Claire – We must be living in parallel universes. From where I sit, I believe this program has been implemented already - by the Left - for the last century (starting with Woodrow Wilson’s administration).
1. Begin with a voice
-You are the providential conduit of the “real people” in their struggle against a nebulous class of “elites.”
The Left has always called themselves “the voice of the people,” sticking it to “the Man.” Remember “power to the people”? And have you forgotten all the invective leveled at the WASP elite in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? (By the 90s, these class enemies had been largely neutralized.)
2. Rewrite history
-If the lessons of history suggest your ideas will lead to disaster, change history, not your ideas.
-Remember: The people have been robbed of their greatness by a series of catastrophes and betrayals.
Does “The People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn ring a bell? The most-assigned history book in US universities! Or how about “The 1619 Project”?
3. Magnify ethnic, racial, religious, or class divisions
-Or all at once, if you can swing it. Just make sure people are hopping mad.
Er… Every Democratic campaign over the last 60 years has been built on divisive rhetoric, encouraging victimhood and assigning blame on other races (the whole anti-racism opus, most recently, demonizing “whiteness”), religion (Christianity, and especially Catholicism, blamed for a host of ills; how about the shibboleth “most wars were started by religion”?), and class (the basis of the entire Marxian ideology; remember the continual blaming of “the rich” for everything)
4. Magnify fear of foreigners and outsiders
-The Jews are always a good target, but if you don’t have enough, try Muslims.
-Whoever they are, they’re demonic in their sexual rapaciousness.
Maybe not foreigners, but outsiders for sure. Remember “the basket of deplorables” and “floating garbage” comments? Or “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find”? How about all the invective that is leveled at the “Rednecks”: “They marry their cousins, they lack teeth, they are uneducated,” etc., etc.
The Leftist elite drip with contempt for the rubes, the hicks, the great unwashed - and work it into every possible play, movie script, article, and broadcast.
And how about the fear drummed up about the militias in the mountains and the “far right” extremists? Remember this headline: “White Supremacists Top Domestic Terror Threat”?
Finally, which side is demonizing Jews now? MAGA isn’t hunting Jewish students on campus!
5. Destroy public confidence in elites and institutions.
-No abstract ideas. Appeal to the emotions.
-Constantly repeat a small number of things, using the same simple phrases.
-Criticize your opponents incessantly.
-Pick out one special enemy for special vilification.
-Label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans:
-Destroy confidence in the idea of objective truth
Does “The Supreme Court will turn America into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’” ring a bell? “The rich don’t pay their fair share”? “Republicans are out to destroy democracy”? “No justice, no peace”? “Defund the police”? “Not my President!”?
6. Win the election.
-However narrow your victory, it was an overwhelming mandate for every one of your policies.
Whom did CBS write about: “I will use my pen and phone to take on Congress”? Who just tried to buy young people’s votes with an illegal “student loan forgiveness” scheme?
-Your party would be nothing without you. Don’t tolerate any backtalk.
Who invented and implemented “Cancel Culture”? Who used “struggle sessions” to silence or drive out opposition on campuses, in social media outings, and in corporate accountability campaigns?
7. Secure the executive.
“According to various analyses and surveys, around 60% to 70% of federal employees have historically voted for Democratic candidates in recent elections.” Enough said?
-Does it decide who gets audited? Staff it with your boys.
Which President was in power when it was revealed that the IRS had been using specific keywords, such as "Tea Party" and "patriot," to identify and scrutinize conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status?
-Neutralize the intelligence agencies. You don’t need their advice, and you sure don’t need their questions about your friends.
Hmmm…. I seem to remember a letter, signed by 51 former intelligence officials, including prominent figures like former CIA Director John Brennan and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, that stated that Hunter Biden’s laptop was likely part of a Russian disinformation effort aimed at influencing the election. It was released on October 19th, 2020, 15 days before the election. Whose side did that letter protect?
8. Fill the judiciary with your loyalists.
-Smear and discredit any judge who seems too independent.
I remember clearly the calumny directed at Robert Bork, the disgusting allegations against Clarence Thomas, and the vile accusations against Justices Cavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. And on what side of the political aisle were the “activists” who tried to assassinate Justice Cavanaugh and who held sit-ins, vigils, and demonstrations at the homes of Alito, Cavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas?
-Change the rules for judicial appointments.
Poe: “The filibuster was effectively eliminated for judicial appointments in 2013. Under then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democratic majority changed the rules to allow for a simple majority vote to confirm federal judicial nominees, including appellate court judges, in response to what they saw as Republican obstructionism.”
Whose party’s legislators introduced bills to increase the number of justices to 13 while President Biden was in office? Who established a commission to study potential Supreme Court reforms that brought up the topic for discussion?
9. Empower a loyal oligarchic class.
-Loyalists get juicy government contracts and tenders. The more loyal, the better the rewards.
The government at ALL levels (Federal, State, and Local) have established set-asides for the favorite classes who are expected to be loyal to the ruling party; a certain percentage of all governmental contracts go to those groups, and some states require that ALL contracts include participation by such groups.
The Civil Service system, again at Federal and State levels, has embedded preferential treatments for certain favored groups, adding points to their test scores and accelerating their promotions.
This has been going on for decades.
-Focus on the oligarchs who own the media!
Until very recently, all the oligarchs who own the media (with the exception of Rupert Murdoch) have been on and of the Left.
10. Neutralize your enemies.
-Punish the unsubmissive with punitive taxes and spurious lawsuits. Use charges of tax evasion. Or something else! Whether they’ve done it or not, the legal fees and the stress will be punishment enough.
-You need some lowlifes with a taste for wet work.
Have you read "Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy"? I greatly recommend it. Nearly every terror group (and I include Just Stop Oil) that is not Islamist has been leftist.
12. Turn parliament into a rubber stamp.
-Never forget your friends. Make sure everyone who supports you gets rich. Make sure everyone who opposes you worries about your thugs.
How many Democrats voted against Obamacare? IRA? Who received the overwhelming majority of contributions from the ultra-rich in this election?
13. Get the military under your thumb.
-Do not allow yourself to be swayed by sissy considerations like “military readiness” or “morale.”
-What good is a ready military that topples you?
-Replace the top brass with people who don’t know which end of the gun to shoot from. The more unqualified, the better. If you promote total losers, they’ll insert burning embers in their orifices for you:
You’re the only reason they’d ever get this chance to lord it over all the people who told them they’d never amount to anything.
I’ll let Poe address this:
The U.S. military has implemented various changes to relax standards and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, allowing more minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals to serve. Here are some notable examples:
Gender-Neutral Standards: The military has worked to create gender-neutral physical fitness standards, allowing women to meet the same requirements as men, rather than having different standards based on gender. This change aims to ensure that all service members are evaluated based on the same criteria.
Transgender Service Members: The Biden administration lifted the ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the military. Policies have been instituted to allow transgender personnel to serve according to their gender identity and to access necessary medical care.
Waivers for Enlistment Standards: There have been instances where the military has issued waivers for certain enlistment standards, such as education and background checks, to increase diversity among recruits. This includes relaxing requirements for those with minor criminal records or lower educational qualifications.
Cultural Competency Training: The introduction of training programs that focus on inclusivity and cultural awareness aims to create a more accepting environment for all service members, helping to reduce barriers for minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Support for LGBTQ+ Rights: The military has taken steps to recognize and protect the rights of LGBTQ+ service members, including changes to policies regarding benefits for same-sex spouses and the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Increased Representation in Leadership: Initiatives have been launched to promote diversity in leadership positions within the military, aiming to ensure that minority and female service members have opportunities for advancement.
14. Gain control of the media and turn it into a non-stop propaganda machine.
The legacy media IS the Left. Around 90% of journalists are Democrats. The principal legacy media platforms openly supported Biden and then Harris in the latest election. 60% to 70% of stories reflect left-leaning perspectives, especially in major outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times.
