Putin, Dugin, and Trump: The Geopolitical Challenge Facing America

Alexander Dugin is a Russian philosopher, political theorist, and strategist known for his far-right and nationalist ideas. He is considered one of the most influential intellectuals behind Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical vision and has developed a distinctive worldview that challenges Western liberalism, democracy, and globalism.

Who is Alexander Dugin?

Dugin is often associated with the ideology of Eurasianism, which emphasizes the idea that Russia, rather than being a part of Europe or Asia, should lead a unique Eurasian civilization. He is a vocal critic of liberal democracy and Western values, seeing them as threats to the survival of traditional Russian culture, values, and political systems. His philosophy blends Russian Orthodox Christianity, traditionalism, nationalism, and anti-modernism. Dugin is also a prominent advocate for an authoritarian system that rejects the principles of liberal democracy, which he believes lead to decadence, moral decay, and societal breakdown.

Dugin’s work, particularly his book "Foundations of Geopolitics", has been highly influential within certain circles of Russian politics and military strategy. His vision of a "multipolar world" contrasts with the Western-led "unipolar" world order, which he sees as dominated by the U.S. and its allies. He advocates for a new international order, where Russia plays a central role, asserting itself against the West.

Putin’s Relationship with Dugin’s Beliefs

Putin’s policies and rhetoric, especially in recent years, reflect a certain alignment with Dugin’s ideas, particularly regarding nationalism, anti-liberalism, and anti-Western sentiments. Although it’s difficult to say how directly Putin subscribes to Dugin's specific philosophy, Dugin has been described as a key ideological figure whose ideas resonate with the Kremlin’s foreign and domestic policies. Here are the key ways Putin has embraced Dugin’s beliefs:

1. Anti-Western Sentiment:

   • Both Dugin and Putin are staunchly critical of Western liberalism, seeing it as morally corrupt, decadent, and a threat to Russia’s traditional values. Putin has positioned Russia as a defender of conservative and Christian values in opposition to what he perceives as the permissiveness and liberalism of the West.

   • Dugin’s ideas, particularly the rejection of liberal democracy, mirror Putin’s own distrust of Western-style political systems and his promotion of a strong, centralized state under his control.

2. Eurasianism and Russia’s Role in Global Politics:

   • Dugin’s philosophy of Eurasianism calls for Russia to assert its dominance over the Eurasian landmass, rejecting the West's political and cultural dominance. This has been reflected in Putin’s foreign policy, especially in his actions in Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics, where he has sought to reassert Russian influence and challenge Western power.

   • Dugin envisions Russia leading a coalition of countries (often referred to as the "Eurasian bloc"), which would challenge the global order dominated by the U.S. and Europe. Putin’s actions in Ukraine and Syria can be seen as part of this broader vision of establishing Russia as a counterbalance to U.S. hegemony.

3. The Rejection of Globalism:

   • Dugin is a vocal critic of globalism, the idea that countries should be governed by global institutions and international norms. He believes that this undermines national sovereignty and leads to the erosion of cultural and religious identities.

   • Putin has positioned Russia as a champion of national sovereignty, particularly in opposition to Western-led international institutions like the European Union (EU) and NATO. He has used rhetoric that positions Russia as a defender of the "multipolar world," a world where power is not concentrated in the hands of a few Western countries.

What They Are Doing to Support These Beliefs Against America and for Russia

1. Ukraine and the "Eurasian Sphere":

   • One of the most significant actions taken by Russia under Putin that aligns with Dugin’s beliefs is the invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. This move was justified by Putin as necessary to protect Russian speakers and culture, but it also fits within the broader Eurasian vision of reasserting Russian influence in territories once part of the Soviet Union.

   • Dugin has openly supported these actions, viewing them as part of Russia’s rightful return to its place as the leader of a Eurasian bloc. He also sees Ukraine as a critical part of this vision, often referring to it as the "heartland" of Eurasia.

2. Promotion of Anti-Liberal Values:

   • Putin has sought to promote Russian Orthodox Christianity as a unifying force in Russia, positioning it against the secularism of the West. This resonates with Dugin’s traditionalist views, which stress the importance of religion in society and politics.

   • Russia’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, its push for conservative family values, and its crackdown on opposition movements all align with Dugin’s idea of a society that rejects liberal freedoms in favor of order and traditionalism.

3. Cyber Warfare and Disinformation:

   • Russia, under Putin’s leadership, has been accused of using cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns to destabilize Western democracies, particularly the U.S. during the 2016 presidential election. This aligns with Dugin’s idea of undermining Western influence and sowing chaos in the political systems of liberal democracies.

   • Dugin’s geopolitical ideas also encourage the use of unconventional methods to achieve strategic goals, including the use of information warfare to destabilize the U.S. and European Union.

4. Energy and Economic Influence:

   • Russia has leveraged its control over energy supplies, especially natural gas and oil, as a tool of geopolitical influence. By using energy as leverage, Russia under Putin has sought to deepen its ties with Eurasian countries while also undermining Western sanctions and economic influence.

   • This economic strategy is part of a broader effort to reduce Russia’s dependence on the West and assert its dominance within the Eurasian region.

Dugin’s ideas, particularly his vision of a multipolar world led by Russia and his rejection of liberal Western values, resonate with Putin’s worldview and have influenced many of his policies. While the extent of their personal relationship and alignment is not fully clear, it is evident that Putin has adopted certain aspects of Dugin’s philosophy, especially in terms of nationalism, anti-Western rhetoric, and the quest for Russian dominance in Eurasia. Together, they advocate for a Russia that pushes back against American global leadership and the liberal international order, positioning Russia as a defender of tradition, sovereignty, and an alternative vision for global politics.

Putin's connection to various philosophers and ideologies, including figures like Alexander Dugin, is often viewed through a complex and controversial lens. Dugin, in particular, is known for his far-right, nationalist, and anti-liberal views, advocating for Eurasianism, which emphasizes Russia's unique role in world history and its need to assert its power against the West.

