More Hitler - Trump Analogy

I wrote a post on October 7, 2024 noting an analogy between the state of Germany and Germans in the 1920s that facilitated Hitler's rise to power as well as Hitler's propaganda tactics and that of the United States and Trump.

There is another unfortunate analogy that must be pointed out.  Hitler became all-powerful with the craven support of corporate titans and the conservative political establishment. Neither of these groups could stand Hitler, but they knew he was the new game in town and they played to his ego, thinking that sooner or later, he would fail and they would seize power.  Of course. that eventuality didn't happen until Germany was reduced to rubble and conquered.

In the case of Trump, we are seeing much similar behavior, but thankfully there are some who are not craven.  First the similarities.  Both politicians and billionaire corporate titans who spoke very poorly of Trump at one point, changed their tune when they realized that he had captured the soul of the Republican base and was a man who would brook no disagreement.

In general, when primary battles are all over, everyone supports the nominee.  That's as it should be.  But here there was a difference.  In the Republican primary (both 2016 and 2020), those trying to defeat Trump didn't just disagree on policy, they vilified the man in the harshest of terms.  Yet once he got the nomination and had obviously captured the party, they all fell in line, one after the other, and kissed his ring.  The fact that they had defined him in such negative, dangerous, and unfit terms was now irrelevant.

Then there were those, such as George W. Bush, who refused, even when implored by his daughter, to come out against Trump.  He didn't support him or say good things about him, but in this situation, remaining silent was the equivalent of endorsing him.  It's like Niemöller in Germany who didn't speak out against the Nazis and when they came to get him, it was too late.  (See my post, "Hitler-Trump Analogy.")

But thankfully there were a brave few who refused to forsake their principles—Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Mitt Romney—as well as those behind the Lincoln Project, who tried to convince fellow Republicans to not support Trump.  It was to no avail, but their actions are a bright light during this sordid period of the Republican Party.

Unless Trump starts a nuclear war, he will not leave the United States in a heap of rubble.  But he can devastate our institutions and severely damage the country.  

One thing is certain: he will not Make America Great Again.  That has been a great marketing tool, but as is often the case with marketing, it bears little relation to reality.  (See my post, "The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, of our Historic Values.")

Whatever Happened to the Devil?

This may seem like an odd subject for this blog, but given the state of conflict in the world, it is very relevant.  Read on and see why.

There is no question that the Devil has gone missing in most religious teaching.  It's a common observation.  The only explanation I've seen is that modern man is not receptive to talk about demons and squirms when the subject matter is raised.  Instead, in modern theology and preaching, the emphasis is on doing good, on following the word of God.  There is little mention of the Devil's influence in people's lives.

Yet given the seemingly endemic nature of conflict and violence in the world, whether in the home or between nations, we have dismissed the Devil from spiritually-correct discussion at our peril.  Anyone with an open mind can observe the Devil at work everywhere around us; the devil is alive and well.

Why do people squirm when someone talks about the Devil?  Is it really because they are modern and don't believe this talk about supernatural or dark forces?  Given the odd things that modern man believes in, I doubt this is the case.  I think it's more likely that they have had experience with dark forces and they squirm because they are in denial and don't want to admit that that is what they have had contact with.

Before going any further, I should make clear what I am talking about when I used the word "Devil."  Just like when I talk about God, I am talking about the divinity within us, not the bearded guy in the sky who controls everything (see my post, "God Is Not Dead, We Just Look for God in the Wrong Places"), when I talk about the Devil, I am talking about the devil within us, not the being with the pointed tail.

In my previous writing, I have said that man's insecurity is behind all violence and conflict in the world, whether in the home or between nations.  How does that square with what I'm saying now?

There are two things to distinguish:  the devil influencing people and someone becoming the devil incarnate, a dark force.  When someone reacts to something with insecurity, that is certainly not the guidance of God, but it is the guidance of the Devil because insecurity makes man weak, and weakness is fertile ground for the Devil.  So to say that insecurity is the cause of all violence and conflict in the world is the same as saying that the devil is the cause; the devil can only work through man.

In the other case—when someone becomes the devil incarnate, a dark force—he or she has sold his soul to the devil.  This person is no longer human.  He is a fallen man who lives his hell on earth.  He rejoices in torturing people, in causing them to suffer.  Such a person is not acting out of insecurity but out of malevolence.  And unfortunately, it has been my experience that such dark forces are around in large numbers.