14. Harass civil society.
-Who needs these lunatics whining about “civil rights?” Audit their taxes. Say they’re funded by foreigners. Or controlled by George Soros. Whatever they are, they’re enemies of the people.
Does “Russian Collusion” ring any bells? What about the two-tiered justice system, whereby suspected “hate crimes” are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, while robbers, rapists, and murderers are released time and time again to terrorize civil society? Turnstile justice, anyone?
15. Reorient your foreign policy toward Russia.
Change that to China, and I will cite Eric Swalwell, Diane Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi. Plus, there are around 50 Confucious Institutes around the country; they have faced scrutiny and criticism regarding concerns about academic freedom and the influence of the Chinese government on American educational institutions.
Change it to Qatar, and most elite universities educating our future leaders are in their pay, as we recently found out.
16. Create chaos, confusion, and a sense of permanent emergency.
-Keep your enemies off balance, exhausted, demoralized, and baffled. Make sure no one knows what’s really happening.
Whose Chief of Staff said, “Never let a crisis go to waste”?
-A million conspiracy theories must be swirling at all times so the real conspiracies just blend into the noise.
Let me count the ways:
• The Russian Collusion hoax
• The Voter Suppression allegations
• The “Muslim Ban” hoax
• The “racist” COVID-19 origin libel
• The “Fine People” hoax
• The “misinformation”/”disinformation” accusations
• The “Injecting Bleach” hoax
• The “Abortion Ban” scare
• Etc., etc., etc.
17. Humiliate or destroy people who are better fit to be leaders.
I again cite “Cancel Culture,” the ideological capture of institutions educating and entertaining our future leaders, the coordinated smear campaigns, the “Republicans pounce” stratagems, etc.
18. Be on the safe side when it comes to elections
-If you’re doing this right, you don’t need to rig the vote.
That’s exactly what the Harris campaign believed…
-Remember: It’s not who votes. It’s who counts the vote.
CNN: “Pennsylvania Democratic official apologizes for comments about ignoring election laws”
18. Take control of the central bank.
Semafor: “Federal Reserve employees overwhelmingly donate to Democratic causes”
-An election coming up? Juice that economy, baby! Let the future take care of itself.
The Heritage Foundation: “The CBO now expects the debt to be $7.2 trillion higher than it had projected when Trump left office”
The NYT: “How Kamala Harris Burned Through $1.5 Billion in 15 Weeks”
19. Dissent is okay. But not too much.
-If an opponent gets too popular, you need to cut him off at the knees, but by this point, your options are limitless.
I cite “lawfare” again.
20. Rewrite the constitution
-Seems like things are going well! Alas, the constitution says you can’t stay. So you still have work to do
Well, according to the Center for Constitutional Design, “there are proposals, some long-standing as well as some comparatively new, for additions to the Constitution. Among them are an Equal Rights Amendment, an affirmative voting rights amendment and the For Our Freedom Amendment, which calls for reasonable limits on campaign spending.”
Now, which party would you imagine proposed those amendments?
Long live the dictatorship of the prole… er, strike that… educated class! WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR YOU!
I am very willing to admit that both sides use all sorts of tricks and underhanded tactics to win power. I hope you believe that it is not limited to one party, or one man.
In her essay, Claire neglected to mention the two wisest and most capable Trump appointees, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Perhaps they went unmentioned because their appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Their plan for the United States is to undue all of the damage the neoliberals, the neoconservatives and their globalist allies have done. That damage can’t be rectified over night.
The soldiers who came home from the useless and failed wars without arms or legs or both will never be made whole again. Their physical injuries are only a part of their problem. The reality that we lost those wars and that they never should have been fought represent a psychological burden that can’t be escaped. To die or to end up greviously injured all so neoconservative couch potatos can get a few chuckles is a weight that will never be lifted.
Huge swaths of the American heartland have been decimated and depopulated thanks to the neoliberal policies that Claire embraces. Huge numbers of American men face unemployment, destitution, drug abuse and indolence because of the blinkered fantasies of the neoliberals.
Those who don’t like populism need to face reality; it’s the globalist obsession with open borders that gave rise to populism in the first place. By way of example, Prime Minister Two-Tier of the UK insists that he needs a crushing death tax on British farmers to help restore his nation’s solvency. What he’s reluctant to admit is that the UK spends approximately twice as much providing low-cost or free housing to illegal immigrants as will be raised by the new tax structure. Anyone who wonders why populism is sweeping the Western World is truly clueless.
Thank goodness for Elon and Vivek. Here’s their plan to restore American strength as published in today’s Wall Street Journal.
“Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.
This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.
President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.
We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.
In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.
DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.
When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.
A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.
Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.
Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.
The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.
With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.”
It’s not Trump threatening liberal democracy, it’s Biden, Harris and the Democrats who’ve done that. When the federal government badgers social media companies to censor content it doesn’t like, that’s a direct threat to liberal democracy. When the Justice Department indicts the Administration’s political opponents on plainly ridiculous charges, that’s a direct threat to liberal democracy. If you don’t believe the charges against Trump were plainly ridiculous, consider the fact that one set of charges were dismissed and the other set utterly repudiated by the vote of the American people.
When the Justice Department indicts its erstwhile political allies because they espouse views the Administration finds objectionable, that’s a threat to liberal democracy. That’s what the Justice Department did to Mayor Adams in New York. If you don’t believe me, read the indictment yourself. It’s nonsense.
When a Capitol Police Officer shoots and kills an unarmed woman guilty of nothing more than trespassing and that officer is exonerated by the Justice Department without charges being brought, that’s a threat to liberal democracy.
When the federal government bullies tens of thousands of its employees to get a vaccination that they (foolishly) don’t want, that’s a threat to liberal democracy.
Claire simply doesn’t know an autocrat when she sees one. The autocrat is Biden and the team surrounding him.
Trump is not a revolutionary as he is often assumed to be; he’s mounting a counterrevolution. He’s seeking to overturn the economic and financial policies of the neoliberal bipartisan establishment. He’s also seeking to overturn the neoconservative agenda of the bipartisan establishment that has done so much to ruin our nation’s prospects.
To assume, as Claire does, that neoliberalism and neoconservatism are somehow deeply rooted in American history and culture is simply wrong. These philosophies had their genesis in the late 20th century and came to fruition in the 21st century. For most of American history, neoliberalism and neoconservatism would have been viewed with repugnance. Search high and search low for an American passion for the neoconservative’s first love, “democracy promotion” before the 21st century; you won’t find it. For much of American history the American government was financed mostly by tariffs which are, of course, an anathema to neoliberals.
The other poison administered by politicians of both political parties during this century is a reverence for globalism. A globalist approach was surely required to win the Second World War and perhaps the Cold War but it has clearly passed its use by date. For the past quarter century, America’s European and Asian allies have been delighted to let America bear any burden to protect the free-world while they joyfully played the role of free-loaders. By way of example, look at the nation we once had a “special relationship” with; the United Kingdom.
The UK has turned itself into a laughing stock. It’s navy can’t float and its army can’t fight. Increasingly it can’t make anything that the rest of the world wants to buy. Recently it’s taken a turn towards authoritarianism that puts Hungary to shame. In the UK they throw you in prison for publishing tweets that the ruling party frowns on. They also arrest you for praying silently in your own mind in proximity to abortion clinics. Most recently, the UK’s newly elected, but already failed Prime Minister, Two-Tier Keir, has proposed legislation that will tax many UK’s farmers out of existence.
Trump understands that NATO was designed to defeat the Soviet Union. Mission accomplished. The globalist idea that it should be expanded right up to Russia’s borders is folly. It’s the worst sort of nostalgia for a world that was in constant turmoil. It’s a world that globalists love and hope to bring back
Trump is the antidote to neoliberalism and neoconservatism. He’s the antidote to globalism. Whether he succeeds is an open question. The Cabinet Officers he hopes to hire are all iconoclasts like he is. They’re far from perfect just as Trump is far from perfect. But their plan to apply a wrecking ball to the agencies they lead is precisely what the doctor (and the American people) have ordered.
