Agnostic.com

5 5

LINK Letters From An American 02/07/2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

FEB 8, 2024

Amidst the Republican meltdown in Washington, a disturbing pattern is emerging.

Under pressure from former president Donald Trump, Republican senators today killed the $118 billion Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act that provided funding for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan and humanitarian assistance for Gaza and also included protections for the border that Republicans themselves had demanded.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), one of the team of senators who had negotiated the bill, called out the Republicans who had staged photo ops at the border and insisted that Congress must address the rise in migration across the border… until Trump told them the opposite: “After all those trips to the desert, after all those press conferences, it turns out this crisis isn’t much of a crisis after all. Sunday morning, it’s a real crisis,” she said. “Monday morning it magically disappeared.”

After four months of Senate negotiations over the bill produced a strong bipartisan agreement, Trump pulled the rug out from under a measure that gave the Republicans much of what they wanted, partly because he wanted the issue of immigration and the border to run on in 2024, it seems, but also to demonstrate that he could command Congress to do his bidding.

It appears that Trump is trying to turn the Republican Party into an instrument he can use as he wishes.

Senator James Lankford (R-OK), whom Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tapped to negotiate the bill, today told the Senate that four weeks ago a right-wing media personality had told him “flat out—before they knew any of the contents of the bill, any of the content, nothing was out at that point—that told me flat out, ‘If you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election.’”

Lankford added, “[They] have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me in the past several weeks.” (MAGA radio host Jesse Kelly later claimed he was the person to whom Lankford referred, and called the Oklahoma senator a “eunuch.&rdquo😉

It is not a normal part of our political system to have members of Congress deciding what laws to support on the basis of threats.

In Politico today, Burgess Everett reported that Trump-aligned MAGA Republican senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) are calling for McConnell to step down because he backed the national security measure with the border fixes MAGA demanded, suggesting that negotiating with Democrats is off-limits. Trump has consistently called for McConnell to be replaced with someone friendlier to him.

Senators aligned with Trump—Ron Johnson (R-WI), Rick Scott (R-FL), and J.D. Vance (R-OH), as well as Cruz and Lee—took a stand against the national security measure, creating such pressure that McConnell’s supporters quietly turned against it. Everett noted that the rapid about-face Senate Republicans made over the national security measure “is evidence of a major drift away from McConnell’s style of Republicanism and toward Trump’s.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said, “I have a difficult time understanding again how anyone else in the future is going to want to be on that negotiating team—on anything—if we are going to be against it.” She said: “I’ve gone through the multiple stages of grief. Today I’m just pissed off.”

Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party is showing as well in his attempt to take over the Republican National Committee, in particular a plan to replace as its chair his hand-picked loyalist Ronna McDaniel, who has ties to the old party, with someone even closer to him. Since 2016, “[t]hey’ve merged the DNA of the president’s campaign and the RNC,” a Republican operative told Matt Dixon, Olympia Sonnier, and Katherine Doyle of NBC News.

Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer reported yesterday in the Washington Post that Republicans are afraid to stand up to Trump out of fear that he will retaliate against them. In Politico today, Peder Schaefer described how in Republican-dominated Wyoming, Democrats are afraid to admit their political affiliation out of concern for their safety.

Yesterday, Politico’s Adam Wren pointed out that Trump has spent much of the last week attacking elections officials in Indiana for helping former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who is running against him for the Republican presidential nomination. He is apparently working with loyalist Representative Jim Banks (R-IN) to push the lie that Haley had forgotten to fill out the paperwork to get onto the Republican primary ballot and that election officials were cheating to get her onto it.

Officials say that these baseless accusations are an attempt to sow distrust of the 2024 election.

“Trump is reinforcing a narrative where the only acceptable outcome is his victory, thus preemptively delegitimizing any electoral defeat,” Evansville attorney and former Indiana Republican delegate Joshua Claybourn told Wren. “It sets the stage for yet another crisis of legitimacy in the November general election.”

Mike Murphy, a former Republican member of the Indiana House of Representatives, offered Wren a different theory about Trump’s actions: “The bottom line is he’s completely unhinged. He is literally off his rocker.”

