The Phantom Public

I suspect many of us are wondering how long it will take, and under what circumstances, for Trump to use the full force of the state and its monopoly of violence to crackdown on dissent. It is terrifying to imagine what national emergency, real or fabricated, could be used to justify abrogating constitutionally guaranteed rights at the point of a gun.

But before that happens, should it happen, there are signs we are heading in that direction. As history so frequently shows, before fully organized state repression, come the goons. In Hitler’s case it was the Brown Shirts, a paramilitary organization under Hitler and the Nazi Party, which had responsibility for, among other things, providing protection at Nazi rallies and assemblies.

Consistent with Mark Twain’s quip that “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes,” is a disturbing story recently reported in the New York Times that a private security firm was hired to strong arm protestors at a Republican town hall meeting in Idaho.

We have been seeing Republican elected officials getting heckled and booed at public meetings across the country much as we saw Democratic officials getting slammed at public meetings over 15 years ago to protest Obamacare. In other words, this is politics and there is nothing unusual about it. Still, it appears that Republicans are gearing up to respond differently than Democratic.

In late February, Teresa Borrenpohl shouted from the audience during a meeting hosted by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee. She was told to leave by Kootenai County Sheriff Bob Norris. When she refused, Norris gestured to plainclothes security personnel, who pulled Borrenpohl to the floor and dragged her out of the auditorium. The security personnel were from a private company out of California called Lear Asset Management and were contracted by event organizers.

Notably, as the New York Times reports, “six men who prosecutors said took part in forcibly removing [Borrenpohl] from [the] town-hall meeting hosted by local Republicans … are facing charges including battery and false imprisonment.” Teresa Borrenpohl is also suing in the matter.

Although Sheriff Bob Norris appears to have been involved, he was not charged.

While it is heartening that the local prosecutor’s office has laid charges against employees of the out-of-state private security firm, we must wonder why members of the local police force were not thought capable of providing adequate security by event organizers. One has to wonder if they felt local law enforcement would be unwilling to break the law but paid enforcers would have no such qualms.

While all of this may sound a little in the weeds, it suggests an important point. The difference between Trump’s first term and second term is that he realizes now he needs to change the leadership of key institutions as quickly as possible if he hopes to be successful in executing his agenda. And that he had done. Those at the local level who are following Trump’s lead may fear that local institutions will not roll over so easily. They may look instead to what money can buy, which in politics these days is quite a bit.

For now, at least in Idaho, it seems that the local law enforcement culture is pushing back hard against outside agitators. We should keep an eye out for these sorts of dynamics elsewhere.

You may have noticed there is much hand-wringing among Democrats about the inability of the party to mount a credible opposition to Trump and the damage he is doing to the country and the world. Some are pointing to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the big rallies they have been staging as a part of their “Fighting Oligarchy” tour as at least a part of the answer.

Of course Sen. Sanders is 83 and AOC is 35 so all eyes are on her to be the leader of a potential new movement, one typically characterized as left-wing populism.

A story in Axios points out that AOC and Sanders are drawing record crowds, even in some reliably red states, and that AOC is “breaking fundraising records, and surging in the early polling of potential 2028 presidential candidates.”

A YouGov poll released April 16 shows AOC with a +61 approval rating among Democrats, behind the usual crowd of Obama (+86), Harris (+84), Sanders (+75), Biden (+70), and Waltz (+61). AOC is followed by Clinton (+59), Warren (+58), Booker (+52), and Buttigieg (+51). 

A recent survey by Yale University put OAC in second place (21.5) in a potential Democratic presidential primary to Kamala Harris (27.5).

These are early days; nothing is particularly significant at this point, but these sorts of numbers certainly put AOC in the mix.

As for AOC being the face of the opposition to Trump and even the face of the party, there are those who will say that it has been the Democratic Party’s move to the left that has created the electoral challenges it has more recently faced. As per the Axios piece, this cohort argues that “OAC may thrill many partisan Democrats – but the party needs to win back people in the middle.”

Many who have been toiling on the left for years will find some of these concerns compelling. The real left in America has been in the political wilderness for so long that any suggestion there is a way out seems almost absurd. But if Trump’s victories in 2016 and 2024 tell us anything, it is that old analyses may not apply.

I am not one of those who think there is no value to understanding politics in terms of the left and the right. Perhaps the better way to see how the electorate views politics, though, is as a contest between those who seem to understand the challenges countless American’s face verses those who seem to be clueless.

These days, no matter how progressive the policies of the Democrat Party are, so much of the way they are perceived smacks of bi-coastal cosmopolitanism. And while there is way too much racism, sexism and bigotry of other kinds in the rejection of the Democratic Party by so many, a great part of that rejection is in their belief that Democrats just don’t get them. It makes us crazy to think these same folks think Trump does get them, but that’s where we are.

