One thought that comes to mind about your post is a kind of fusion of your point with the steady stream of writings since the election about the Democratic Party, and the entire Left, in search of itself, writings right up to the lead editorial in today’s Times.
If there’s been a triumph of incompetence in Trump, what then would constitute a triumph of competence the Democrats and the Left could create to then define the party and the ideology? Seems like an opportunity here.
Yes, it is an opportunity. And not just for the left, but for the presumably still extant pro-Constitutional Republic contingent. (Our current president took over the country in the same way he took over the Republican part first). It might be dangerous to say, given the discredit of experts in our current disarray, but serious centrist people like Robert Gates come to mind. Or to go a bit further back and more in my own past line of work, like George Schultz, who spoke of the central importance of trust in our foreign relations. Absolutely vital, of course, as we're about to find out again pretty soon, but (sadly) sounds almost quaint today.
I wanted to share this link to a video of John Lithgow reading Timothy Snyder’s 20 rules for fighting tyranny so that as many people as possible understand the moment we are facing and the ways that we can fight back as individuals and as a community. Fascists follow an unwritten playbook, and Timothy Snyder’s rules are based on a deep understanding of the forces at work right now.
I find it gutting that Snyder and Jason Stanley, his colleague at Yale and another preeminent scholar of fascism, have both decided to leave the U.S. for Toronto. They have evidently seen their own personal redlines crossed. When two preeminent scholars of fascism have voted with their feet it should serve as a wake up call for anyone who says we shouldn’t overreact.
Ditto on Snyder, including his decision to leave the country--probably intended as an attempt to ring the alarm bell louder than he already has. I've read his book, parts of its several times, as I'm sure you have. I also subscribe to his newsletter, along with thousands of others. I must admit that, while I knew that Trump 2.0 would be a variation on madness, I initially thought it would produce deep Argentina-like structural dysfunction rather than East European-type tyranny of the kind that Snyder has focused on during his distinguished academic career. In that sense I thought that his professional lens caused him to see our country under Trump 2.0 in a darker light than was warranted. Now, I'm not so sure. He may be more right than I thought; more right than I was--or am. Among many other things, what continues to puzzle me is the staunch Republican support for this rogue president in Congress. I think that means that congressional reps, who reflect the popular mood better than any of our other political institutions, continue to know (or believe) that their constituents remains solidly behind the president. The problem is what the people believe to be true, which gets back to the collapse of consensus reality. Again, I welcome a guest post on whatever issue--which you could also distribute through your network.
Another gem, Alexis. Thank you for your clear thinking and cogent writing. I vacillate between marveling at their incompetence and admonishing myself that incompetence and authoritarian cruelty have always coexisted hand in glove. I find that I try to comfort myself by thinking that their incompetence will shield us from the worst of their fascism, but I think history suggests that the brown shirts and black shirts are most bloodthirsty when their incompetence is on full display for all to see.
Your essay also prompted me to wonder about the personal redlines that serving national security professionals who take seriously their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution must be formulating. Or at least I hope they are. When does sticking it out shade into complicity with an authoritarian regime? It is not an easy question, and I approach it with a great deal of humility.
I am studying closely the following tripwires. For me these will be the signs that we have reached a point of no return for American democracy and that our experiment is over: the current regime ignoring a SCOTUS decision with which they disagree, red states taking actions to make the 2026 election neither free nor fair within their states, Mike Johnson refusing to seat Dems who might tip the balance back to a Dem controlled House if we have another Blue Wave election, the current president seeking a third term, and MAGA refusing to accept the results of the 2028 election if it does not go their way. I also feel passing a nationwide abortion ban would be an important indication of our status as Gilead.
In the international affairs arena, I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on what military and Foreign Service officers are to do if the current president and SecDef issue orders to occupy Greenland or take some sort of military action against Canada. If the order is lawful, then they are required to do it. If a joint resolution of Congress provides the legal fig leaf, then what are our military leaders to do? Actually seize Ottawa or occupy Greenland? I find it unhelpful to fall back on the idea that it won’t happen. I hope each general and all the officers under their commands are thinking about this in advance so they are not caught with indecision in the moment when it does happen.