When I talk to people about my experience of dark forces, their eyes typically glaze over and view me like a kook.  Most often if they know the person, they defend him as a good person.  The devil is a master con man; he has turned such people into enablers by convincing them that the person is good. If they don't know him or her, they say that maybe the person does bad things but they're not the Devil or a dark force.  That doesn't exist in their world view.

The religious establishments have done their flock, man, a disservice by catering to this "modern" sensibility regarding the Devil because the Devil or dark force is very real and without question is the force that tempts people to do bad or inhumane things to others. We see this truth even in cartoons that show an angel sitting on one shoulder given a person advice while the devil is sitting on the other shoulder trying to convince the person to do something bad or mischievous.

There is too much emphasis on supporting/growing the religious establishment, and thus of not doing things that upset the flock and turn them away,  The role of religion is to set man on the right path—both for himself and those around him—to lead him away from the devil, from the emotions, fears, and anxieties of his ego-mind.  Man has never wanted to hear such preaching, but it is necessary.  That is the role of religion.

In many posts, I have talked about the inhumanity of man and how to get man back on the right track ... the track to humanity.  The suggestions I have made in those posts all have merit.  But we will not be able to achieve any of those spiritual goals if we are not willing to recognize that the Devil is in our presence and he does not wish us well.  

I have written that the ego-mind is the source of our emotions, fears, and anxieties, which is the truth. But behind our psychological reflexes is the Devil.  That is why it is so hard for us to get past what our ego-mind tells us to do.

Here again, we must go back to the future.  We must go back to an understanding that there are forces at work in the universe which are supernatural.  We are not the all-powerful, independent person that we want to think man is.  Our only way back to peace and happiness is to realize that we cannot be in control of our destiny unless we stand up to the Devil.  Flip Wilson may have gotten a laugh when his character, Ernestine, said, "The Devil made me do it!"  But it is no laughing matter. 

One Man, One Vote Is Now an Illusion

The New York Times and many other news outlets have just reported that Elon Musk spent over $250 million supporting Donald Trump's campaign for president.  The combined campaigns raised nearly $4.7 billion dollars.  The amount of money is obscene.

This is a natural and inevitable outgrowth of the 2010 Citizen's United decision by the Supreme Court, which found that corporations and other organizations were citizens and so entitled under the free speech amendment to support political candidates, and that the amount of money they spent in support of a candidate, as long as such spending was not coordinated with the campaign, could not be limited.

This decision has been criticized on various levels, mostly as a blow to democracy because of the increased influence on campaigns by corporations and wealthy donors.  And that is true.  But from a legal standpoint, what's wrong with that? This question has not, to my knowledge, been addressed.

What wrong is that it makes the Supreme Court rule of "one man, one vote" meaningless, an illusion.  What is this rule?  It holds that in drawing congressional districts, all citizens in a state should have roughly equal representation.  

Why is that of crucial importance?  Because ours is a representative democracy and in the House of Representatives, as opposed to the Senate, each person's vote should have an equal value.  Each person should have an equal voice as to the direction of our country.

But what if each person's voice is not in an important sense his own?  What if huge amounts of money are spent to influence his vote, if he is bombarded with advertising to make him vote for one candidate or the other?  The outcome of the election is still based on those votes, but how people vote is greatly influenced by the advertising and emotions that are put in play.

And this is not the marketplace of ideas envisioned by the 1st Amendment.  This is biased marketing that appeals to the emotions, not the mind. Even if "alternative facts" were not part of that advertising, it still would be an appeal to emotion rather than rational thought.

A democracy based on emotion rather than rational thought is a democracy in form only.  A democracy depends on reasoned debate, both by the elected representatives and by the public.  Because reasoned debate is a search for the truth.  Whereas emotional debate doesn't get past the emotions; it is not about the search for truth.  And a democracy based on emotion is likely to attract a demagogue as leader and be in danger of slipping into an autocratic state.  Witness the ascendence of Donald Trump.

There is only one way to reverse the impact of Citizen's United.  Adopting Federal financing of elections wouldn't work because the Court's holding would prohibit legislation that sought to limit donations that were not coordinated with a campaign.  The only possibility left would be a constitutional amendment that would reverse the Supreme Court's decision.  And that is a process that is unlikely to succeed, certainly in our current polarized state. 