I expect that Trump lacks the discipline and focus needed to carry out the nefarious plan you describe. He’s lazy, he doesn’t read anything, and he’s jealous and insecure around men who disagree with him. (That’s one reason his female chief of staff is such an effective Trump-whisperer.)
Thank you--it's a lovely compliment--but if I were brilliant I'd have figured out how to stop all of this. By the way, are you the Fred I know in person?
The X-Twitter account that you identify as a MAGA bot is an odd one, because it's run by a real person under his own name, a German Internet entrepreneur who was sued by the American SEC at the end of the 90s dotcom bubble for a pump-and-dump scheme. I would guess he's in that category of people who really do prefer the new regime *and* who want to profit from it. Speculating a little further... long before Musk declared for Trump, there was a kind of account which combines being Elon's biggest fan, with touting some form of crypto. Meanwhile, since Musk embraced Trump, many e/acc accounts have also become MAGA. Your man in Germany there has an Internet domain in his profile which currently redirects back to his X account; I would guess he's trying to gather followers, in preparation for properly launching his website.
That paper from QUT is not at all convincing. They make no attempt to consider other hypotheses (nor do they look at other Internet metrics, e.g. Google Trends, for the same period), they don't mention that all this happened immediately after the assassination attempt, and they analyse a grand total of 10 partisan accounts, five Republican, five Democrat.
I just lost my response to this comment. Very frustrating. I'll try again.
You're of course right: Short of seeing the algorithm, there's no way to prove this, and the assassination attempt is a confounder (though the effect they chart was sustained--I would have expected that to cause a blip, not a sustained rise). Also, I'm not sure why it would have caused engagement with Elon's account to soar, unless people were suddenly super-interested in him because of his endorsement. That could account for it, maybe.
But--what's your best guess, based on that data.
Couple this with a *huge* amount of anecdotal evidence, including your own, if you use Twitter. People didn't suddenly start leaving for BlueSky for no reason. It wasn't because people don't like Elon and were upset about the election, or because they wanted to be in their own filter bubble. (Well, I don't know about *everyone,* but generally speaking).
People have been infuriated with Elon for ages. (I've written whole articles about the way he's turned Twitter into sewer full of Nazis) But everyone who was still there was there because they *couldn't* leave: Twitter is too addictive. What caused them suddenly to leave wasn't political. It was the sudden drop in the site's functionality, to the point that everyone was forced into withdrawal.
Twitter was designed to be addictive, using a scheme of random reinforcement (with engagement) as the reward. The changes have resulted in this no longer being the case. The site simply no longer works--at least, not in the addictive way it did-- unless you actually want to know everything Jack Prosobiec and the rest of the MAGA firmament is saying, all the time.
If you feel like conducting another experiment, go back and look at typical engagement with things I wrote before that date . Compare it to now. (Mind you, there's another confounder here--it could be because everyone was leaving for BlueSky.)
I can't know for sure whether the algorithm has been skewed to favor what the AI believes to be Trump-friendly language or if other, unrelated changes to the algorithm have resulted in "unusability" as a side-effect. But the change became so notable, to so many people, that BlueSky suddenly became a serious rival to Twitter.
I kind of think this couldn't be a business decision, on Elon's part. I mean, maybe it could. But it doesn't seem like a good one.
The wildcard now is the extent of Trump’s dementia. Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi were all still energetic younger men when they started dismantling democratic structures. Trump is not. It’s not even clear that there is a lot of strategy in most of his cabinet appointments vs simply a bunch of faces Trump knows from Fox News.
One reason the PiS takeover eventually failed in Poland is that Kasczynski was also already an old man and unable to keep his team disciplined and under control.
I am fairly confident that Trump himself will be done as a viable political figure fairly soon. The question is whether MAGA dissolves due to in-fighting or whether someone like Vance can become the Stalin to Trump’s Lenin.
The US also has a major advantage that Turkey or Hungary did not. It is still a federal republic where a lot of power remains at the state level. Americans generally don’t like federal overreach. It is darkly ironic to see the same people who will tell you the Civil War was an honorable attempt by Southern states to preserve their constitutional rights now turn around and claim ICE has powers that supersede state laws, but I don’t think that will go over well in practice.
You're right about the advantage of federalism. You're also right about Trump's age. Both are blessings. But I don't think these are just "faces he knows from watching Fox." In the universe of MAGA-friendly US citizens who are often on Fox, these are among the most insane, destructive people he could pick. Perhaps Mike Flynn would be worse, or Tucker Carlson. I can't think of anyone from that universe who would be worse, can you? Marjorie Taylor-Greene would be no better, but no worse. That two of them are known as almost parodic conduits for Russian propaganda is especially notable. That much destructiveness doesn't happen by coincidence.
They are certainly insane and destructive individuals, which is arguably why they capture aging Mr. Trump’s attention more than measured calculating types. Trump is angry and destructive, and is attracted precisely to the type of individual who feeds his narcissistic tendencies the best. So you’re right, it’s not a coincidence, but I don’t think it’s a strategic decision, it’s just who Trump is. If I was consciously trying to destroy democracy I would probably try to find smarter, more effective managers who are ideologically aligned. I just don’t think Trump thinks in terms like “destroy democracy”. I still don’t think he’s particularly intelligent, but he has learned through experience of the last administration what kind of people he can trust to be loyal to him - and not coincidentally the loyalists are almost never the capable people with experience in government and management, they are the fellow grifters, entertainers and people who are convinced the world owes them a living. If Tucker Carlson hasn’t been given a role yet, it’s probably because Trump sees him as a potential rival…
I'm sure he doesn't think in terms of "destroy democracy." For one thing, that's an abstraction, and he doesn't think in abstractions. But I'm certain he knows that the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies are the ones that can stop him doing things he wants to do--more so the Justice Department, but he may not realize that the intel agencies don't handle domestic counterintelligence, and I assume he sincerely believes that the CIA is plotting against him. Don't forget: RFK Jr. has been filling his head with stories of how they killed his father.
He's no doubt worried they both have tons of dirt on him. He might be right, too. I have no idea, but I'm sure Trump has done many things, in the course of his life, that he wouldn't want the world to know about--he's probably worried they know all about them. I figure they probably don't, or what they know doesn't add up to a solid criminal case, or he would have been indicted for it. But it's easy to see why a man like Trump wouldn't like the idea of the files these agencies just might have in their possession.
He may be very, very right to fear them. I'm sure we don't know the whole story about his relationship with Russia. I've never been satisfied with the claim that the only reason he stole and refused to return a trailer-truck full of our *most* classified documents is because they made him feel important and he likes to hoard things. He went to considerable trouble to do that. Do people grasp how much those documents--if they're what they're rumored to be--would be worth to a hostile country? (I assume that he would not directly sell them to Russia. But whoever paid for them would not say, "I work for Russia." Trump is exceedingly gullible.)
Dan Coates thought the Russians were blackmailing him. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both agencies have a ton of material in their files that doesn't add up to a smoking gun, or something you can take to court, but which really wouldn't look good if the whole world saw it. Trump probably knows how Hoover operated. He may be worried these agencies will blackmail him with those files. Remember, he sincerely believes they stole an election from him by means of some elaborate plot involving Hunter Biden's laptop, and he thinks they tried to frame him (or that they nearly got him) with the "Russia hoax."
Whatever the case, he hates and fears those agencies. (The irony of it is that they're so timid and impotent that they failed to nail him--and now the world's most dangerous criminal is going back to the White House.) He sees no value in what they do; he reportedly never paid attention to the President's Daily Brief. He preferred to get his news from rumors and from Fox. He probably has no idea how our intelligence relationships work or why it would be staggeringly dangerous to raze these agencies to the ground.
He chose Gaetz because, like him, Gaetz is a degenerate lowlife with a grudge just like Trump's against the Justice Department. Sending him to run the place will have exactly the effect of turning it over to the Godfather. He'll ransack the files, settle scores, persecute enemies, spy on political opponents, and turn the entire investigative apparatus into a personal tool for his benefit and Trump's. The competent and honest people will leave. They'll be replaced with corrupt flunkies. Even if he wanted to do a good job, which he doesn't, he'd have no idea how.