I don’t know if AOC can break through, can convince those who are struggling that she can be their voice. I don’t know if someone who will be tarred as a “radical leftist” can be successful in American politics at a national level. What I do know is that Trump’s populist appeal took us by surprise and that many of the things we thought we knew about politics are not true.

I’m willing to be convinced.

Trump takes aim at Biden, “Radical Left Lunatics” and the courts in Easter Sunday message – CBC News

Democrats face growing calls for generational change – The Hill

Senate Republicans rely on different type of candidate to hold majority in 2026 – Roll Call

JB Pritzker burnishes his national brand as one of Trump’s fiercest critics – Politico

Barbara Lee wins Oakland mayor’s race in her return home – New York Times

Lisa Murkowski, one of the few Republicans in Congress willing to criticize the Trump administration, made public comments at an event recently about her state of mind as she tries to do the work she was elected to do. As reported by the Anchorage Daily News:

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a room full of Alaska nonprofit leaders that the tumult of tariffs, executive orders, court battles, and cuts to federal services under the Trump administration are exceptionally concerning. “We are all afraid,” Murkowski said, taking a long pause. “It’s quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. And I’ll tell ya, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.”

At the same event, Murkowski criticized some of the things Trump has done as “unlawful” or “against the law.” She spoke out against cuts to international aid and to Medicaid, criticized effort to “politicize the federal judiciary,” and expressed concern about Congress’s failure to enforced the constitutional separation of powers.

Steve Benen at MSNBC has written that the response to Murkowski’s comments have “fallen into two camps.” One camp is sympathetic, acknowledging how hard it is for Republicans to speak out in public and actually say that she is afraid of retaliation. The other camp is not so sympathetic, pointing out that as a U.S. senator in a position of power, she could be doing a lot more, and has in fact aligned with Trump on some legislation and pretty awful appointments.

Benen, in asking which of the approaches is best, takes the middle ground by saying there is merit in each approach: she is providing space for other Republicans to speak out, but there are many other things she could and should be doing. Though I appreciate the balance of Mr. Benen analysis, I think he is being far too generous. These are extraordinary times, and someone with real power, and significant profile, who can say that she is genuinely afraid of the retaliation her occasional opposition may bring, is playing a very dangerous game by not clearly picking a side.

It was for this reason heartening to see Harvard University stand up to Trump’s bullying, and profoundly disappointing to see major American law firms capitulate to Trump’s threats. There are now stories that major philanthropic organizations are next to be threatened. Marginalized individualizes and organizations with limited power are finding ways to be heard. Those privileged people and entities who think, against all evidence, that they can manage Trump and somehow play from the middle are wrong.

The Bible passage translated variously as “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me,’ is well known and frequently cited. And while I personally am not well qualified to opine on what this means, it seems pretty obvious. To be on the safe side, I will quote a source, which states:

Scripture calls us to love one another and care for each other as Jesus would love and care. In all circumstances, the response of God’s people should be according to His Word in the Bible. We are called to show the love of God to everyone, including “the least of these.”

Though not framed as such, it is about solidarity.

In Noam Chomsky’s 2018 book Requiem for the American Dream: The 10 Principles of the Concentration of Wealth and Power, he writes about the attack on solidarity. Those who would deprive us democracy and self-determination, he writes, tell us that we are only supposed to care about ourselves, not other people. But if we are convinced we shouldn’t stand together, that we shouldn’t pool our resources, that we shouldn’t care for each other, it becomes very difficult to stand up to those who always have a very clear understanding of their own self-interest.

Chomsky writes about the attacks on Social Security as an evil socialistic scheme. But Social Security, he says, is “based on the concept of solidarity…caring for other people…’I pay payroll taxes so that the widow across the town can get something to live on.’” He writes about the attacks on public education which frequently take the form of trying to convince people who don’t have kids in school that they shouldn’t have to contribute. Viscous attacks on single-payer health care policy usually take the form of convincing people that health care for others doesn’t matter. And finally, slashing the size of government is a key way to attack solidarity as “the government does, to the extent that Democracy functions, carry out actions in the interests of and determined by the population.”

From day one, Donald Trump has attempted to separate Americans from any sense of solidarity with each other and with other human beings wherever they might live. He has attempted to convince us that we should live in an Hobbesian world in which we are always at war with each other, where we never stand together.

Deep cuts to foreign aid are creating devastation in poorer areas of the world. A lack of interest in what makes so many people in other countries want to seek a better life in America is the polar opposite of what solidarity means. This trains us to be uncaring and isolated from humanity. Cutting so many of the government programs that help Americans live their best lives, separate us from each other and our common existence. Eviscerating international trade deals is intended to reinforce the idea that we are in no way part of an international, rules-based, community. Denying military aid to countries under threat by bad actors is more evidence that caring for others is unimportant.