So until the Court once again has a liberal majority, or at least a neutral conservative majority, which could be persuaded to overrule Citizen's United, we are stuck with elections that are a contest of mega-donors and often appeal to the darkest forces within us.

Lessons To Be Learned from the Election

There is a lot of finger pointing going on in the Democratic Party.  But the lesson to be learned from this election is rather simple:  when you know something is a problem, you must deal with it in an effective manner.

Problem #1:  Trump and most people connected the Vice President with the actions/record of the unpopular Biden administration.  It's hard to disassociate yourself with the actions of an administration you are part of, even if the Vice President has little power.

But, when Kamala Harris was asked during a televised interview what she would have done differently from Biden, she answered that she couldn't think of one thing that she would have done differently!  This was a gift question, and she totally blew it.  And of course the Trump campaign immediately used the footage of her own words to nail her as being no different from Biden.  

She knew that this was a major issue for many voters, and yet she made no effort to distance herself from Biden, beyond saying that she was her own person and would have a different administration.  This was taking loyalty to Biden beyond any reasonable expectation

Problem #2:  People felt they would be better off financially under Trump; that he would be better on the economy.  Harris tried with some success to counter this feeling by stressing her various plans to make life easier financially for middle-class workers.

But the main reason people felt the way they did was not because of an appreciation of policies.  They knew prices were lower and things easier when Trump was president, and they knew prices and interest rates were higher when Biden was president.  The old incumbency affect.

What the Vice President needed to do was say, yes, prices and interests rates were lower when Trump was president, but it had nothing to do with his policies; it's just the way the world was at that time, pre-pandemic.  And yes, things are higher now, but again it has nothing to do with Biden's policies; it's a function of the post-pandemic world.  

So past experience here has no relevance.  She should have said that the only way to think about which candidate would be better for you financially is to look at each candidate's plans.  She had definite plans to help.  Trump had none, and the plans he did have for raising tariffs will definitely increase prices.

Problem #3: A large segment of White workers felt neglected by the Democratic Party for years and were angry.  What Harris needed to do was a sincere mea culpa to these workers, preferably during a speech to the nation on Fox, buying the time.  She certainly emphasized her understanding of the plight of workers and her plans to improve things, but she never apologized for the Party not focusing on their problems for decades.

There's no way of knowing whether these statements would have won Harris the election, but they sure would have helped draw more voters to her.  For the record, I emailed the Vice President with these thoughts during the campaign.

Mankind - A Greek Tragedy

The political events of this past year and the results of the election this week gave me pause to reflect on man.

How do I reflect on man? I am a man of faith, faith in the universe, god, Buddha.  What does that mean?  I have faith that things are the way they are because it’s just the way it is.  There is a cosmic force/reason for everything – whether the law of nature, the "laws" of man as he has developed, or some unknown cosmic force – although to ask “why” is usually a fruitless endeavor.  

But that does not mean that the universe/god controls how man acts or what he experiences; there is no master puppeteer that controls people's lives.  Man is a free agent operating within a world context controlled by cosmic forces.  It is man – meaning mankind – who brings about through its actions the things that mankind experiences (other than pure forces of nature).  

Armed with my faith, I see myself and the world around me through the eyes of my heart – we are all born with the god/Buddha-essence inside us – full of positive energy and joy, the neutrality of my senses, free of worries and concerns, full of faith and strength.  And so I am able to see things as they are.

My reflection is that the results of the election are the result of man’s flawed development.  Interestingly, similar things are happening in many parts of the world. Dictators/autocrats are being voted into power.  Man seems to  be devolving, not evolving.  Gone are the days when philosophies, such as the Enlightenment, guided nations and statesmen.

At the same time, man’s hubris has led to his taking little notice of increasing climate disorder. Or better put, he has taken note of the disasters, but either he doesn’t connect it with man’s impact on climate or he does but isn’t willing to do what is necessary to change the impact of man.

When I look at all of these things together, it seems like man is on a path of self-destruction.  That is why I titled this post, "Mankind - A Greek Tragedy."  His hubris will lead to his destruction.  I have written before that man is an experiment gone awry.  And I must add, as I’ve also noted before, that the Earth would be much better off if man were eliminated.  Then nature would be able to restore itself and nature would once more be resplendent, free of any impact of man.