With Gaetz in place, no one who does right by Trump will ever be subject to a corruption investigation. Obviously. No one will ask or answer questions about why some members of Congress--the ones who give Trump what he wants--are getting so very rich. Knowing that Gaetz has their backs will make a lot of people who might have been worried about being sent to the slammer feel much more comfortable about making a louche deal with White House, Inc.
Gaetz will probably also do some good and popular things, things that genuinely improve ordinary peoples' lives--like using the Antitrust Division to break up some massive company (one that didn't play ball) which also actually needed breaking up. This will result in loads of articles about what a surprisingly good pick he turned out to be. He'll also control the Bureau of Justice Statistics department, so the drop in the crime rate will be *astounding.*
Trump needed someone who a) was a proven criminal, b) had a major grudge against the Justice Department, c) was so narcissistic and entitled that he'd cheerfully do all of this without a twinge of conscience; d) smart enough to know what to do without being told, e) completely devoted to him--Daddy issues a plus--and of proven loyalty); and f) one hundred percent MAGA. Giuliani's too old, too drunk, and probably still has some sentimental attachment to the law. Jeffrey Clark? Josh Hawley? None of them are so effortlessly degenerate. Eileen Cannon? The only one who would be quite so astonishingly awful is Kash Patel--but he's going to run the FBI, which again is not a random pick. Trump knows what he's doing.
As for Tulsi ... well, don't get me started. Because the idea of Gaetz at Justice is actually hilariously funny. But the idea of her as DNI is terrifying. It overnight turns us into an enemy to our allies. It destroys Five Eyes. It destroys all of our liaison relationships. Our human assets will be killed, unless they go into a freeze so deep that we never hear from them again. The damage she'll do just by being appointed is incalculable.
If I could only prevent one from being approved, it's no contest: She's the one I'd move heaven and earth to stop. The thought of her in that job is terrifying. But she isn't a random pick.
Not a word or two or three on Avril Haines, Biden's DNI. who cut her teeth in the community's machinations at the feet of John Brennan. Remember him? Or would you rather forget his tenure at CIA? Their history in this hall of mirrors is well worth an expose or at the very least, many footnotes comparing and contrasting their activities, especially in a forum that I thought, at one time, encouraged a dialogue and promoted discussion. Thanks.
What a fucking bullshit response. Let’s just take all the most outlandish conspiracy theories and pretend they’re self evident. You fucking moron. You’re part of the problem.
Two deranged idiots tried to kill Trump. So that’s almost like if Biden ordered it himself. Just like when “the left” tried to kill Regan! With this sort of demented “choose your own adventure” logic you can justify anything. Republicans are such betas. You’ll swallow anything your cult leader serves you. Open wide bitch!
And who exactly are you to self-nominate yourself as Grand Canceler?
You do not like what Claire writes? Then leave. But just as I honor your opportunity to spew nonsense (as in your comment above), you should afford Claire the opportunity to write on whatever topic and in whatever direction that topic moves her. Cosmopolitan Globalist is predicated on the content she creates, all of it thoughtful, deliberative, intelligent, and incisive. You might not agree with her perspective on this or that commentary (which will occur with you because you suffer from TDS) but that possibility is emblematic of the top-quality musings Claire provides.
And before you fling shade: I do not agree with every one of Claire's perspectives. But I would never dream of silencing her voice, which seems a regular effort by you.
Please tell me you don't *really* believe the dems tried assassination? On what factual basis could you possibly lay those attempts at their feet?
I am having trouble figuring out if your perspective is wilfully skewed or not. If I had to I'd bet on you being a 2, but maybe you're just a grumpy old 3.
Stack SCOTUS? McConnell already did that. The discussion of the dems doing so was to restore balance. Remove the electoral college? Who discussed this, and why is it so scary in the abstract? Eliminate the filibuster? Again who are you saying reps the dems on this, and what precisely did that person even argue for?
Is this list the best you can do? You're scared of dems who are not even in leadership saying things that are not scary.
Trump, the President-elect, has said and done truly vile things, already. His list of shameful/worrying words/deeds would make Harris' [or the dems' writ large if you want to treat them as an offensive amorphous blob] look tiny and unimportant by comparison. Claire has elucidated much of this already. How are you not absorbing it?
If anything the two attempts to murder Trump bolster the left wing narrative. Both men were attention seekers who in a civilized country would not have had access to AR-15s. One reason the right couldn’t make much hay of these attacks because the real lessons are a) stricter gun laws are a good idea and b) social media is mentally damaging. Not messages Trump or Musk want to get behind.
Claire – We must be living in parallel universes. From where I sit, I believe this program has been implemented already - by the Left - for the last century (starting with Woodrow Wilson’s administration).
1. Begin with a voice
-You are the providential conduit of the “real people” in their struggle against a nebulous class of “elites.”
The Left has always called themselves “the voice of the people,” sticking it to “the Man.” Remember “power to the people”? And have you forgotten all the invective leveled at the WASP elite in the 60s, 70s, and 80s? (By the 90s, these class enemies had been largely neutralized.)
2. Rewrite history
-If the lessons of history suggest your ideas will lead to disaster, change history, not your ideas.
-Remember: The people have been robbed of their greatness by a series of catastrophes and betrayals.
Does “The People’s History of the United States” by Howard Zinn ring a bell? The most-assigned history book in US universities! Or how about “The 1619 Project”?
3. Magnify ethnic, racial, religious, or class divisions
-Or all at once, if you can swing it. Just make sure people are hopping mad.
Er… Every Democratic campaign over the last 60 years has been built on divisive rhetoric, encouraging victimhood and assigning blame on other races (the whole anti-racism opus, most recently, demonizing “whiteness”), religion (Christianity, and especially Catholicism, blamed for a host of ills; how about the shibboleth “most wars were started by religion”?), and class (the basis of the entire Marxian ideology; remember the continual blaming of “the rich” for everything)
4. Magnify fear of foreigners and outsiders
-The Jews are always a good target, but if you don’t have enough, try Muslims.
-Whoever they are, they’re demonic in their sexual rapaciousness.
Maybe not foreigners, but outsiders for sure. Remember “the basket of deplorables” and “floating garbage” comments? Or “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer camp and there's no telling what you will find”? How about all the invective that is leveled at the “Rednecks”: “They marry their cousins, they lack teeth, they are uneducated,” etc., etc.
The Leftist elite drip with contempt for the rubes, the hicks, the great unwashed - and work it into every possible play, movie script, article, and broadcast.
And how about the fear drummed up about the militias in the mountains and the “far right” extremists? Remember this headline: “White Supremacists Top Domestic Terror Threat”?
Finally, which side is demonizing Jews now? MAGA isn’t hunting Jewish students on campus!
5. Destroy public confidence in elites and institutions.
-No abstract ideas. Appeal to the emotions.
-Constantly repeat a small number of things, using the same simple phrases.
-Criticize your opponents incessantly.
-Pick out one special enemy for special vilification.
-Label events and people with distinctive phrases or slogans:
-Destroy confidence in the idea of objective truth
Does “The Supreme Court will turn America into ‘Handmaid’s Tale’” ring a bell? “The rich don’t pay their fair share”? “Republicans are out to destroy democracy”? “No justice, no peace”? “Defund the police”? “Not my President!”?
6. Win the election.
-However narrow your victory, it was an overwhelming mandate for every one of your policies.
Whom did CBS write about: “I will use my pen and phone to take on Congress”? Who just tried to buy young people’s votes with an illegal “student loan forgiveness” scheme?
-Your party would be nothing without you. Don’t tolerate any backtalk.
Who invented and implemented “Cancel Culture”? Who used “struggle sessions” to silence or drive out opposition on campuses, in social media outings, and in corporate accountability campaigns?