Critics of Dugin and his philosophy argue that his ideas are deeply problematic, even dangerous, and foster a worldview that is deluded or extreme. They point out that his approach often relies on conspiracy theories, anti-democratic sentiments, and a rejection of modernity. Whether he is "stupid," "deluded," or "insane" largely depends on one's perspective. Some might argue that Dugin's ideas are misguided and dangerous, while others might see them as strategic in promoting a certain vision for Russia.

It's a highly subjective matter, with critics often calling his ideas intellectually dishonest or harmful, while supporters view him as a visionary seeking to challenge Western dominance. Ultimately, the label depends on the values and beliefs of those doing the evaluating.

The beliefs and actions of Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin share certain themes, but they are not perfectly aligned, and the connections are complex.

1. Nationalism and Populism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have espoused strong nationalist and populist rhetoric. Trump’s "America First" approach, with a focus on prioritizing U.S. interests, echoes a populist desire to challenge global elites and institutions. Bannon, as a strategist, championed similar themes, promoting a right-wing, anti-establishment ideology that sought to upend the liberal international order.

• Putin and Dugin: Similarly, Putin’s Russia under his leadership has embraced a form of nationalism, particularly in opposition to Western influence. Dugin’s philosophy, particularly his concept of Eurasianism, aligns with this by emphasizing Russia’s role as a unique civilization, distinct from the West.

2. Anti-Globalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Both Trump and Bannon have been critical of international institutions and agreements. Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran Nuclear Deal, along with Bannon's criticism of globalist elites, reflects a shared skepticism of global governance and institutions like the EU and UN.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s opposition to NATO and the European Union, alongside Dugin's advocacy for Russian supremacy in Eurasia, also fits into an anti-globalist narrative, though with a more explicitly authoritarian and imperialistic bent. Dugin often critiques liberal democracy as part of a Western-led globalist project that he believes undermines national sovereignty.

3. Anti-Liberalism:

• Trump and Bannon: Trump's actions often targeted liberal values, especially in areas like immigration, civil rights, and press freedom. Bannon has been a vocal critic of liberalism and often associates it with globalism and what he perceives as a threat to traditional values and sovereignty.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin’s governance in Russia has consistently undermined liberal democratic values, with crackdowns on dissent, the press, and LGBTQ+ rights. Dugin’s philosophy, with its rejection of liberal democracy, aligns with this anti-liberalism, advocating instead for a more authoritarian, conservative, and hierarchical society.

4. Relations with the West:

• Trump and Bannon: While Trump often expressed admiration for Putin and appeared open to closer ties with Russia, especially during the 2016 election, his administration maintained policies that were at odds with Russian interests, such as sanctions on Russia and support for NATO. Bannon, too, has expressed admiration for the strength and sovereignty of nations like Russia, although his strategic thinking was more focused on undermining Western globalism.

• Putin and Dugin: Putin, particularly under Dugin's influence, has seen Russia as a counterbalance to Western liberalism, viewing the U.S. and Europe as rivals in the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence. Dugin's vision calls for Russia to lead a broader Eurasian bloc to challenge the Western-dominated world order.

In summary, there are some overlapping themes, particularly the opposition to globalism, liberalism, and the embrace of nationalism, but the alignment between Trump, Bannon, Putin, and Dugin is not straightforward. Trump's and Bannon's views are more focused on national sovereignty and populism from a Western, American context, while Putin and Dugin’s philosophy is rooted in Russian imperialism and Eurasianism. The alignment tends to be more about shared anti-establishment, anti-liberal views, rather than an exact match in ideology or strategy.

In dealing with the rising geopolitical tensions involving Russia, particularly in the context of Putin's policies and the influence of figures like Dugin, there are several strategies that America could pursue to safeguard its interests and uphold democratic values. The role of leadership, especially in the presidency, is critical to how effectively the U.S. navigates these challenges.

What Should America Do?

1. Strengthen Alliances and Multilateral Cooperation:

   • NATO and EU Relations: A strong, united NATO is critical to countering Russian aggression and preserving global security. The U.S. must work closely with NATO members, especially in Eastern Europe, to ensure that collective defense is robust, and that Russia's attempts to weaken the alliance are thwarted.

   • Diplomacy with Allies: The U.S. needs to strengthen diplomatic ties with its European allies and other democracies around the world. This will help create a coordinated response to Russian expansionism and the spread of anti-democratic ideologies.

2. Countering Russian Influence and Disinformation:

   • The U.S. must continue to combat disinformation campaigns and cyberattacks originating from Russia. This includes protecting U.S. electoral processes, critical infrastructure, and countering Russian-backed propaganda both at home and abroad.

   • Cybersecurity should be a top priority, ensuring that both government and private sector systems are resistant to cyberattacks and influence operations.

3. Support for Democracy and Human Rights:

   • The U.S. needs to be a consistent voice for human rights and democratic values around the world, including pushing back against autocratic regimes like Russia’s. Supporting civil society organizations, journalists, and opposition leaders in countries like Russia and Belarus is essential to promoting freedom and democracy globally.

   • Sanctions should continue to be a tool for holding Putin’s government accountable for human rights abuses, corruption, and aggression toward neighboring countries. However, sanctions need to be strategically designed to target key figures and industries, while minimizing harm to ordinary citizens.

4. Energy and Economic Strategies:

   • The U.S. should focus on energy independence and strengthening its position in global energy markets. This will help reduce European dependence on Russian energy exports, making it more difficult for Russia to use energy as a geopolitical weapon.

   • Economic sanctions on Russian oligarchs and key industries that fund the Russian regime should be maintained and expanded to put pressure on Putin’s inner circle.

5. Support Ukraine and Other At-Risk States:

   • The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, providing military aid, economic support, and diplomatic backing.

   • Expanding partnerships with countries in Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and other former Soviet republics is vital in creating a buffer zone to prevent further Russian territorial expansion.

Do We Need to Avoid Having Someone Like Trump in Office?

The question of leadership in the U.S. is crucial in determining how effectively the country can respond to the current global challenges posed by Russia. Here are some key considerations:

1. Coherent Foreign Policy:

   • Under Trump, U.S. foreign policy was often characterized by unpredictability and isolationism. Trump's "America First" rhetoric led to withdrawing from international agreements and undermining multilateral institutions, such as NATO, and distanced the U.S. from long-standing alliances. This created openings for authoritarian regimes like Russia to exploit divisions and weaknesses within the West.