Hey Francis, thanks for reading and reacting. I'm with you on the multiple pitfalls of incompetence, including the possibility of not quite intended disaster. I am not at all encouraged or mollified by it, au contraire -- for the very reasons you mention. Stumbling into calamity has happened before, and could happen again. Getting more likely by the day by the way.
On that note, you may have noticed the note I just published in Notes, reiterating my open invitation for potential guest posts. Our mutual friend Jim N was the first to plunge in, and I think it helped him decide to reinvest his energy into his own Substack Newsletter, which is good because he's a good, clear, readable writer. At this point, the more rational, readable voices, the better. We need a powerful chorus. We need to sound the alarm loud and clear with good reason. I'm no revolutionary, but this feels like a five alarm fire. So if you want to take a shot at answering your own question in a guest post, I'd welcome it.
I'm not sure I have more insight than anyone else does on your thorny question. I did muse in a past post about the democratic dilemma facing career government officials and, for that matter, any responsible citizen. Does blocking the undemocratic moves of a democratically elected government constitute support for or an attack against democracy? I know where I stand on this question. In that sense, I think civil disobedience with respect to an unconstitutional (or patently stupid and obviously counterproductive) command of a kind one can imagine coming from the current motley crew makes sense. I'm on various threads with various Canadians, and have even suggested (just a guess) that if such an unthinkably stupid thing as an American invasion be contemplated, then they (the Canadians) can probably count on tens of thousands of proud Americans (including with military experience) flocking across the border to fight on their side.
A corollary concern I have is, given the legitimate and growing suspicion about the undemocratic and unconstitutional nature of this government, what will our professional military (and related national security crew) do in the face of a legitimate threat? The erosion of trust, inside and outside our borders with respect to this rogue regime, is deeply worrying on all sorts of levels.
It's appalling. And what's even more appalling is that he wants us to be appalled. "Here, take this!" The more unfit and unqualified the better.
Really hard to frame the transparent perversity of it. Or to believe it.
Alexis,
One thought that comes to mind about your post is a kind of fusion of your point with the steady stream of writings since the election about the Democratic Party, and the entire Left, in search of itself, writings right up to the lead editorial in today’s Times.
If there’s been a triumph of incompetence in Trump, what then would constitute a triumph of competence the Democrats and the Left could create to then define the party and the ideology? Seems like an opportunity here.
-Bob
Yes, it is an opportunity. And not just for the left, but for the presumably still extant pro-Constitutional Republic contingent. (Our current president took over the country in the same way he took over the Republican part first). It might be dangerous to say, given the discredit of experts in our current disarray, but serious centrist people like Robert Gates come to mind. Or to go a bit further back and more in my own past line of work, like George Schultz, who spoke of the central importance of trust in our foreign relations. Absolutely vital, of course, as we're about to find out again pretty soon, but (sadly) sounds almost quaint today.
I wanted to share this link to a video of John Lithgow reading Timothy Snyder’s 20 rules for fighting tyranny so that as many people as possible understand the moment we are facing and the ways that we can fight back as individuals and as a community. Fascists follow an unwritten playbook, and Timothy Snyder’s rules are based on a deep understanding of the forces at work right now.
https://snyder.substack.com/p/twenty-lessons-read-by-john-lithgow?r=7ev8v&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=audio-player
I find it gutting that Snyder and Jason Stanley, his colleague at Yale and another preeminent scholar of fascism, have both decided to leave the U.S. for Toronto. They have evidently seen their own personal redlines crossed. When two preeminent scholars of fascism have voted with their feet it should serve as a wake up call for anyone who says we shouldn’t overreact.