7. Secure the executive.
“According to various analyses and surveys, around 60% to 70% of federal employees have historically voted for Democratic candidates in recent elections.” Enough said?
-Does it decide who gets audited? Staff it with your boys.
Which President was in power when it was revealed that the IRS had been using specific keywords, such as "Tea Party" and "patriot," to identify and scrutinize conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status?
-Neutralize the intelligence agencies. You don’t need their advice, and you sure don’t need their questions about your friends.
Hmmm…. I seem to remember a letter, signed by 51 former intelligence officials, including prominent figures like former CIA Director John Brennan and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, that stated that Hunter Biden’s laptop was likely part of a Russian disinformation effort aimed at influencing the election. It was released on October 19th, 2020, 15 days before the election. Whose side did that letter protect?
8. Fill the judiciary with your loyalists.
-Smear and discredit any judge who seems too independent.
I remember clearly the calumny directed at Robert Bork, the disgusting allegations against Clarence Thomas, and the vile accusations against Justices Cavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett. And on what side of the political aisle were the “activists” who tried to assassinate Justice Cavanaugh and who held sit-ins, vigils, and demonstrations at the homes of Alito, Cavanaugh, Roberts, and Thomas?
-Change the rules for judicial appointments.
Poe: “The filibuster was effectively eliminated for judicial appointments in 2013. Under then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Democratic majority changed the rules to allow for a simple majority vote to confirm federal judicial nominees, including appellate court judges, in response to what they saw as Republican obstructionism.”
Whose party’s legislators introduced bills to increase the number of justices to 13 while President Biden was in office? Who established a commission to study potential Supreme Court reforms that brought up the topic for discussion?
9. Empower a loyal oligarchic class.
-Loyalists get juicy government contracts and tenders. The more loyal, the better the rewards.
The government at ALL levels (Federal, State, and Local) have established set-asides for the favorite classes who are expected to be loyal to the ruling party; a certain percentage of all governmental contracts go to those groups, and some states require that ALL contracts include participation by such groups.
The Civil Service system, again at Federal and State levels, has embedded preferential treatments for certain favored groups, adding points to their test scores and accelerating their promotions.
This has been going on for decades.
-Focus on the oligarchs who own the media!
Until very recently, all the oligarchs who own the media (with the exception of Rupert Murdoch) have been on and of the Left.
10. Neutralize your enemies.
-Punish the unsubmissive with punitive taxes and spurious lawsuits. Use charges of tax evasion. Or something else! Whether they’ve done it or not, the legal fees and the stress will be punishment enough.
Er… Does the label “Lawfare” sound familiar???
(Continued in the reply to this comment)
11. Cultivate some thugs.
-You need some lowlifes with a taste for wet work.
Have you read "Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy"? I greatly recommend it. Nearly every terror group (and I include Just Stop Oil) that is not Islamist has been leftist.
12. Turn parliament into a rubber stamp.
-Never forget your friends. Make sure everyone who supports you gets rich. Make sure everyone who opposes you worries about your thugs.
How many Democrats voted against Obamacare? IRA? Who received the overwhelming majority of contributions from the ultra-rich in this election?
13. Get the military under your thumb.
-Do not allow yourself to be swayed by sissy considerations like “military readiness” or “morale.”
-What good is a ready military that topples you?
-Replace the top brass with people who don’t know which end of the gun to shoot from. The more unqualified, the better. If you promote total losers, they’ll insert burning embers in their orifices for you:
You’re the only reason they’d ever get this chance to lord it over all the people who told them they’d never amount to anything.
I’ll let Poe address this:
The U.S. military has implemented various changes to relax standards and promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, allowing more minorities, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals to serve. Here are some notable examples:
Gender-Neutral Standards: The military has worked to create gender-neutral physical fitness standards, allowing women to meet the same requirements as men, rather than having different standards based on gender. This change aims to ensure that all service members are evaluated based on the same criteria.
Transgender Service Members: The Biden administration lifted the ban on transgender individuals serving openly in the military. Policies have been instituted to allow transgender personnel to serve according to their gender identity and to access necessary medical care.
Waivers for Enlistment Standards: There have been instances where the military has issued waivers for certain enlistment standards, such as education and background checks, to increase diversity among recruits. This includes relaxing requirements for those with minor criminal records or lower educational qualifications.
Cultural Competency Training: The introduction of training programs that focus on inclusivity and cultural awareness aims to create a more accepting environment for all service members, helping to reduce barriers for minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals.
Support for LGBTQ+ Rights: The military has taken steps to recognize and protect the rights of LGBTQ+ service members, including changes to policies regarding benefits for same-sex spouses and the prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Increased Representation in Leadership: Initiatives have been launched to promote diversity in leadership positions within the military, aiming to ensure that minority and female service members have opportunities for advancement.
14. Gain control of the media and turn it into a non-stop propaganda machine.
The legacy media IS the Left. Around 90% of journalists are Democrats. The principal legacy media platforms openly supported Biden and then Harris in the latest election. 60% to 70% of stories reflect left-leaning perspectives, especially in major outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The New York Times.
14. Harass civil society.
-Who needs these lunatics whining about “civil rights?” Audit their taxes. Say they’re funded by foreigners. Or controlled by George Soros. Whatever they are, they’re enemies of the people.
Does “Russian Collusion” ring any bells? What about the two-tiered justice system, whereby suspected “hate crimes” are prosecuted to the full extent of the law, while robbers, rapists, and murderers are released time and time again to terrorize civil society? Turnstile justice, anyone?
15. Reorient your foreign policy toward Russia.
Change that to China, and I will cite Eric Swalwell, Diane Feinstein, Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi. Plus, there are around 50 Confucious Institutes around the country; they have faced scrutiny and criticism regarding concerns about academic freedom and the influence of the Chinese government on American educational institutions.
Change it to Qatar, and most elite universities educating our future leaders are in their pay, as we recently found out.
16. Create chaos, confusion, and a sense of permanent emergency.
-Keep your enemies off balance, exhausted, demoralized, and baffled. Make sure no one knows what’s really happening.
Whose Chief of Staff said, “Never let a crisis go to waste”?
-A million conspiracy theories must be swirling at all times so the real conspiracies just blend into the noise.
Let me count the ways:
• The Russian Collusion hoax
• The Voter Suppression allegations
• The “Muslim Ban” hoax
• The “racist” COVID-19 origin libel
• The “Fine People” hoax
• The “misinformation”/”disinformation” accusations
• The “Injecting Bleach” hoax
• The “Abortion Ban” scare
• Etc., etc., etc.
17. Humiliate or destroy people who are better fit to be leaders.
I again cite “Cancel Culture,” the ideological capture of institutions educating and entertaining our future leaders, the coordinated smear campaigns, the “Republicans pounce” stratagems, etc.
18. Be on the safe side when it comes to elections
-If you’re doing this right, you don’t need to rig the vote.
That’s exactly what the Harris campaign believed…
-Remember: It’s not who votes. It’s who counts the vote.
CNN: “Pennsylvania Democratic official apologizes for comments about ignoring election laws”
18. Take control of the central bank.
Semafor: “Federal Reserve employees overwhelmingly donate to Democratic causes”
-An election coming up? Juice that economy, baby! Let the future take care of itself.
The Heritage Foundation: “The CBO now expects the debt to be $7.2 trillion higher than it had projected when Trump left office”
The NYT: “How Kamala Harris Burned Through $1.5 Billion in 15 Weeks”
19. Dissent is okay. But not too much.
-If an opponent gets too popular, you need to cut him off at the knees, but by this point, your options are limitless.
I cite “lawfare” again.
20. Rewrite the constitution
-Seems like things are going well! Alas, the constitution says you can’t stay. So you still have work to do
Well, according to the Center for Constitutional Design, “there are proposals, some long-standing as well as some comparatively new, for additions to the Constitution. Among them are an Equal Rights Amendment, an affirmative voting rights amendment and the For Our Freedom Amendment, which calls for reasonable limits on campaign spending.”
Now, which party would you imagine proposed those amendments?