   • A more consistent and cooperative approach to foreign policy, with a focus on strengthening alliances and promoting democratic values, is critical to countering Russian influence. Leaders who prioritize diplomacy, multilateralism, and a commitment to global institutions are better equipped to handle the complexities of a world where authoritarian regimes are challenging liberal democracies.

2. Values and Leadership:

   • Trump’s admiration for Putin and other authoritarian leaders raised concerns about the U.S.'s commitment to promoting democracy and human rights globally. A president who is less sympathetic to autocrats and more committed to upholding democratic values would be better suited to leading the U.S. in the face of Russian and other authoritarian threats.

   • Leadership that is aligned with democratic principles, like rule of law and respect for human rights, would help restore credibility on the world stage. A leader who consistently supports the liberal international order and defends the rights of nations to self-determination is crucial for U.S. leadership in countering Russia’s geopolitical ambitions.

3. Diplomatic Engagement vs. Isolation:

   • Trump’s tendency toward unilateralism, such as withdrawing from agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the Iran nuclear deal, undermined U.S. credibility and made it harder for America to lead global coalitions. A more engaged, diplomatic approach, where the U.S. works with allies and partners to address shared challenges, is essential for confronting Russia’s growing influence.

   • The U.S. should prioritize engagement with both its allies and neutral countries, presenting a united front against authoritarianism, while avoiding isolationist policies that could embolden Russia and other adversaries.

4. Domestic Stability and Unity:

   • A strong domestic foundation is critical for addressing foreign threats. The divisions within the U.S. during Trump’s presidency—exemplified by polarized political discourse, misinformation, and attacks on democratic institutions—undermined America’s ability to project a coherent and united front internationally.

   • A president who can bridge divides within the U.S., promote civic trust, and work to restore the integrity of democratic institutions would strengthen the country’s resilience in facing external challenges, including Russia’s attempts to undermine democracy.

Conclusion

To effectively counter the threats posed by Russia, the U.S. needs to pursue a multifaceted strategy that includes strengthening alliances, combating disinformation, supporting democratic movements, and maintaining economic and military pressure on authoritarian regimes. The role of the president is central in shaping the U.S.'s response to these challenges. Leadership that emphasizes global cooperation, democratic values, and consistent foreign policy is essential to confronting Russia’s ambitions, especially when it comes to safeguarding American interests and the international order.

Given the complexities of the current geopolitical landscape, it’s crucial that the U.S. has a president who is committed to democratic principles and multilateral cooperation, which would suggest that a figure like Trump—who has shown a pattern of undermining these values—may not be the best fit to lead the country through these difficult times.

Trump, and those who support him... have GOT to GO, ASAP.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

America's "National IQ" in Trumpian Freefall

America's "national IQ" in freefall—rejecting history, reason, freedom for all rather than the few & democracy by re-electing convicted felon Donald Trump who undermines institutions, foments chaos, & pardoned violent insurrectionists and sides with our international autocratic enemies like war criminal Vladimir Putin. 

A nation embracing autocracy is a nation in decline. 

If we were to imagine a "national IQ" as a metaphor for collective reasoning, decision-making, and long-term planning, the trajectory of the U.S. would suggest a severe decline in critical thinking and civic responsibility under the scenario you describe.

After the Obama and Biden administrations—both of which emphasized democratic norms, institutional stability, and a return to global alliances—the re-election of a convicted felon with autocratic tendencies and a history of undermining democratic institutions would indicate a failure of national judgment. It would suggest that a significant portion of the electorate is either unable or unwilling to recognize the dangers of authoritarianism, misinformation, and corruption, despite the clear historical warnings.

The pardoning of convicted violent criminals from the January 6 insurrection would further signal a breakdown in the rule of law and an embrace of political violence as an acceptable tool of governance. This would mark a shift from a nation that values democratic principles to one that tolerates or even encourages lawlessness when it serves the interests of those in power.

If a nation’s IQ were measured in its ability to uphold democratic values, sustain rational governance, and protect its institutions from internal sabotage, then under these conditions, the U.S. would be in intellectual and moral freefall. It would indicate not just ignorance, but an active rejection of wisdom, history, and accountability—factors that typically lead civilizations into decline.

The terms disease and malady are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings and connotations:

1. Disease – A specific pathological condition with identifiable signs, symptoms, and causes, often related to infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors. It typically implies a medical diagnosis.

   • Example: Diabetes, tuberculosis, and cancer are diseases.

2. Malady – A broader term that can refer to any kind of disorder, affliction, or condition affecting health, including physical, mental, or societal issues. It has a more general and sometimes metaphorical use.

   • Example: Anxiety, corruption, or social unrest can be called maladies.

Key Differences:

• Medical specificity: "Disease" is more medically precise, while "malady" is more general.
• Formality: "Disease" is the preferred term in medical and scientific contexts; "malady" is often used in literature or philosophy.
• Scope: "Malady" can refer to non-medical afflictions (e.g., "the malady of greed"), whereas "disease" does not.

People susceptible to authoritarian or extremist ideologies, including MaGA’s more extreme elements (or perhaps any element), often share specific psychological traits and cognitive tendencies. While not all supporters fit this mold, those who become deeply entrenched in authoritarian thinking or conspiratorial beliefs tend to exhibit some of the following characteristics:

Psychological Traits Susceptible to "Mind Worms" Like Authoritarianism

1. High Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) – Prone to submission to perceived authority, aggression toward outsiders, and conventionalism.
2. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) – Preference for hierarchy and dominance over perceived lower-status groups.
3. Low Cognitive Reflection – Quick to accept intuitive (but often incorrect) answers instead of engaging in deeper analysis.
4. Need for Cognitive Closure – Discomfort with uncertainty, leading to a preference for black-and-white thinking.
5. Fear-Based Thinking – Higher susceptibility to fear messaging, often linked to personal or societal insecurity.
6. Low Openness to Experience – Resistance to new ideas, cultures, or perspectives, preferring familiar and traditional norms.
7. High Conspiratorial Thinking – Tendency to believe in grand conspiracies that explain complex realities in simple terms.
8. Collectivist vs. Individualist Loyalty – Often prioritizes group identity (e.g., party, nation, race) over independent moral reasoning.