But there is a method behind the madness. Trump’s actions are not those designed to win an election by getting a majority of the votes. They are the tools someone who cannot win a majority uses to seize power.

Trump’s base is shrinking as his actions become more extreme, but he has a big megaphone, and it is getting bigger. As Robyn Dixon and Natalia Abbakumova pointed out in the Washington Post today, Putin’s awarding of an interview to right-wing former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson in Moscow this week “demonstrated Putin’s interest in building bridges to the disruptive MAGA element of the Republican Party, and it seemed to reflect the Kremlin’s hope that Donald Trump would return to the presidency and that Republicans would continue to block U.S. military aid to Ukraine.”

Yesterday, Representative Matt Gaetz (R-FL) introduced, and more than 60 House Republicans co-sponsored, a resolution denying that Trump had engaged in insurrection in his attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Former District of Columbia police officer Michael Fanone, who was badly hurt on January 6, said the resolution was “a slap in the face to those of us who almost lost everything defending the Capitol on January 6th, including protecting some of the very Members of Congress who are now attempting to rewrite history to exonerate former President Trump.

“But no piece of paper signed by a group of spineless extremists will ever change the facts about that dark day:” he wrote, “the insurrection was violent, it was deadly and it will happen again if we do not expunge the MAGA ideology that stoked the flames of insurrection in the first place. Rep. Matt Gaetz and every supporter of this resolution must be held accountable for their lies and un-American efforts to undermine our democracy.”

HippieChick58 9 Feb 14
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

2

We are in sooooo much trouble! And main stream media is turning a blind eye to it all.

1

Putin's GRU has had 4 years to figure out how to hack the US election. Trump's actions are part of this, but we don't know what the Russians have been doing at the state level, and our law enforcement and administration have their eyes tightly shut lest they be obliged to upset Putin's plans.

The smartest thing Putin could do is wait for trump to win the presidency, then he gets his way without any work at all.

3

Long response coming! Just sayin'

What Is an Oligarchy? Definition and Examples

By Robert Longley
Updated on November 14, 2019

An oligarchy is a power structure made up of a few elite individuals, families, or corporations that are allowed to control a country or organization. This article examines the characteristics of oligarchies, their evolution, and how common they are today.

Key Takeaways: What Is an Oligarchy?

An oligarchy is a power structure under which a small group of elite individuals, families, or corporations control a country.
The people who hold the power in an oligarchy are called “oligarchs” and are related by characteristics such as wealth, family, nobility, corporate interests, religion, politics, or military power.
Oligarchies can control all forms of government, including constitutional democracies.
The theoretical “iron law of oligarchy” holds that all political systems eventually evolve into oligarchies.
Oligarchy Definition
Coming from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning “few governing,” an oligarchy is any power structure controlled by a small number of people called oligarchs. Oligarchs may be distinguished and related by their wealth, family ties, nobility, corporate interests, religion, politics, or military power.

All forms of government, including democracies, theocracies, and monarchies can be controlled by an oligarchy. The presence of a constitution or similar formative charter does not preclude the possibility of an oligarchy holding actual control. Under the theoretical “iron law of oligarchy,” all political systems eventually evolve into oligarchies. In democracies, oligarchs use their wealth to influence elected officials. In monarchies, oligarchs use their military power or wealth to influence the king or queen. In general, leaders of oligarchies work to build their own power with little or no regard for the needs of society.

The terms oligarchy and plutocracy are often confused. The leaders of a plutocracy are always wealthy, while the leaders of an oligarchy need not be rich to command control. Thus, plutocracies are always oligarchies, but oligarchies are not always plutocracies.

Oligarchies date back the 600s BCE when the Greek city-states of Sparta and Athens were ruled by an elite group of educated aristocrats. During the 14th century, the city-state of Venice was controlled by rich nobles called “patricians.” More recently, South Africa while under white apartheid rule until 1994, was a classic example of a country ruled by a racially-based oligarchy.

Modern Oligarchy Examples
A few examples of modern oligarchies are Russia, China, Iran, and perhaps the United States.