Long live the dictatorship of the prole… er, strike that… educated class! WE KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR YOU!
I am very willing to admit that both sides use all sorts of tricks and underhanded tactics to win power. I hope you believe that it is not limited to one party, or one man.
In her essay, Claire neglected to mention the two wisest and most capable Trump appointees, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Perhaps they went unmentioned because their appointment doesn’t require Senate confirmation. Their plan for the United States is to undue all of the damage the neoliberals, the neoconservatives and their globalist allies have done. That damage can’t be rectified over night.
The soldiers who came home from the useless and failed wars without arms or legs or both will never be made whole again. Their physical injuries are only a part of their problem. The reality that we lost those wars and that they never should have been fought represent a psychological burden that can’t be escaped. To die or to end up greviously injured all so neoconservative couch potatos can get a few chuckles is a weight that will never be lifted.
Huge swaths of the American heartland have been decimated and depopulated thanks to the neoliberal policies that Claire embraces. Huge numbers of American men face unemployment, destitution, drug abuse and indolence because of the blinkered fantasies of the neoliberals.
Those who don’t like populism need to face reality; it’s the globalist obsession with open borders that gave rise to populism in the first place. By way of example, Prime Minister Two-Tier of the UK insists that he needs a crushing death tax on British farmers to help restore his nation’s solvency. What he’s reluctant to admit is that the UK spends approximately twice as much providing low-cost or free housing to illegal immigrants as will be raised by the new tax structure. Anyone who wonders why populism is sweeping the Western World is truly clueless.
Thank goodness for Elon and Vivek.
Thank goodness for Elon and Vivek. Here’s their plan to restore American strength as published in today’s Wall Street Journal.
“Our nation was founded on the basic idea that the people we elect run the government. That isn’t how America functions today. Most legal edicts aren’t laws enacted by Congress but “rules and regulations” promulgated by unelected bureaucrats—tens of thousands of them each year. Most government enforcement decisions and discretionary expenditures aren’t made by the democratically elected president or even his political appointees but by millions of unelected, unappointed civil servants within government agencies who view themselves as immune from firing thanks to civil-service protections.
This is antidemocratic and antithetical to the Founders’ vision. It imposes massive direct and indirect costs on taxpayers. Thankfully, we have a historic opportunity to solve the problem. On Nov. 5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change, and they deserve to get it.
President Trump has asked the two of us to lead a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to cut the federal government down to size. The entrenched and ever-growing bureaucracy represents an existential threat to our republic, and politicians have abetted it for too long. That’s why we’re doing things differently. We are entrepreneurs, not politicians. We will serve as outside volunteers, not federal officials or employees. Unlike government commissions or advisory committees, we won’t just write reports or cut ribbons. We’ll cut costs.
We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America. This team will work in the new administration closely with the White House Office of Management and Budget. The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws. Our North Star for reform will be the U.S. Constitution, with a focus on two critical Supreme Court rulings issued during President Biden’s tenure.
In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022), the justices held that agencies can’t impose regulations dealing with major economic or policy questions unless Congress specifically authorizes them to do so. In Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024), the court overturned the Chevron doctrine and held that federal courts should no longer defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the law or their own rulemaking authority. Together, these cases suggest that a plethora of current federal regulations exceed the authority Congress has granted under the law.
DOGE will work with legal experts embedded in government agencies, aided by advanced technology, to apply these rulings to federal regulations enacted by such agencies. DOGE will present this list of regulations to President Trump, who can, by executive action, immediately pause the enforcement of those regulations and initiate the process for review and rescission. This would liberate individuals and businesses from illicit regulations never passed by Congress and stimulate the U.S. economy.
When the president nullifies thousands of such regulations, critics will allege executive overreach. In fact, it will be correcting the executive overreach of thousands of regulations promulgated by administrative fiat that were never authorized by Congress. The president owes lawmaking deference to Congress, not to bureaucrats deep within federal agencies. The use of executive orders to substitute for lawmaking by adding burdensome new rules is a constitutional affront, but the use of executive orders to roll back regulations that wrongly bypassed Congress is legitimate and necessary to comply with the Supreme Court’s recent mandates. And after those regulations are fully rescinded, a future president couldn’t simply flip the switch and revive them but would instead have to ask Congress to do so.
A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy. DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited. Employees whose positions are eliminated deserve to be treated with respect, and DOGE’s goal is to help support their transition into the private sector. The president can use existing laws to give them incentives for early retirement and to make voluntary severance payments to facilitate a graceful exit.
Conventional wisdom holds that statutory civil-service protections stop the president or even his political appointees from firing federal workers. The purpose of these protections is to protect employees from political retaliation. But the statute allows for “reductions in force” that don’t target specific employees. The statute further empowers the president to “prescribe rules governing the competitive service.” That power is broad. Previous presidents have used it to amend the civil service rules by executive order, and the Supreme Court has held—in Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) and Collins v. Yellen (2021) that they weren’t constrained by the Administrative Procedures Act when they did so. With this authority, Mr. Trump can implement any number of “rules governing the competitive service” that would curtail administrative overgrowth, from large-scale firings to relocation of federal agencies out of the Washington area. Requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome: If federal employees don’t want to show up, American taxpayers shouldn’t pay them for the Covid-era privilege of staying home.
Finally, we are focused on delivering cost savings for taxpayers. Skeptics question how much federal spending DOGE can tame through executive action alone. They point to the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which stops the president from ceasing expenditures authorized by Congress. Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question. But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.
The federal government’s procurement process is also badly broken. Many federal contracts have gone unexamined for years. Large-scale audits conducted during a temporary suspension of payments would yield significant savings. The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit, suggesting that the agency’s leadership has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent. Critics claim that we can’t meaningfully close the federal deficit without taking aim at entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which require Congress to shrink. But this deflects attention from the sheer magnitude of waste, fraud and abuse that nearly all taxpayers wish to end—and that DOGE aims to address by identifying pinpoint executive actions that would result in immediate savings for taxpayers.
With a decisive electoral mandate and a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, DOGE has a historic opportunity for structural reductions in the federal government. We are prepared for the onslaught from entrenched interests in Washington. We expect to prevail. Now is the moment for decisive action. Our top goal for DOGE is to eliminate the need for its existence by July 4, 2026—the expiration date we have set for our project. There is no better birthday gift to our nation on its 250th anniversary than to deliver a federal government that would make our Founders proud.”
Claire - I can't believe you're encouraging insulting, obscenity-laden commentary on your Substack!
The Cosmopolitan Globalist has always been a forum for incisive, civil disagreement - or agreement.
I hope it remains such.
It’s not Trump threatening liberal democracy, it’s Biden, Harris and the Democrats who’ve done that. When the federal government badgers social media companies to censor content it doesn’t like, that’s a direct threat to liberal democracy. When the Justice Department indicts the Administration’s political opponents on plainly ridiculous charges, that’s a direct threat to liberal democracy. If you don’t believe the charges against Trump were plainly ridiculous, consider the fact that one set of charges were dismissed and the other set utterly repudiated by the vote of the American people.
When the Justice Department indicts its erstwhile political allies because they espouse views the Administration finds objectionable, that’s a threat to liberal democracy. That’s what the Justice Department did to Mayor Adams in New York. If you don’t believe me, read the indictment yourself. It’s nonsense.
When a Capitol Police Officer shoots and kills an unarmed woman guilty of nothing more than trespassing and that officer is exonerated by the Justice Department without charges being brought, that’s a threat to liberal democracy.
When the federal government bullies tens of thousands of its employees to get a vaccination that they (foolishly) don’t want, that’s a threat to liberal democracy.
Claire simply doesn’t know an autocrat when she sees one. The autocrat is Biden and the team surrounding him.
Trump is not a revolutionary as he is often assumed to be; he’s mounting a counterrevolution. He’s seeking to overturn the economic and financial policies of the neoliberal bipartisan establishment. He’s also seeking to overturn the neoconservative agenda of the bipartisan establishment that has done so much to ruin our nation’s prospects.