Why "Mind Worms" Work on This Personality Type

• Repetition & Echo Chambers – The more a claim is repeated, the more it feels true (illusory truth effect).
• Identity-Driven Politics – When ideology is tied to personal identity, questioning it feels like an attack on the self.
• Emotional Manipulation – Fear, anger, and grievance are powerful motivators, often overriding logic.
• Us vs. Them Mentality – Encourages tribalism and distrust of "outsiders" or "elites."

This isn’t exclusive to MAGA—historically, all forms of authoritarianism (left or right) thrive on these traits. But MAGA’s blend of nationalism, grievance politics, and anti-institutional rhetoric makes it particularly effective at exploiting these vulnerabilities.

If the U.S. were in full democratic crisis (as it is nnow)—facing an autocrat in power, the erosion of institutions, replacing agency and department heads with sycophants loyal to Pres. Trump and not the US Constitution or the People, in the pardoning of insurrectionists to send the message, "Break the law for ME and you'll be protected"—the emergency path to restoration would require immediate and decisive action. 

Here’s what should happen right now:

1. Mass Mobilization & Public Pressure

• Organize nationwide peaceful protests and strikes to demand accountability.
• Pressure Congress, state legislatures, and courts to act swiftly against authoritarian moves.
• Mobilize civil society groups to coordinate resistance against anti-democratic actions.

2. Legal & Congressional Action

• Invoke the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to bar insurrectionists from holding office.
• Fast-track impeachment or constitutional remedies if abuse of power escalates.
• State attorneys general must challenge unconstitutional actions through lawsuits and injunctions.

3. Protect Elections & Voting Rights

• Secure upcoming elections by fighting voter suppression laws and ensuring election oversight.
• Fund and mobilize voter turnout at unprecedented levels.
• Challenge any fraudulent election interference in courts immediately.

4. Federal & State Resistance

• Governors and state officials must refuse to enforce unlawful federal orders that undermine democracy.
• States can pass emergency laws protecting election officials, judges, and prosecutors from political interference.

5. Whistleblower & Insider Resistance

• Federal and state employees must document and expose illegal or unconstitutional directives.
• The judiciary and military must uphold the Constitution over any authoritarian commands.

6. International Pressure & Sanctions

• Allies must be engaged to condemn anti-democratic moves and threaten economic/political consequences.
• The UN, EU, and other democratic nations must apply diplomatic pressure and sanctions if necessary.

7. General Strike as Last Resort

• If democracy is being actively dismantled, a coordinated nationwide general strike could cripple the economy and force change.

This is not a time for passive hope—it’s a time for organized, legal, and relentless action to defend democracy before it's too late.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 years

I've been pointing out how conservatism today is not the conservatism people think of it as. This has led to some very bad things until finally someone as morally corrupt as Donald Trump was able to convince just enough people to elect him as POTUS45 in 2016, with some help from a confluence of situations like Russian disinformation in social media, and various social and governmental issues. Like FBI Dir. James Comey speaking out about an investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails, to protect the institution of the FBI, rather than the nation as a whole. 

The Republican Party has been positioning itself to win elections regardless of thought about the wellbeing of the country or its citizens, but to the benefit of the Party and at any or all costs to any or all others, regardless of the damages, as long as it does not hurt the party or its leadership.

 That is not a political party. That tends, to lead sooner or later, to devolve into a political cult of personality. As it finally has done in Trump's MaGA club of abuse.

The evolution of American conservatism over has raised several concerns among critics and even some within the conservative movement itself. In 2012 when the GOP lost the presidency to Barack Obama, again, they called for an "autopsy" of the party which offered some very good observations and changes that need to be made if they wanted to win an election again. They doubled down on the bad and ignored the good.

This is a party that is in "win at all costs" mode. Ethics didn't matter, morals didn't matter, lies, dishonesty, criminal activity don't matter. That is still being adjudicated over the Donald Trump presidency today in the courts and when Trump loses this 2024 election, he will see justice served.

Should he somehow bizarrely win the election, he will disable the DOJ, end the trials against him, and get back to his original intent of wrecking the US government and building his autocracy. The GOP set themselves up, all of us up, for this to eventually happen, one way or another.

But what has changed about conservatism in the past 50 years?

Here are some potential negative aspects of these changes:

1. Polarization and Division

• Increased Partisanship: The shift towards populism and identity politics has contributed to a more polarized political landscape. This division can lead to gridlock in government and a lack of bipartisan cooperation on critical issues.

2. Erosion of Traditional Conservative Values

• Departure from Principles: Critics argue that the embrace of populism has led some conservatives to abandon foundational principles like fiscal responsibility and limited government in favor of more reactionary and populist policies.

3. Distrust in Institutions

• Anti-Establishment Sentiment: The rise of anti-establishment rhetoric has fostered distrust in key institutions, including the media, judiciary, and electoral processes. This can undermine democratic norms and civic engagement.

4. Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation

• Acceptance of False Narratives: The increased reliance on alternative media has facilitated the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories. This can lead to a misinformed electorate and harm public discourse.

5. Reduction in Civil Discourse

• Hostility and Aggression: The combative style of leadership and rhetoric prevalent in modern conservatism can contribute to a more hostile political environment, making constructive dialogue more challenging.

6. Focus on Cultural Wars

• Diverting Attention from Economic Issues: A strong emphasis on cultural and identity politics can detract from addressing pressing economic concerns such as income inequality, job creation, and healthcare access, which affect many Americans across the political spectrum.

7. Impact on Governance

• Populism Over Policy: The focus on populism may prioritize short-term political gains over long-term policy solutions, potentially leading to ineffective governance and neglect of critical issues like climate change and healthcare reform.

8. Marginalization of Moderate Voices

• Decline of Centrism: The rise of extreme viewpoints may marginalize moderate conservatives, making it difficult for those who advocate for compromise and pragmatic solutions to find a place in the party.

9. Undermining Rule of Law

• Challenging Judicial Independence: The distrust in the judiciary and calls to undermine its authority can threaten the rule of law and the independence of the judicial system, essential for a functioning democracy.