This is beyond sad because man had the potential, as the most evolved mammal on Earth, to use his brain for the betterment of all mankind in all spheres - material as well as spiritual – as well as the animals and plants we share this Earth with.  But while man has made many advances in the sciences and technology, he has made a mess rather consistently over the millennia in his personal life and in the exercise of power.

All one can do in the face of this dynamic is build a world for oneself, a bubble, within which you act towards yourself and those around you with caring, kindness, and respect.  The world may be heading toward perdition, but while you must interact with that world, you can do so on your own terms and thus retain your peace and happiness.

Peace.

The Real Reagan Legacy - Disrespect of Government

Republicans love to talk about the Reagan legacy in glowing terms, and there is indeed a Reagan legacy.  Some of that legacy has been good for the country, but some of it not.  

One of the worst aspects of his legacy is the "Me" generation, which has become the "Me" attitude of much of the populace. This focus on what is in my interests to the exclusion of the interests of others, let alone the common good, and to see one's own interests as disconnected from the common good, has created a self-centered citizenry.  

This attitude is not in line with the American social contract that developed in the early 1900s.  That social contract conferred not just rights with citizenship but also an obligation to respect the rights of others and support the government (through taxes) in its efforts to improve the common good.  Actually, as early as 1858, Abraham Lincoln said that, "each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases ... so far as he in no wise interferes with any other man's rights;"

But worst of all, it is Reagan who legitimized and spread disrespect of our institutions of government.  And it is this disrespect that ultimately has resulted in Trumpism and the far-right agenda of dismantling much of what our government does to protect the common good, which is its proper role – to ensure that the rights of citizens are secured.  

During his first inaugural speech, Reagan said that "government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."  There you have in a nutshell what has become the mantra of the far-right and of the base of people (at least a third of the population) who are devoted followers of Trump.  It should be remembered that Reagan was a prominent speaker against Medicare as "socialized medicine" in the early 60s before Medicare was enacted by Congress; he also spoke against Social Security. 

Reagan followed up that statement by saying that government is run by a group of elites rather than by the people.  Meaning that government is the problem because it is not being run or directed by Congress, the elected representatives of the people, but is instead being run by federal employees – the agencies – who by implication were a liberal elite.

But as noted above, contrary to the Republican mantra, government is there to protect the public, to act in its interests.  Why then do Republicans say otherwise?  Why don't they say that to serve the people, government must be improved?  Because it provides them with an appeal to disgruntled and disappointed voters, and because it is in furtherance of the interests of big business, which during the 20th century became the guiding force for Republicans.

There are so many inaccuracies involved in this view of how our government works that it's hard to know where to start.  But here is my rejoinder to Reagan and the far-right.

First, while I agree with Reagan that government is the problem, it's not for the reasons that he suggests.  And it is "run" by an elite, but not the elite he suggests.

Our government is, in fact, run in large part by major corporations.  Because they have a huge impact financially on election campaigns, they have major influence in Congress.  That impact is increased by their lobbying Congress regarding the passage and even writing of legislation.  In this way, corporations often have far more power than the people in determining the laws by which we are all governed.  That is the problem of government today.

This is a problem because corporations are solely concerned with maximizing their profit and freedom to act; corporate interests are thus often opposed to the interests of the average person, the common good.  There used to be a widely held opinion that, "What was good for General Motors was good for the country."  That line of thought was long ago discredited, debunked. Corporate-influenced legislation is rarely "for the people."  Indeed, it is often against their interests.  Even if the final legislation is still in the public interest, it will have been watered down by corporate lobbying to reduce the negative impact on corporations and thus the benefit to the people.

Not only do corporations often control the passage of legislation, but they are also largely to blame for the stubbornness of our recent high inflation.  The reason why prices were not responsive to the Federal Reserve's raising interest rates substantially is that corporations found during the pandemic that they could raise their prices without much impact on sales, and so increase their profits.    And so they continued to raise prices to increase their profit, even as the Fed increased interest rates.  

The second Reagan inaccuracy is that government is controlled by elites - the inference is that the people who staff government agencies are liberal elites.  First of all, there are plenty of conservatives in the civil service; they aren't all liberals.