To assume, as Claire does, that neoliberalism and neoconservatism are somehow deeply rooted in American history and culture is simply wrong. These philosophies had their genesis in the late 20th century and came to fruition in the 21st century. For most of American history, neoliberalism and neoconservatism would have been viewed with repugnance. Search high and search low for an American passion for the neoconservative’s first love, “democracy promotion” before the 21st century; you won’t find it. For much of American history the American government was financed mostly by tariffs which are, of course, an anathema to neoliberals.
The other poison administered by politicians of both political parties during this century is a reverence for globalism. A globalist approach was surely required to win the Second World War and perhaps the Cold War but it has clearly passed its use by date. For the past quarter century, America’s European and Asian allies have been delighted to let America bear any burden to protect the free-world while they joyfully played the role of free-loaders. By way of example, look at the nation we once had a “special relationship” with; the United Kingdom.
The UK has turned itself into a laughing stock. It’s navy can’t float and its army can’t fight. Increasingly it can’t make anything that the rest of the world wants to buy. Recently it’s taken a turn towards authoritarianism that puts Hungary to shame. In the UK they throw you in prison for publishing tweets that the ruling party frowns on. They also arrest you for praying silently in your own mind in proximity to abortion clinics. Most recently, the UK’s newly elected, but already failed Prime Minister, Two-Tier Keir, has proposed legislation that will tax many UK’s farmers out of existence.
Trump understands that NATO was designed to defeat the Soviet Union. Mission accomplished. The globalist idea that it should be expanded right up to Russia’s borders is folly. It’s the worst sort of nostalgia for a world that was in constant turmoil. It’s a world that globalists love and hope to bring back
Trump is the antidote to neoliberalism and neoconservatism. He’s the antidote to globalism. Whether he succeeds is an open question. The Cabinet Officers he hopes to hire are all iconoclasts like he is. They’re far from perfect just as Trump is far from perfect. But their plan to apply a wrecking ball to the agencies they lead is precisely what the doctor (and the American people) have ordered.
This is the UK. Should the United States defend a country like this?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mZBHgRRi8CM&pp=ygUqTG9uZG9uIHBvbGljZSBvZmZpY2VyIHRocmVhdGVucyBKZXdpc2ggbWFu
Seems like this post came right out of the New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/audio/app/2024/11/20/20vf-cormac-mccarthys-secret-muse-breaks.html?referringSource=sharing
I expect that Trump lacks the discipline and focus needed to carry out the nefarious plan you describe. He’s lazy, he doesn’t read anything, and he’s jealous and insecure around men who disagree with him. (That’s one reason his female chief of staff is such an effective Trump-whisperer.)
Claire, you're brilliant. But you must know this already.
Thank you--it's a lovely compliment--but if I were brilliant I'd have figured out how to stop all of this. By the way, are you the Fred I know in person?
No, just another random Fred. And to stop all of this would probably have taken super powers.
The X-Twitter account that you identify as a MAGA bot is an odd one, because it's run by a real person under his own name, a German Internet entrepreneur who was sued by the American SEC at the end of the 90s dotcom bubble for a pump-and-dump scheme. I would guess he's in that category of people who really do prefer the new regime *and* who want to profit from it. Speculating a little further... long before Musk declared for Trump, there was a kind of account which combines being Elon's biggest fan, with touting some form of crypto. Meanwhile, since Musk embraced Trump, many e/acc accounts have also become MAGA. Your man in Germany there has an Internet domain in his profile which currently redirects back to his X account; I would guess he's trying to gather followers, in preparation for properly launching his website.
I don't think he's writing his own Twitter feed, then. Look through it: Does that prose sound human to you?
That paper from QUT is not at all convincing. They make no attempt to consider other hypotheses (nor do they look at other Internet metrics, e.g. Google Trends, for the same period), they don't mention that all this happened immediately after the assassination attempt, and they analyse a grand total of 10 partisan accounts, five Republican, five Democrat.
I just lost my response to this comment. Very frustrating. I'll try again.
You're of course right: Short of seeing the algorithm, there's no way to prove this, and the assassination attempt is a confounder (though the effect they chart was sustained--I would have expected that to cause a blip, not a sustained rise). Also, I'm not sure why it would have caused engagement with Elon's account to soar, unless people were suddenly super-interested in him because of his endorsement. That could account for it, maybe.
But--what's your best guess, based on that data.
Couple this with a *huge* amount of anecdotal evidence, including your own, if you use Twitter. People didn't suddenly start leaving for BlueSky for no reason. It wasn't because people don't like Elon and were upset about the election, or because they wanted to be in their own filter bubble. (Well, I don't know about *everyone,* but generally speaking).
People have been infuriated with Elon for ages. (I've written whole articles about the way he's turned Twitter into sewer full of Nazis) But everyone who was still there was there because they *couldn't* leave: Twitter is too addictive. What caused them suddenly to leave wasn't political. It was the sudden drop in the site's functionality, to the point that everyone was forced into withdrawal.
Twitter was designed to be addictive, using a scheme of random reinforcement (with engagement) as the reward. The changes have resulted in this no longer being the case. The site simply no longer works--at least, not in the addictive way it did-- unless you actually want to know everything Jack Prosobiec and the rest of the MAGA firmament is saying, all the time.
If you feel like conducting another experiment, go back and look at typical engagement with things I wrote before that date . Compare it to now. (Mind you, there's another confounder here--it could be because everyone was leaving for BlueSky.)
I can't know for sure whether the algorithm has been skewed to favor what the AI believes to be Trump-friendly language or if other, unrelated changes to the algorithm have resulted in "unusability" as a side-effect. But the change became so notable, to so many people, that BlueSky suddenly became a serious rival to Twitter.
I kind of think this couldn't be a business decision, on Elon's part. I mean, maybe it could. But it doesn't seem like a good one.
So, Occam's Razor.
The wildcard now is the extent of Trump’s dementia. Orban, Erdogan, Putin, Berlusconi were all still energetic younger men when they started dismantling democratic structures. Trump is not. It’s not even clear that there is a lot of strategy in most of his cabinet appointments vs simply a bunch of faces Trump knows from Fox News.
One reason the PiS takeover eventually failed in Poland is that Kasczynski was also already an old man and unable to keep his team disciplined and under control.
I am fairly confident that Trump himself will be done as a viable political figure fairly soon. The question is whether MAGA dissolves due to in-fighting or whether someone like Vance can become the Stalin to Trump’s Lenin.
The US also has a major advantage that Turkey or Hungary did not. It is still a federal republic where a lot of power remains at the state level. Americans generally don’t like federal overreach. It is darkly ironic to see the same people who will tell you the Civil War was an honorable attempt by Southern states to preserve their constitutional rights now turn around and claim ICE has powers that supersede state laws, but I don’t think that will go over well in practice.
You're right about the advantage of federalism. You're also right about Trump's age. Both are blessings. But I don't think these are just "faces he knows from watching Fox." In the universe of MAGA-friendly US citizens who are often on Fox, these are among the most insane, destructive people he could pick. Perhaps Mike Flynn would be worse, or Tucker Carlson. I can't think of anyone from that universe who would be worse, can you? Marjorie Taylor-Greene would be no better, but no worse. That two of them are known as almost parodic conduits for Russian propaganda is especially notable. That much destructiveness doesn't happen by coincidence.