The bottom line is that without solidarity there is no resistance. Without caring for the least among us, without caring for each other in the most important ways, to paraphrase Martin Niemoller, when they come for us, there will be no one left to care.

Joyce Vance recently wrote about the “unseemly” campaign by the Justice Department, with Attorney General Pam Bondi leading the charge, “to paint Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man they have acknowledged was illegally sent to a prison used to house terrorists in El Salvador, as a bad guy.’

Vance goes on to say that why Bondi thinks Garcia is a bad buy, the backstory, is beside the point. What is on point is

that Abrego Garcia, criminal or saint, was denied his due process rights by the government, and in this country, people are entitled to those rights. Under our Constitution, people, whether criminals or not, whether citizens or not, are entitled to notice before action is taken against them and to a hearing in front of a judge to sort out any issues.

While a federal judge has made the directed Bondi to make this right, she has responded by saying that “America is safer because he is gone. Maryland is safer because he is gone.”

We must ask ourselves if we really want the likes of Pan Bondi or Donald Trump deciding, without due process, that a person is guilty of a crime because they have heard some things that may or may not be true. Unfortunately, we have once again to learn lessons that we thought were well understood. Unless we are all afforded the right to due process, it will not be long before no one is.

One can waste a lot of time thinking about the most recent stupid thing said by Trump loyalists. Every time Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert open their mouths the collective IQ of public discourse drops several points. But that doesn’t mean everything said from that camp is meaningless. We should listen very carefully because some of that apparent noise is in fact signal. Frequently, it is a signal telling us how Trump and his administration plan to justify future acts that in normal times would be well beyond what the American public would tolerate.

As was widely reported, early Sunday morning a man broke into the home of Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, after the family had celebrated the first night of Passover, and set fire to the residence. A suspect, identified as Cody Balmer, said he committed the act because, according to Politico, “he thought Governor Shapiro was helping perpetrate ongoing violence against the Palestinian people.”

Shapiro, who is Jewish, in condemning the attack, commented that “nothing…the assailant could do would deter me from doing my job as governor, nothing he could do would deter me from proudly and openly practicing my faith.”

Shapiro, who well understands the abhorrent nature of political violence, said the following.

“I said after the assassination attempt on the president in Butler, I said in Altoona after we captured the individual who shot and killed a U.S. health care CEO, and I said on Sunday that this kind of violence has no place in our society, regardless of what motivates it.”

That may be a bit of political boiler plate but it is the kind or statement that must be made in these circumstances by our political leaders to, as the saying goes, turn down the heat.

Enter Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Dan Meuser. Meuser, after obligatory comments condemning the arson, said the the “Left has to look in the mirror too,” adding that Democrat’s use of “violent and hostile commentary” is a contributing factor. Posting on X, Meuser went on the say, “Every action Josh Shapiro has taken so far against the president has either been a lawsuit or a falsehood.”

After getting generally slammed for his comments, Meuser backtracked by saying that what he meant was that “…the broader political rhetoric we’re seeing from both sides is dangerous,” but one gets the sense that this is nothing more than damage control. Also notable is that so far President Trump has not reached out to Governor Shapiro to express his concern, nor has he condemned the violence, which is another signal we should not ignore.

We are already seeing violence in the Trump Administration’s illegal and unconstitutional immigration raids, but because it concerns so few in our own orbit, we let it pass. But anyone paying attention must know that violence against Trump’s political enemies, whether by the state or condoned by the state, is just a matter of time. When Rep. Meuser calls the words of those who criticize the president “violent and hostile,” he is preparing the country for a response to those words that is not in the nature of verbal repartee. An actual violent response to a verbal challenge is the kind of playground dynamic that defines the way Trump sees the world. What, he might ask, did you expect?

There is a lot of noise here, but also an important signal.

In yet another head-shaking moment in the early days of Trump’s second term in office, the New York Times is reporting that those law firms that agreed to provide free legal services for the administration on what they believed to be “uncontroversial causes” may actually be called on by the president to support his agenda in any way he deems useful.

To back up a bit, you will recall that Trump has extracted nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services from some of the country’s top law firms by threatening to restrict their lawyers from accessing government buildings and officials and also threatening their clients’ access to federal contracts. All of this is because of what Trump has called “the damage they have done.”

The transgressions these law firms are supposedly guilty of are in the nature of having represented Trump’s political enemies or having employed people who have gone after Trump directly. Certainly there has been-push back from many in the legal community calling this unconstitutional and undemocratic. So far four firms have challenged these tactics in court and have at least received temporary reprieve. For those who have gone along with Trump’s scheme, despite acknowledging no guilt of any kind, there is a sense that the pro bono work they may do for Trump is consistent with uncontroversial and non-partisan pro bono work they are accustomed to providing.