But most importantly, most federal employees – civil servants – are regular people.  They are not elites.  They struggle with the same things that most people struggle with, albeit their jobs are more stable and they have better health insurance.  And while more of them have college degrees – 32% bachelor's degree and 21% advanced – that's not that much higher than the general population – 40%.

And as for higher-level appointed personnel, they represent the party that won the last election – so they are typically liberal under one administration and conservative in another.  They thus represent the people's will in that presidential election.  They may all be elites in some sense, but I don't think that Trump and his allies are complaining about the conservative elite, it's just the liberals they don't like.

Unfortunately, such is the power of demagoguery and hearing something repeatedly – what the Nazi propaganda chief Goebbels called "the big lie" – that Trump supporters believe anything he says.  Regardless how outrageous, his words are the truth.  So the fact that this charge against government is wrong, that this argument is against the people's best interest, and that while there is an argument to be made against government, it's a very different one – none of this will make any difference to the committed Trump voter.

While Democrats countered Reagan's statement that government is the problem, they have never, to my knowledge, countered Reagan's reasoning, explaining why it was faulty. This truth about government must be broadcast by Democrats, even if it upsets the corporate support that they too depend on.  

Democrats must give the people a chance to judge the falseness of what Trump and his allies have been telling them.

A Vote for Kamala Harris is a Vote for You and America

Why should you vote for Kamila Harris?  Let me count the ways.

If you're a man, vote for Kamila Harris because she possesses true human strength.  She is not a weak person and stands up for what she believes in ... and she does believe in things.  

Trump on the other hand is a weak person.  He sounds strong when he rages. but that is just a façade.  It is a mask for his insecurity, his need to be flattered, his need to be worshiped.  And he believes in nothing other than himself.

If you're a woman, vote for Kamila Harris because she stands up for the right of women to control their bodies rather than have the government tell you what you can or cannot do when it comes to the most important decision in your life – whether to bring a child into this world.  

Trump on the other hand wants to control your body, both through government rules - he was directly responsible for taking away your constitutional right - and through his own lecherous acts.  When he says that he will protect women, "whether you like it or not," it shows that he has no concern for women or what they think.

If you're a white middle-class worker, vote for Kamila Harris because central to her plan as President is strengthening the middle class by reversing the downward trend you have suffered the past few decades at the hand of big business.  She knows that the strength of America depends on the strength of the American worker.  And she will support workers through appointments, regulations, and laws to that end.

Trump on the other hand has no interest in helping the worker; he want's your vote, but after he gets that, you're nothing to him.  He talks a good game when he rages about the injustice you have faced, but he does not walk the walk.  Trump and the Republicans have never done anything to benefit the worker.  Their interest instead is giving corporations the maximum freedom to do what they want to do.  They are hypocrites when the say they are the party of the people.  They are in truth the party of the rich and big business.

If you're a Black, vote for Kamila Harris, not because she is Black, but because she has worked and will work to strengthen the educational, housing, and economic opportunities for Blacks and all Americans, and she will work to end the discrimination that you still encounter almost every day.  

Trump on the other hand has no interest in improving your lot in life.  He has not fulfilled any of his promises to you.  Trump and the Republicans have never done anything on your behalf.

If you're a Latino/a/x, vote for Kamila Harris because she respects you and other immigrants.  Even illegal immigrants are human beings and deserve to be treated as such.  She will be strong on the border but open up the heart of government to illegals who have been working hard, supporting the American economy, and paying taxes, and provide them with a path to citizenship.  And the opportunity economy she will build will enable you to improve your economic well-being.  

Trump on the other hand clearly despises immigrants, whether illegal or not.  He has done and will do nothing to improve your lot in life.  He is using you to get elected; afterwards you will be nothing to him.

If you're a Muslim, vote for Kamila Harris because she respects your place at the American table.  And she will work to end the war in Gaza and provide Palestinians with the right to govern their own lives.  

Trump on the other hand has shown that he despises and fears Muslims.  And he is an even stronger supporter of Israel than the Democrats.  He gives Netanyahu a blank check to do what he wants to do.  Palestinians will clearly suffer even more under a Trump administration.

If you love America, vote for Kamila Harris because she stands for what is best in America and will make it even stronger than it has been.  

Trump on the other hand is against all the values that have made America great and a guiding light to the rest of the world –  the values stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  He will diminish America, both in its internal strength and its standing in the world.

Vote for Kamila Harris and Tim Walz