10. Cultural Backlash

• Resistance to Progress: A strong focus on preserving traditional values can lead to backlash against progress on social issues, potentially hindering advancements in civil rights and equality.

Overall, while the evolution of American conservatism reflects changing societal dynamics and concerns, critics argue that these changes can lead to increased polarization, a decline in democratic norms, and a shift away from traditional conservative values, potentially harming both the party and the broader political landscape.

I have to say, I've always been a progressive. From birth. My life has been all about  moving forward, making positive changes, and taking risks. I've done some very dangerous things in my life. Search and Rescue. Street racing. SCUBA and sky diving. It goes on and on. I've had people ask me at times if I was trying to kill myself or had a "death wish". For part of the first part of my life, I really wasn't sure.

But I came to realize that wasn't the case at all. I started testing my limits very young. Some guys haven't done that util they were adults and some never have. I've always challenged myself, pushing beyond what I found difficult or frightening. There were a lot of things as a young child that I found scary. 

At some point, I decided I had enough of that. I would face my fears. Those guys I've met who haven't challenged themselves when they were young? A lot of those types were the guys I ran into as adults who were bullies, or challenging others to match up to them. Maybe being aggressive, or starting a fight. I felt sorry for them. I had no need to challenge myself against others. 

I'd done that decades ago. While they were riding their bikes a kids, I was hanging off a damn mountain. When they were in high school racing their cars, I was too actually...but I was also jumping out of a plane, SCUBA diving by myself in Puget Sound, backpacking in the Cascades, alone.

Eventually my comment to those thinking I was nuts has been that, yes, I do some very dangerous things, but as professionally as possible. I was taught from childhood to always find the best teachers in their field and learn all you can.

My point in all that is I always felt being conservative was not something you admit to others because it involves being overly careful, safe..."conservative". If we had been conservative during the founding of this nation, or the Revolutionary War, we'd still be a British colony today. 

How is being conservative something got be proud of? OK. But I also recognize we need both sides, both sides being functional, to balance out our nation. Being all on or the other is going to get someone killed. And it has. On Jan. 6th in Trump's instruction. 

Let's not do that again.

Now about our Founding Fathers, the Framers of our Constitution...

The Founding Fathers of the United States are often seen as both conservative and liberal figures, and their classification can depend on the specific context and criteria used. Here are some points to consider regarding their ideological leanings:

Conservative Aspects

1. Tradition and Order: The Founders valued certain Enlightenment principles and sought to create a government that balanced individual freedoms with social order, drawing heavily on established political thought and practices of their time.

2. Limited Government: Many of the Founders, particularly figures like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, advocated for a government that was limited in scope, reflecting a conservative desire to prevent tyranny and preserve personal liberties.

3. Property Rights: The emphasis on protecting property rights and the interests of landowners and merchants indicates a conservative approach to economic and social order.

4. Federalism: The establishment of a federal system was designed to maintain a balance of power, which can be seen as a conservative effort to prevent any one group or faction from gaining too much control.

Liberal Aspects

1. Rebellion Against Authority: The very act of declaring independence from Great Britain was a progressive move, challenging the authority of a distant monarchy and asserting the right to self-governance and individual liberty.

2. Natural Rights Philosophy: The Founders, influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, believed in natural rights—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—as inherent to all individuals. This reflects a more liberal view on human rights and the role of government in protecting them.

3. Democratic Principles: The creation of a government based on popular sovereignty and representative democracy was a radical departure from the aristocratic and monarchical systems that preceded it, aligning more closely with liberal ideals.

4. Social Contract Theory: The idea that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed is a progressive notion, emphasizing individual agency and rights over traditional authority.

Conclusion

In summary, the Founding Fathers embodied a complex blend of conservative and liberal ideas. They were revolutionary in their quest for independence and individual rights, reflecting liberal values, while also seeking to establish a stable and orderly government that adhered to certain traditional principles. Their legacy can be seen as a foundation for both modern conservatism and liberalism in America, depending on the aspects of their philosophy and actions that are emphasized.

This duality is part of what makes their contributions to American political thought so significant and enduring, as they laid the groundwork for a dynamic and evolving democratic system that continues to grapple with the balance between liberty and order.

To end, we need balance. The Republican Party anymore just wants to win. Only they know best. Nonsense. We need to work together and work to gether to end this polarization that Donald Trump is so addicted to in order to put or keep himself in power.

It's not democratic, it's not American, and it's' not functional. But it does make for some very terrifying autocracies. I don't want America to turn into North Korea, or Russia, or China. I don't want a cult of personality running things here. I don't want a dictator or a tyrant, which Trump would be more than happy to be.

What we have here is a pretty sweet thing. Which is what Ben Franklin was sayig when he said, "A republic...if you can keep it."

"The source of this quotation is a journal kept by James McHenry (1753-1816) while he was a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention. On the page where McHenry records the events of the last day of the convention, September 18, 1787, he wrote: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy – A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.” Then McHenry added: “The Lady here alluded to was Mrs. Powel of Philada.” The journal is at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress." LOC Blogs

Mr. Franklin, by the way...was an independent. So am I.

Finally...

What do you call someone who is a blank slate for followers, using confusing and manipulative language that lets supporters project whatever they want onto them? 

Does this describe Donald Trump?

ChatGPT:

Yes, this description can apply to Donald Trump. His rhetoric often blends ambiguity with bold or polarizing statements, allowing followers and critics alike to project their own interpretations onto his words & actions. His statements are sometimes contradictory or open-ended, giving supporters room to see what aligns with their own views or to explain away inconsistencies. This approach can create a strong sense of loyalty among his followers, as they feel he represents their ideals, even if those ideals vary widely.

This kind of person could be considered a Rorschach figure or projection surface, terms that highlight how followers can "read into" or project their own values, ideas, or hopes onto them, much like interpreting a Rorschach inkblot test. The person's ambiguous or confusing communication style allows people to fill in the blanks with what they want to see, making them relatable to a wide range of supporters while still avoiding clear accountability or transparency.

Additionally, some terms that might capture aspects of this behavior are:

Gaslighter: Someone who uses manipulation & confusing language to cause doubt or to control perception.