Recently Trump has suggested however that these law firms could use these pro bono hours to work on trade deals or even reviving the coal industry. Most concerning is a suggestion in the Times story that “White House officials believe that some of the pro bono legal work could even be used towards representing Mr. Trump or his allies if they become ensnared in investigations.”

The kicker on the matter is surely in a statement made by Yale law professor Harold Hongju who wrote a paper addressing the issue. He said of the complying law firms that “They thought they made ‘one-shot deals which they would fulfill.” The implication is of course that that would be the end of it.

It is somewhat mystifying to me that some of the best legal minds in the country would believe signalling your willingness to be bullied by Donald J. Trump would be the end of anything rather than the beginning of a long and painful shakedown.

Four journalists in Russia were sentenced on Tuesday to spend five years and six months in a penal colony. The crime is their association with the late Russian opposition leader Alexey Navalny. More specifically, they were convicted of having worked with a banned organization founded by Navalny, which is considered by the Russian government to be an extremist group. The nature of their extremism is their work to expose corruption in Russia. Navalny of course died in prison at the age of 47 on February 16, 2024.

While it hardly warrants specific notice that Vladimir Putin has yet again imprisoned political enemies, it is notable that President Trump, one of Putin’s greatest cheerleaders, has waged an ongoing battle through the courts against media outlets he deems unsympathetic to his agenda. Unfortunately, it is no longer an outrageous question to ask how long it might take him to follow Putin’s lead and graduate from civil suits against media companies to criminal charges against individual journalists.

A president who is comfortable calling the media “the enemy of the American people” is surely not incapable of taking that next step.

In March at a speech at the Department of Justice Trump said “I believe that CNN and MS-DNC, who literally write 97.6% bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat [sic] party and in my opinion, they’re really corrupt and they’re illegal, what do they do is illegal.” Though we are frequently told to take Trump seriously but not literally, is that position still wise? And if it is not, are journalists who work for organizations Trump describes as corrupt and engaged in illegal activity really safe?

Trump went on to say:

“And it has to stop, it has to be illegal, it’s influencing judges and it’s really changing law, and it just cannot be legal. I don’t believe it’s legal, and they do it in total coordination with each other.

For a long time there have been instances of journalist jailed for activities related to news gathering or potential crimes committed while gathering news. There have been charges related to refusing to comply with legal orders like subpoenas to disclose sources. It is not difficult to imagine some sort of pretense for criminal charges when the reality is that it will be free speech that is on trial. With the Justice Department and the FBI controlled by individuals who are more than willing to do Trump’s bidding, unpleasant things could begin to happen, things that are not consistent with the operation of a free press in America.

The latest Trump tirade is being directed at CBS’s “60 Minutes” after the show’s Sunday broadcast in which they ran stories on Ukraine and Greenland. In a Truth Social post the president wrote that “Almost every week, 60 Minutes…mentions the name “TRUMP” in a derogatory and defamatory way, but this weekend’s “BROADCAST” tops them all.” He said the network was out of control and should “pay a big price” for their coverage. He went on to call for the Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr to fine or otherwise punish the show “for their unlawful and illegal behaviour.”

The Associated Press notes that Trump has an ongoing $20 billion lawsuit against “60 Minutes” for what he claims was an unfairly positive portrayal of candidate Kamala Harris in the fall. The network denies this but there are now apparently ongoing settlement talks between Trump’s lawyers and the CBS parent company. FCC Chair Carr has also begun an investigation of CBS about the Harris case as well as others involving ABC News, NPR, and the Walt Disney Company among others.

Complaints have been about things like how ABC News moderated the pre-election TV debate between then president Joe Biden and Trump in 2020, on-air comments made by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos about the E. Jean Carroll case, NBC allowing candidate Harris to appear on Saturday Night Live, Meta’s suspension of Trump’s Facebook account over January 6th, and claims against ABC and the Walt Disney company about DEI hiring practices that the FCC suggest violate equal opportunity employment opportunity regulations.

As one would imagine, these suits have to be taken seriously. In addition to ongoing talks with CBS noted above, there has been a $15 million settlement by Disney/ABC in the Stephanopolous case. In January Facebook-parent Meta payed $22 million towards the future Trump presidential library, plus another $3 million in legal fees to settle their case.

It’s quite the mess and not likely to slow down if Trump’s most recent rant against “60 Minutes” is any indication. That some media outlets have already settled or are in negotiations is disturbing enough. What is more problematic is that Trump is always working the refs; he is always trying to control future behaviour by signalling to any person or institution the world of hurt that could be brought to bear by the government of the United States of America if he just says the word.

If the media start to obey in advance because they believe they can placate this wanna-be dictator in the Oval Office, we are not going to like where this leads.