, he defended Nixon’s staff that drove Watergate because they were “not criminals at heart.”

However, Reagan’s spin and lies also had more disgusting components, which were not adequately exposed. When he launched his 1980 presidential campaign in Neshoba County, where the band played “Dixie,” his aide acknowledged that, in every election, “race played a role.” There is evidence that, privately, Reagan “shared the rightwing view of (Martin Luther) King as a dangerous subversive.” And, as Tom Wicker, the New York Times journalist, said, Reagan moved racial politics “from a lack of interest in fighting racial discrimination to an active promotion of it.”  

And when opposing the anti-apartheid movement, Reagan said that South Africa had already “eliminated the segregation we once had in our own country.”

By the end of his campaign, Reagan’s advisers used President Carter’s stolen debate briefing books to prepare him for his famous victory, using the words, “There you go again.” But Boot concludes, “What has gotten lost – both at the time and subsequently was that Carter was right on the facts and Reagan was wrong”

Then, in regard to efforts to prevent an “October Surprise,” Boot concludes that “credible evidence” later emerged that his campaign reached out to delay a hostage release.

Boot explains that when Reagan took office, plenty of his staff were incompetent and/or wanted to dismantle government. He also had adult conservatives in the room who sometimes succeeded in convincing Reagan to back away from the most outrageous policy proposals. Even so, “Few if any presidents have ever been so totally isolated even from their most senior cabinet members.”  

In his first pivotal policy battle, over cutting taxes for the rich to reduce rampant inflation and unemployment, Reagan lacked curiosity and knowledge about economic facts. He once asked Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker, who took the lead in fighting inflation, “Why do we need the Federal Reserve?”

After his detailed account of the ignorance Reagan showed when passing his economic plan, Boot concluded that his administration “reached its high water mark in 1981 with its massive Economic Recovery Tax Act.” 

But, “Now the nation would have to reckon with its consequences.”

Those consequences included inflation over 9%, and unemployment over 10%; the loss of 1.9 million jobs; a 45% cut in school lunch funding; 45% of jobless persons not receiving unemployment insurance; a 1983 budget deficit of $200 billion; and shrinking the middle class, increasing profits for the rich, and increasing suffering for the poor. Long-term effects included an increase in the death gap between lower and higher income persons of 570%; and by 2020, an inequality gap was wider that those of almost any developed nation.

The same pattern held for Reagan’s foreign affairs decision-making. Boot explained that Reagan apparently believed that he ordered the invasion of Grenada (which was based on falsehoods) because “he had acted as an instrument of God.” Reagan also quoted a U.S. pilot who noted that Grenada produced nutmeg, an ingredient in eggnog. The “Russians were trying to steal Christmas,” the pilot insisted. “We stopped them.” 

And, according to Boot, Reagan’s opposition to Cuba could have gone nuclear. Secretary of State Al Haig said about Cuba, “Just give me the word and I’ll turn that f____ island into a parking lot.” But, fortunately, some of his aides settled Reagan down.

And the same behaviors, when Reagan ratcheted up Cold War paranoia, “could have resulted in a nuclear war that neither side wanted.” During his years-long negotiations with Gorbachev, Reagan was sometimes restrained by his professional staff, but sometimes not. And often his absurd beliefs kept reappearing. 

Mostly due to Gorbachev’s efforts, an arms reduction treaty was eventually passed. But Boot reminds us that in 1986, “Reagan and Gorbachev nearly agreed to a ten-year plan for total nuclear disarmament, but Reagan wouldn’t abide limits on U.S. outer-space defenses.” Because Reagan had faith in that missile defense system, which other participants knew was impossible and dangerous, he “scotched the deal with Gorbachev over them.” So, now “the United States and Russia collectively possess more than ten thousand nuclear warheads. And, despite Trump’s promises to build ‘a great Iron Dome over our country,’ satellite defenses against nuclear attacks remain unviable.”