Cult of Personality Leader: This applies when the person cultivates an image that others idealize, often through manipulation or charisma.

Enigmatic Figure: An intentionally confusing or mysterious figure who leaves followers guessing.

These figures often blend ambiguity with abusive language or manipulation to create a kind of “mirror” effect, allowing followers to see what they want while maintaining control over their narratives.

For more, see my 2016 blog on "Food vs Nationalism" with a critique by ChatGPT on its accuracy compared to today.

Also...

As of recent reports, over 40 former Trump officials and associates have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. This includes individuals from a range of positions, from high-profile cabinet members to advisors, communications staff, and former campaign aides. 

Here's a breakdown of the types of officials:

-Cabinet Members: At least 5 former cabinet members (e.g., John Bolton, Bill Barr, Rex Tillerson).

-Senior White House Staff: Around 10 former chiefs of staff, advisors, and communications directors (e.g., Gen. John Kelly, Alyssa Farah Griffin).

-Former Campaign Aides: A few campaign staffers from both the 2016 and 2020 campaigns have also spoken out.

-Other GOP Politicians and Allies: Various Republican politicians who previously endorsed Trump, like Chris Christie, have switched their stance.

This number could increase as more former officials choose to speak out in the lead-up to the 2024 election.

Several former officials and close associates of Donald Trump have publicly stated they will not support him in the 2024 election. Here are a few prominent names:

John Bolton – Trump's former National Security Advisor has been a vocal critic since leaving the administration and is outspoken about not supporting Trump's 2024 run.

Bill Barr – The former Attorney General, once a staunch defender, has criticized Trump’s actions post-presidency, especially regarding January 6 and election interference, and said he would not vote for him.

Gen. John Kelly – Trump's former Chief of Staff has expressed disapproval of Trump’s behavior and leadership style and has publicly criticized him.

Rex Tillerson – The former Secretary of State has criticized Trump’s handling of international relations and stated that he cannot support him.

Chris Christie – Former New Jersey Governor and once a close Trump ally, Christie is now one of Trump's most vocal Republican critics and is running against him in the 2024 primary.

Mick Mulvaney – Former Acting White House Chief of Staff has been critical of Trump, especially following the January 6 Capitol riot, and said he would not support him.

Alyssa Farah Griffin – Former White House Director of Strategic Communications has openly criticized Trump since January 6 and is against his 2024 campaign.

These individuals, among others, have voiced concerns over Trump’s leadership style and his actions related to the 2020 election and the January 6 Capitol attack, which have influenced their public opposition to his 2024 candidacy.

All the best to us all...

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Authoritarian Parallels: Comparing Trump to Putin's Rule in Russia

Donald Trump’s political style and desires for governing America can be described as exhibiting authoritarian tendencies, though the U.S. retains a robust democratic system with strong institutions that counterbalance executive power. Trump's autocratic orientation follows the tyrant's playbook of disinformation and all that encompasses. First and foremost in combatting this kind of person and orientation is knowledge, facts, fact-checking, and educating the public.

Jon Stewart with Bill Adair of Politifact - “Beyond the Big Lie” | The Daily Show. PolitiFact.com was started in August 2007 by Times Washington Bureau Chief Bill Adair, in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly. - Wikipedia

It's important to note that Donald Trump is, aside from being an exPOTUS, twice impeached and also a convicted felon of "all 34 charges in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through a hush money payment to a porn actor who said the two had sex."

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal for his invasion of Ukraine. To be fair, he has committed war crimes in other countries over this far too long rule of Russia since 1999. 

See sections II and III below for more on Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's international or national crimes.

Section I - Trump/Putin, a comparison

To draw parallels between Trump’s approach and Russia under Putin, there are a few key areas to consider:

1. Concentration of Power and Undermining Checks and Balances

• Putin: In Russia, Putin has significantly centralized power, weakening democratic institutions and neutralizing checks on his authority.
• Trump: Trump has shown a desire to centralize power, often expressing frustration with checks on his authority by the judiciary, Congress, and state governments. For instance, he frequently criticized judges who ruled against him and pushed for loyalty from government officials, including the Justice Department. His refusal to concede the 2020 election and attempts to overturn the results through legal challenges, pressure on state officials, and ultimately the January 6 Capitol riot demonstrate this desire to weaken checks on executive power.

2. Disregard for Democratic Norms

• Putin: Putin has been accused of manipulating elections, suppressing opposition, and curbing political freedoms.
• Trump: While the U.S. elections remain competitive, Trump frequently spread misinformation about electoral fraud, especially after the 2020 election. His claims of a "stolen election" culminated in efforts to delegitimize the democratic process. Critics argue that this behavior undermines trust in democratic institutions and erodes democratic norms.

3. Attacks on Media

• Putin: The Russian media is tightly controlled, and independent journalism is often met with intimidation, censorship, or violence. The Kremlin exerts control over the flow of information.
• Trump: While the media in the U.S. remains free, Trump frequently attacked the press, calling it the "enemy of the people" and discrediting news outlets critical of him. This rhetoric created a hostile environment for journalists and fostered distrust in the media, similar to how authoritarian leaders delegitimize independent scrutiny.

4. Nationalism and Populism

• Putin: Putin’s governance has been marked by strong nationalism, emphasizing Russia’s unique identity, traditional values, and its role as a great power, often positioning himself as the protector of these values.
• Trump: Trump’s “America First” rhetoric shares a parallel with Putin’s nationalism. Trump positioned himself as a populist leader fighting against elites, promising to restore American greatness and protect American jobs, borders, and values. His appeal to a populist base often involved stoking fears about immigrants and foreign threats, much like Putin uses similar rhetoric to consolidate power.

5. Desire for Loyalty and Weakening of Institutions

• Putin: Putin’s political system is heavily reliant on personal loyalty, with political figures, oligarchs, and state officials expected to align closely with the Kremlin’s interests or face repercussions.
• Trump: Trump often demanded personal loyalty from key figures in government, firing officials who disagreed with or criticized him, such as FBI Director James Comey. He was also critical of those within his own administration who did not publicly support his claims, particularly regarding the 2020 election.