Ditto on Snyder, including his decision to leave the country--probably intended as an attempt to ring the alarm bell louder than he already has. I've read his book, parts of its several times, as I'm sure you have. I also subscribe to his newsletter, along with thousands of others. I must admit that, while I knew that Trump 2.0 would be a variation on madness, I initially thought it would produce deep Argentina-like structural dysfunction rather than East European-type tyranny of the kind that Snyder has focused on during his distinguished academic career. In that sense I thought that his professional lens caused him to see our country under Trump 2.0 in a darker light than was warranted. Now, I'm not so sure. He may be more right than I thought; more right than I was--or am. Among many other things, what continues to puzzle me is the staunch Republican support for this rogue president in Congress. I think that means that congressional reps, who reflect the popular mood better than any of our other political institutions, continue to know (or believe) that their constituents remains solidly behind the president. The problem is what the people believe to be true, which gets back to the collapse of consensus reality. Again, I welcome a guest post on whatever issue--which you could also distribute through your network.
Another gem, Alexis. Thank you for your clear thinking and cogent writing. I vacillate between marveling at their incompetence and admonishing myself that incompetence and authoritarian cruelty have always coexisted hand in glove. I find that I try to comfort myself by thinking that their incompetence will shield us from the worst of their fascism, but I think history suggests that the brown shirts and black shirts are most bloodthirsty when their incompetence is on full display for all to see.
Your essay also prompted me to wonder about the personal redlines that serving national security professionals who take seriously their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution must be formulating. Or at least I hope they are. When does sticking it out shade into complicity with an authoritarian regime? It is not an easy question, and I approach it with a great deal of humility.
I am studying closely the following tripwires. For me these will be the signs that we have reached a point of no return for American democracy and that our experiment is over: the current regime ignoring a SCOTUS decision with which they disagree, red states taking actions to make the 2026 election neither free nor fair within their states, Mike Johnson refusing to seat Dems who might tip the balance back to a Dem controlled House if we have another Blue Wave election, the current president seeking a third term, and MAGA refusing to accept the results of the 2028 election if it does not go their way. I also feel passing a nationwide abortion ban would be an important indication of our status as Gilead.
In the international affairs arena, I would genuinely appreciate your thoughts on what military and Foreign Service officers are to do if the current president and SecDef issue orders to occupy Greenland or take some sort of military action against Canada. If the order is lawful, then they are required to do it. If a joint resolution of Congress provides the legal fig leaf, then what are our military leaders to do? Actually seize Ottawa or occupy Greenland? I find it unhelpful to fall back on the idea that it won’t happen. I hope each general and all the officers under their commands are thinking about this in advance so they are not caught with indecision in the moment when it does happen.
Hey Francis, thanks for reading and reacting. I'm with you on the multiple pitfalls of incompetence, including the possibility of not quite intended disaster. I am not at all encouraged or mollified by it, au contraire -- for the very reasons you mention. Stumbling into calamity has happened before, and could happen again. Getting more likely by the day by the way.
On that note, you may have noticed the note I just published in Notes, reiterating my open invitation for potential guest posts. Our mutual friend Jim N was the first to plunge in, and I think it helped him decide to reinvest his energy into his own Substack Newsletter, which is good because he's a good, clear, readable writer. At this point, the more rational, readable voices, the better. We need a powerful chorus. We need to sound the alarm loud and clear with good reason. I'm no revolutionary, but this feels like a five alarm fire. So if you want to take a shot at answering your own question in a guest post, I'd welcome it.
I'm not sure I have more insight than anyone else does on your thorny question. I did muse in a past post about the democratic dilemma facing career government officials and, for that matter, any responsible citizen. Does blocking the undemocratic moves of a democratically elected government constitute support for or an attack against democracy? I know where I stand on this question. In that sense, I think civil disobedience with respect to an unconstitutional (or patently stupid and obviously counterproductive) command of a kind one can imagine coming from the current motley crew makes sense. I'm on various threads with various Canadians, and have even suggested (just a guess) that if such an unthinkably stupid thing as an American invasion be contemplated, then they (the Canadians) can probably count on tens of thousands of proud Americans (including with military experience) flocking across the border to fight on their side.
A corollary concern I have is, given the legitimate and growing suspicion about the undemocratic and unconstitutional nature of this government, what will our professional military (and related national security crew) do in the face of a legitimate threat? The erosion of trust, inside and outside our borders with respect to this rogue regime, is deeply worrying on all sorts of levels.