By the way, Reagan’s few sources included the 1939 movie “Confessions of a Nazi Spy,” and, perhaps, a movie he was in, “Murder in the Air” (1940). 

And Reagan’s baseless beliefs also drove his commitments to mass murderers in Central American. He supported the “psychopath” in El Salvador behind the assassination of Bishop Oscar Romero because he was a favorite of the racist Sen. Jesse Helms.

Reagan’s support for the Contras grew out of a plan to “1. Take the War to Nicaragua. 2. Start killing Cubans.” 

And this post doesn’t have room to recount the downing of two airlines, costing 579 lives, during chaos spread by the Reagan administration. Neither is there time to appropriately cover the punch line he told over an open microphone,   “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Even before Reagan’s dementia took control, his mental acuity was in severe decline, and he apparently forgot that he was briefed on the arms for hostages deal with Iran. Boot reports, in 1987, the Iran/Contras investigations’ “harsh conclusions” were that Reagan knew about the arms for hostages deal, but it wasn’t proven that he knew about the funding of the contras;  “Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh concluded that Reagan had known about the diversion of funds, … but he could never prove it.” 

Even so, the Reagan spin on the investigation was that it was “the lynching that failed”

During this time when Reagan was increasingly disoriented, his administration was burdened by the Housing and Urban Development ( HUD) scandal; the banking and the savings and loans collapses which were due to his deregulation; and the AIDS epidemic, which Reagan ignored, even though his administration did not. Boot then concluded, “It is damning with faint praise to say that Reagan’s record on AIDS was not as bad as it could have been.”

I believe, the same could be said in terms of most, if not all, of Reagan’s “successes.” 

Boot’s conclusions include: 

While Reagan exaggerated the credit he deserved for the economic recovery, he ducked the blame for the recession.

Even if he read more than Trump and even if “he uttered fewer falsehoods than Trump,” Reagan’s “Often-shocking ignorance of public policy,” and his “repeated false statements” paved the way for Trump. 

Reagan “mishandled a pandemic, just as Trump did”

Like Trump, Reagan “catered to white bigotry.”

Reagan “empowered Christian Nationalism” and a “growing white backlash”

Reagan “helped hollow out the middle class, thereby creating the conditions for Trump’s populist movement.” 

But, there is more to worry about. Trump’s first term was similar to Reagan’s two terms, in that Trump’s aides sometimes managed to thwart or redirect his ambitions. A second Trump term would likely be more dangerous, and with fewer or no reasonable aides to settle him down. 

Media Matters has done a thorough review of the contents of Project 2025, which was written as a playbook for the next Trump administration. It was released and posted on the web in 2023, without fanfare. As more people read it and expressed their indignation, Trump claimed he knew nothing about it. Ever heard of it. Didn’t know who wrote it.

But the authors of the plan included 140 people who had worked in the Trump administration. The plan was developed by the rightwing Heriage Foundation, whose president is Kevin Roberts, a friend of Trump’s.

He knew.

It’s the roadmap for the second Trump term in office.

For education, the main feature of Project 2025 is its strong support for school choice, especially vouchers. It is a formula for directing federal funds to public funding of private and religious schools, as well as home schooling. It’s the Betsy DeVos model. Its purpose is to end public schools.

There’s been a lot of grumbling in the media about Kamala not sitting for interviews, so these past few days she has sat for interviews. She was on “The View.” She sat for a long interview with Howard Stern. She did a podcast with Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy,” a very popular show whose audience is women., especially young women. And she did the obligatory interview with “60 Minutes.” So did Tim Walz. I thought she was terrific. Watch and seeehat you think.

Trump was supposed to be interviewed but he canceled at the last minute. He said the show owed him an apology for something Lesley Stahl said four years ago. He claimed she said that Hunter Biden’s laptop came from Russia; CBS denied it. He complained that CBS would fact check him; that was unacceptable. CBS said it always fact checks.