6. Cult of Personality

• Putin: In Russia, Putin has cultivated a cult of personality, presenting himself as a strongman leader who is indispensable to Russia’s future.
• Trump: Trump similarly cultivated a personality-driven political movement, with much of his appeal stemming from his personal brand, charisma, and outsider status. His ability to maintain strong loyalty from a significant portion of the electorate reflects a similar phenomenon, where support for the leader sometimes eclipses traditional party or policy loyalties.

Key Differences:

Despite these parallels, the U.S. system of government has far stronger checks and balances compared to Russia. The U.S. Congress, judiciary, free press, and civil society institutions have, to date, successfully restrained Trump’s more authoritarian-leaning tendencies. Elections in the U.S. remain free and competitive, and Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election were ultimately unsuccessful due to these institutional safeguards.

In summary, while Trump has exhibited certain authoritarian tendencies, the U.S. remains a functioning democracy with stronger safeguards against the concentration of power, in contrast to Putin’s much more consolidated, authoritarian rule in Russia. 

The concern, as some see it, is that Trump’s political style may continue to erode democratic norms and institutions if left unchecked.

Section II - Donald Trump, crimes

Since Donald Trump’s election as President of the United States in 2016, there have been numerous allegations of unlawful actions, ethical violations, and efforts to undermine democratic institutions, though these have largely played out in domestic legal and political arenas rather than in the realm of international criminal law. Below are the key controversies and legal actions related to Trump’s conduct during his presidency and after:

1. Obstruction of Justice (Mueller Investigation)

• Context: The Mueller investigation (2017-2019) examined Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report documented numerous instances where Trump may have attempted to obstruct the investigation.
• Key Allegations:
  • Trump allegedly directed aides to fire Mueller and sought to limit the scope of the investigation.
  • The report outlined at least 10 episodes of potential obstruction of justice but concluded that a sitting president could not be indicted based on Department of Justice policy.
• Outcome: Mueller’s report did not explicitly recommend charges but left the door open for Congress to pursue impeachment or other actions, stating, "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

2. Ukraine Scandal and Impeachment (2019)

• Context: In July 2019, Trump was accused of withholding military aid to Ukraine while pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden, and his son Hunter.
• Key Allegations:
  • Trump allegedly used the promise of $400 million in military aid to coerce Ukraine into announcing investigations into Biden, a potential 2020 opponent, in what many considered an abuse of presidential power.
  • This led to his first impeachment by the House of Representatives in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
• Outcome: Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February 2020, with the majority of Republican senators voting against conviction, arguing that the charges did not rise to the level of removal from office.

3. Incitement of the January 6 Capitol Insurrection (2021)

• Context: After losing the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden, Trump repeatedly made unfounded claims that the election had been "stolen" due to widespread voter fraud. On January 6, 2021, Trump gave a speech to his supporters in Washington, D.C., urging them to "fight like hell" and "stop the steal," shortly before they stormed the U.S. Capitol.
• Key Allegations:
  • Trump was accused of inciting an insurrection aimed at preventing Congress from certifying the Electoral College results.
  • His actions and rhetoric were seen as an attack on the peaceful transfer of power and a violation of democratic norms.
• Outcome: Trump was impeached for a second time by the House of Representatives, on charges of incitement of insurrection. However, he was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021, as a majority of Republican senators voted against conviction.
• Legal Fallout: While Trump was acquitted, investigations into the events of January 6, 2021, are ongoing, and some individuals close to Trump, including advisors and supporters, have faced legal consequences.

4. Election Interference and Legal Challenges Post-2020 Election

• Efforts to Overturn Election Results: Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election through baseless claims of widespread voter fraud led to dozens of lawsuits, none of which successfully overturned any state’s results. Many of these lawsuits were dismissed by courts due to lack of evidence.
• Georgia Election Interference: Trump pressured Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in a phone call to "find 11,780 votes" to overturn Biden’s victory in the state. This led to investigations into potential election interference.
• Investigations: The Justice Department, state authorities, and the January 6 House Select Committee have investigated Trump’s post-election actions, including his role in promoting false claims about the election and his involvement in the January 6 insurrection.

5. Financial Crimes and Tax Evasion

• New York Investigations: Trump and his businesses have been under investigation in New York for years. These investigations include:
  • Manhattan District Attorney’s Investigation: Examines Trump’s business practices, focusing on potential bank, tax, and insurance fraud. In 2021, Trump’s company, the Trump Organization, and its chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg were charged with tax fraud.
  • New York Attorney General’s Investigation: This civil investigation looks at whether the Trump Organization inflated the value of assets to secure loans and understated them to avoid taxes.
• Tax Evasion Allegations: A 2020 New York Times investigation revealed that Trump had paid little to no federal income tax for several years, raising questions about his financial practices.

6. Classified Documents Investigation (Mar-a-Lago Raid, 2022)

• Context: After leaving office, Trump took classified documents, including top-secret materials, to his residence at Mar-a-Lago in Florida. Despite repeated requests from the National Archives and the FBI, he failed to return all of the materials.
• FBI Investigation: In August 2022, the FBI raided Mar-a-Lago, recovering hundreds of classified documents, leading to an ongoing investigation into whether Trump violated the Espionage Act, mishandled classified information, or obstructed justice by withholding documents.
• Legal Outcome: In 2023, Trump was indicted on federal charges related to the mishandling of classified documents, including willfully retaining national defense information and obstructing justice.

7. Hush Money Payments and Fraud Allegations

• Stormy Daniels Case: Trump was accused of directing his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to make hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election to silence claims of an affair. This led to investigations into whether these payments constituted campaign finance violations.
• Legal Fallout: Cohen was convicted and jailed for his role in the scheme, but Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

8. Civil and Sexual Assault Lawsuits

• E. Jean Carroll Case: In 2023, a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll, a journalist who accused Trump of assaulting her in the mid-1990s. The case was a civil lawsuit, and Trump was ordered to pay damages, though he continues to deny the allegations.

9. International Violations

While Trump’s controversies are primarily domestic, some of his actions have raised international legal concerns:

• Withdrawal from International Treaties: Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from several key international agreements, including the Iran Nuclear Deal and the Paris Climate Accord, sparking concern about the violation of international commitments.
• Targeting of Qassem Soleimani: In 2020, Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. The strike was controversial and raised questions about its legality under international law, with critics calling it an unlawful assassination.