Russia
Though Russian President Vladimir Putin denies it, he functions as part of a wealth-based ruling oligarchy that had its beginnings in the 1400s. In Russia, as in many essentially anti-capitalist countries, accumulating personal wealth requires contacts inside the government. As a result, the Russian government tacitly allows the billionaire oligarchs to invest in democratic countries where the rule of law protects their property.

In January 2018, the U.S. Treasury Department released a list of some 200 Russian oligarchs, companies, and senior Russian government officials including Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev. “The Russian government operates for the disproportionate benefit of oligarchs and government elites,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin.

China
The religion-based Chinese oligarchy regained control after the death of Mao Tse-Tung in 1976. Claiming to be descendants of Taoism’s “Eight Immortals,” members of the so-called “Shanghai gang” oligarchs control most state-owned corporations, consult on and profit from business deals, and intermarry in order to maintain their relationship to the Immortals.

Saudi Arabia
The reigning monarch of Saudi Arabia is required to share his power with the descendants of the 44 sons and 17 wives of the country’s founder and first monarch, King Abd al-Aziz al-Sa'ud (1853-1953). The current king, Salman bin Abdulaziz has appointed his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman as defense minister and overseer of Saudi Aramco, the powerful state-owned oil monopoly.

Iran
Despite having a popularly elected president, Iran is controlled by a religion-based oligarchy of Islamic clerics and their relatives and friends. The Iranian constitution states that “the One God (Allah)” holds “exclusive sovereignty” over the country. The Islamic oligarchs took power after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989. His replacement, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has placed his family and allies into high government posts and controls the elected president.

The United States
Many economists contend that the United States is now or is becoming an oligarchy. In saying this, they point to the country’s worsening income inequality and social stratification, two of the main characteristics of a wealth-based oligarchy. Between 1979 and 2005, the incomes of the top 1% of U.S. workers rose by 400%. According to a 2014 study by political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, the U.S. Congress passes legislation benefiting the wealthiest 10% of Americans more often than measures benefiting the poorest 50%.

Pros and Cons of Oligarchies
While oligarchies are often criticized, they do have some positive aspects.

Pros of Oligarchies
Oligarchies usually work efficiently. Power is placed in the hands of a few people whose expertise enables them to quickly make and apply decisions. In this way, oligarchies are more efficient than ruling systems in which many people must make all decisions in all cases.

As an outgrowth of efficiency, oligarchies allow most of the people to disregard issues that concern society and spend more time on their day-to-day lives. By trusting the wisdom of ruling oligarchs, the people are free to focus on their careers, families, and pastimes. In this manner, oligarchies can also allow more time for technological innovation.

Since one of the main objectives of an oligarchy is social stability—preserving the status quo—the oligarchs’ decisions tend to be conservative in nature. As a result, people are less likely to be harmed by extreme and potentially dangerous changes in policy.

Cons of an Oligarchy
Oligarchies typically increase income inequality. Having grown used to their lavish, privileged lifestyles, the oligarchs and their close associates often pocket a disproportionately large share of the country’s wealth.

Oligarchies can become stagnant. Oligarchs tend to be clannish, associating only with people who share their values. While this may provide stability, it also prevents people with new ideas and perspectives from entering the ruling class.

Oligarchies that gain too much power can harm the people by restricting the free market. With unlimited power, the oligarchs can agree among themselves to fix prices, deny certain benefits to lower classes or limit the quantities of goods available to the general population. These violations of the laws of supply and demand can have a devastating effect on society.

Oligarchies can cause social upheaval. When people realize they have no hope of ever joining the ruling class, they may feel frustrated and even resort to violence. Attempts to overthrow the oligarchy disrupt the economy, harming everyone in the society.

Thanks for all that info, but America’s founders, many of them land speculators, wanted the western lands (the Appalachians) and replaced a monarchy with an oligarchy.

In the 1850s, an American manifest destiny reached across the Pacific to Japan.

@yvilletom True, if America wants to keep labeling itself a democratic republic it has a lot of work to do.

3

The pustule is a terrible catalyst--he opens the door to the worst possible human behavior in government and his maga-mob encourages/abets it.

3

Aw, “…undermine our democracy”?

America is an oligarchy.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:746670
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.