They are certainly insane and destructive individuals, which is arguably why they capture aging Mr. Trump’s attention more than measured calculating types. Trump is angry and destructive, and is attracted precisely to the type of individual who feeds his narcissistic tendencies the best. So you’re right, it’s not a coincidence, but I don’t think it’s a strategic decision, it’s just who Trump is. If I was consciously trying to destroy democracy I would probably try to find smarter, more effective managers who are ideologically aligned. I just don’t think Trump thinks in terms like “destroy democracy”. I still don’t think he’s particularly intelligent, but he has learned through experience of the last administration what kind of people he can trust to be loyal to him - and not coincidentally the loyalists are almost never the capable people with experience in government and management, they are the fellow grifters, entertainers and people who are convinced the world owes them a living. If Tucker Carlson hasn’t been given a role yet, it’s probably because Trump sees him as a potential rival…
I'm sure he doesn't think in terms of "destroy democracy." For one thing, that's an abstraction, and he doesn't think in abstractions. But I'm certain he knows that the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies are the ones that can stop him doing things he wants to do--more so the Justice Department, but he may not realize that the intel agencies don't handle domestic counterintelligence, and I assume he sincerely believes that the CIA is plotting against him. Don't forget: RFK Jr. has been filling his head with stories of how they killed his father.
He's no doubt worried they both have tons of dirt on him. He might be right, too. I have no idea, but I'm sure Trump has done many things, in the course of his life, that he wouldn't want the world to know about--he's probably worried they know all about them. I figure they probably don't, or what they know doesn't add up to a solid criminal case, or he would have been indicted for it. But it's easy to see why a man like Trump wouldn't like the idea of the files these agencies just might have in their possession.
He may be very, very right to fear them. I'm sure we don't know the whole story about his relationship with Russia. I've never been satisfied with the claim that the only reason he stole and refused to return a trailer-truck full of our *most* classified documents is because they made him feel important and he likes to hoard things. He went to considerable trouble to do that. Do people grasp how much those documents--if they're what they're rumored to be--would be worth to a hostile country? (I assume that he would not directly sell them to Russia. But whoever paid for them would not say, "I work for Russia." Trump is exceedingly gullible.)
Dan Coates thought the Russians were blackmailing him. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both agencies have a ton of material in their files that doesn't add up to a smoking gun, or something you can take to court, but which really wouldn't look good if the whole world saw it. Trump probably knows how Hoover operated. He may be worried these agencies will blackmail him with those files. Remember, he sincerely believes they stole an election from him by means of some elaborate plot involving Hunter Biden's laptop, and he thinks they tried to frame him (or that they nearly got him) with the "Russia hoax."
Whatever the case, he hates and fears those agencies. (The irony of it is that they're so timid and impotent that they failed to nail him--and now the world's most dangerous criminal is going back to the White House.) He sees no value in what they do; he reportedly never paid attention to the President's Daily Brief. He preferred to get his news from rumors and from Fox. He probably has no idea how our intelligence relationships work or why it would be staggeringly dangerous to raze these agencies to the ground.
He chose Gaetz because, like him, Gaetz is a degenerate lowlife with a grudge just like Trump's against the Justice Department. Sending him to run the place will have exactly the effect of turning it over to the Godfather. He'll ransack the files, settle scores, persecute enemies, spy on political opponents, and turn the entire investigative apparatus into a personal tool for his benefit and Trump's. The competent and honest people will leave. They'll be replaced with corrupt flunkies. Even if he wanted to do a good job, which he doesn't, he'd have no idea how.
With Gaetz in place, no one who does right by Trump will ever be subject to a corruption investigation. Obviously. No one will ask or answer questions about why some members of Congress--the ones who give Trump what he wants--are getting so very rich. Knowing that Gaetz has their backs will make a lot of people who might have been worried about being sent to the slammer feel much more comfortable about making a louche deal with White House, Inc.
Gaetz will probably also do some good and popular things, things that genuinely improve ordinary peoples' lives--like using the Antitrust Division to break up some massive company (one that didn't play ball) which also actually needed breaking up. This will result in loads of articles about what a surprisingly good pick he turned out to be. He'll also control the Bureau of Justice Statistics department, so the drop in the crime rate will be *astounding.*
Trump needed someone who a) was a proven criminal, b) had a major grudge against the Justice Department, c) was so narcissistic and entitled that he'd cheerfully do all of this without a twinge of conscience; d) smart enough to know what to do without being told, e) completely devoted to him--Daddy issues a plus--and of proven loyalty); and f) one hundred percent MAGA. Giuliani's too old, too drunk, and probably still has some sentimental attachment to the law. Jeffrey Clark? Josh Hawley? None of them are so effortlessly degenerate. Eileen Cannon? The only one who would be quite so astonishingly awful is Kash Patel--but he's going to run the FBI, which again is not a random pick. Trump knows what he's doing.
As for Tulsi ... well, don't get me started. Because the idea of Gaetz at Justice is actually hilariously funny. But the idea of her as DNI is terrifying. It overnight turns us into an enemy to our allies. It destroys Five Eyes. It destroys all of our liaison relationships. Our human assets will be killed, unless they go into a freeze so deep that we never hear from them again. The damage she'll do just by being appointed is incalculable.
If I could only prevent one from being approved, it's no contest: She's the one I'd move heaven and earth to stop. The thought of her in that job is terrifying. But she isn't a random pick.
Not a word or two or three on Avril Haines, Biden's DNI. who cut her teeth in the community's machinations at the feet of John Brennan. Remember him? Or would you rather forget his tenure at CIA? Their history in this hall of mirrors is well worth an expose or at the very least, many footnotes comparing and contrasting their activities, especially in a forum that I thought, at one time, encouraged a dialogue and promoted discussion. Thanks.
“Which side tried assasination twice.”
What a fucking bullshit response. Let’s just take all the most outlandish conspiracy theories and pretend they’re self evident. You fucking moron. You’re part of the problem.
Two lefties tried to kill Trump in separate incidents,
The problem with lefties is their mendaciousness - either willful or stupid.
Two deranged idiots tried to kill Trump. So that’s almost like if Biden ordered it himself. Just like when “the left” tried to kill Regan! With this sort of demented “choose your own adventure” logic you can justify anything. Republicans are such betas. You’ll swallow anything your cult leader serves you. Open wide bitch!
Claire:
This column is beneath you.
Just two points from your screed to illustrate your foolishness:
"You need some lowlifes with a taste for wet work. "
Which side tried assassination twice? Who employed Antifa thugs?
"Rewrite the constitution"
Who planned to stack SCOTUS, eliminate the electoral college, eliminate filibuster?
Claire, we subscribe to get analysis/insights.
We don't pay for the ravings of an angry lefty.
And who exactly are you to self-nominate yourself as Grand Canceler?
You do not like what Claire writes? Then leave. But just as I honor your opportunity to spew nonsense (as in your comment above), you should afford Claire the opportunity to write on whatever topic and in whatever direction that topic moves her. Cosmopolitan Globalist is predicated on the content she creates, all of it thoughtful, deliberative, intelligent, and incisive. You might not agree with her perspective on this or that commentary (which will occur with you because you suffer from TDS) but that possibility is emblematic of the top-quality musings Claire provides.
And before you fling shade: I do not agree with every one of Claire's perspectives. But I would never dream of silencing her voice, which seems a regular effort by you.
Please tell me you don't *really* believe the dems tried assassination? On what factual basis could you possibly lay those attempts at their feet?
I am having trouble figuring out if your perspective is wilfully skewed or not. If I had to I'd bet on you being a 2, but maybe you're just a grumpy old 3.
Stack SCOTUS? McConnell already did that. The discussion of the dems doing so was to restore balance. Remove the electoral college? Who discussed this, and why is it so scary in the abstract? Eliminate the filibuster? Again who are you saying reps the dems on this, and what precisely did that person even argue for?
Is this list the best you can do? You're scared of dems who are not even in leadership saying things that are not scary.
Trump, the President-elect, has said and done truly vile things, already. His list of shameful/worrying words/deeds would make Harris' [or the dems' writ large if you want to treat them as an offensive amorphous blob] look tiny and unimportant by comparison. Claire has elucidated much of this already. How are you not absorbing it?
Curiouser and curiouser...
If anything the two attempts to murder Trump bolster the left wing narrative. Both men were attention seekers who in a civilized country would not have had access to AR-15s. One reason the right couldn’t make much hay of these attacks because the real lessons are a) stricter gun laws are a good idea and b) social media is mentally damaging. Not messages Trump or Musk want to get behind.