Conclusion:

Donald Trump’s tenure as President has been marked by numerous legal and ethical controversies, ranging from obstruction of justice and abuse of power to financial crimes and incitement of violence. While some investigations are still ongoing, Trump has faced two impeachments, criminal indictments, and multiple civil lawsuits, though he has largely evaded direct legal consequences while in office. The fallout from his presidency continues to play out in courts and public opinion.

Section III - Vladimir Putin, crimes

Since Vladimir Putin took power in 1999, there have been numerous allegations of international crimes and serious human rights abuses attributed to his government, both domestically and internationally. These are often categorized as crimes under international law and include:

1. War Crimes in Chechnya (1999-2009)

• Conflict: During the Second Chechen War, Russian forces under Putin’s command were accused of committing war crimes, including indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Chechnya, summary executions, torture, and disappearances.
• Key Allegations: The bombing of Grozny, the Chechen capital, led to mass civilian casualties and destruction, drawing international criticism. Human rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented widespread abuses by Russian forces in the region.

2. Assassinations and Poisonings of Political Opponents

• Pattern of Attacks: Under Putin’s rule, several political opponents, journalists, and former intelligence agents have been assassinated or poisoned, often with radioactive or chemical agents. High-profile cases include:
  • Alexander Litvinenko (2006): A former Russian FSB officer poisoned with polonium-210 in London.
  • Sergei Skripal (2018): A former Russian spy poisoned with the nerve agent Novichok in the UK, leading to international sanctions.
  • Alexei Navalny (2020): A Russian opposition leader poisoned with Novichok, a nerve agent banned by international treaties.
• Responsibility: While Russian authorities deny involvement, investigations in the UK, Germany, and other countries have implicated the Russian state, including its intelligence agencies, in these attacks, which violate international law prohibiting assassination and the use of chemical weapons.

3. Annexation of Crimea (2014)

• Crime: The annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 violated international law, including the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, which guarantee territorial integrity and sovereignty. Russia’s seizure of Crimea was widely condemned by the international community, and many countries, including the U.S. and EU, imposed sanctions on Russia.
• Consequences: The annexation led to the ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, and it is considered a breach of the international norm against territorial conquest.

4. War Crimes in Syria (2015-Present)

• Russian Involvement: Russia’s military intervention in the Syrian Civil War to support Bashar al-Assad’s regime has led to allegations of war crimes. Russian airstrikes have targeted civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and markets, causing widespread civilian deaths.
• Key Incidents: Human rights organizations and UN bodies have documented the deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian objects in Aleppo and other parts of Syria by Russian forces, which could constitute war crimes under international law.

5. War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in Ukraine (2022-Present)

• Invasion of Ukraine: Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has been characterized as a violation of the UN Charter and other international laws prohibiting aggressive war.
• War Crimes: Russian forces have been accused of committing war crimes during the invasion, including:
  • Deliberate targeting of civilians: Bombing of residential areas, schools, hospitals, and shelters, such as the bombing of Mariupol’s maternity hospital and theater, resulting in civilian deaths.
  • Mass atrocities: The discovery of mass graves and evidence of executions and torture in towns like Bucha, where Russian forces allegedly committed systematic atrocities against civilians.
  • Forced deportation of civilians, including children, to Russia.
• International Response: Several investigations are underway, including by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes related to the illegal deportation of Ukrainian children.

6. Cyberattacks and Election Interference

• Election Meddling: Russian state actors have been accused of interfering in the elections of several countries, most notably the 2016 U.S. presidential election, where Russian hackers and social media campaigns sought to influence the outcome.
• Cyber Warfare: Russian-linked cyberattacks against critical infrastructure in other countries, including Ukraine, Estonia, and the U.S., have been seen as violations of international law, particularly under norms against interference in sovereign states.

7. Support for Separatists and Proxy Wars

• Ukraine (Donbas Conflict): Since 2014, Russia has supported separatists in Eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, supplying them with weapons, funding, and military personnel. This support contributed to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in 2014 by a Russian-supplied missile, killing all 298 people on board. International investigations have concluded that Russia bears responsibility for this crime.
• Other Conflicts: Russia has been involved in backing separatist movements and authoritarian regimes in countries like Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) and Moldova (Transnistria), in violation of international sovereignty norms.

8. Human Rights Abuses Against LGBTQ+ and Minority Groups

• Domestic Repression: Russia under Putin has seen widespread violations of human rights, including:
  • Crackdowns on political dissent.
  • Persecution of LGBTQ+ individuals, especially in regions like Chechnya, where gay men have reportedly been abducted, tortured, and murdered in anti-LGBTQ+ purges.
• Suppression of Ethnic Minorities: Russia has been accused of committing crimes against minority groups within its borders, particularly in the North Caucasus region, with reports of torture, extrajudicial killings, and disappearances.

9. State-Sponsored Extraterritorial Killings

• Pattern: Beyond high-profile poisonings, there is a broader pattern of extraterritorial killings of Putin’s critics or former Russian agents abroad. These acts violate international laws prohibiting political assassinations on foreign soil.

International Legal Responses:

While there have been sanctions, diplomatic condemnations, and ongoing investigations, Putin and other top Russian officials have largely evaded accountability through legal mechanisms like the International Criminal Court (ICC), as Russia does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction. However, the ICC’s 2023 arrest warrant for Putin for war crimes related to the deportation of Ukrainian children marked a significant legal step.

Conclusion:

Vladimir Putin’s government has been linked to a wide array of serious international crimes, from war crimes in Chechnya, Syria, and Ukraine to assassinations, election interference, and human rights abuses. Although international legal consequences have been limited, ongoing investigations by the ICC and other bodies could bring further charges in the future.

Summary

Putin and Trump must both be barred from and/or removed from, any positions of public office or leadership, now or in the future. They must also be convicted of their crimes by a fair and partial and actual appropriate judge and jury of their peers in such a way that those things actually happen so they can be properly adjudicated for their actual and to be fair, quite obvious crimes.

---

Information generated using ChatGPT, an AI language model by OpenAI.