CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump's Kakistocratic Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth

 Starting here with neutral commentary on Secretary of Defense Hegseth:

Military Effort to Scrub Diversity Programs Leads to Dead Websites and Confusion

And...

As Hegseth Takes Charge at the Pentagon, Here's What Changes Could Be in Store

Moving on now with the obvious commentary on this situation...

Convicted Felon now again POTUS Donald Trump's new Kakistocracy: 

Pete Hegseth's recent confirmation as Secretary of Defense has been accompanied by significant controversy due to past allegations of sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and misconduct. These concerns have led to questions about his ability to manage the immense responsibilities and pressures associated with leading the Department of Defense.

During his confirmation process, Hegseth faced allegations of sexual assault dating back to 2017, which he settled out of court. Additionally, his former sister-in-law provided a sworn affidavit detailing instances of excessive alcohol consumption and emotionally abusive behavior. Despite these allegations, Hegseth and his supporters have dismissed them as politically motivated attacks.

WSJ

The role of Secretary of Defense is one of the most demanding positions in the U.S. government, requiring sound judgment, integrity, and the ability to handle high-pressure situations. Given Hegseth's history, there are concerns about how he will manage the stress inherent in overseeing the nation's military operations. His past behavior raises questions about his decision-making capabilities and his commitment to maintaining the ethical standards expected of someone in his position.

As Hegseth assumes leadership of the Pentagon, it will be crucial to monitor how he addresses these concerns and whether he can uphold the responsibilities of his office effectively. The military community and the public will be watching closely to see if he can navigate the challenges ahead without the personal issues that have marred his past.

Pete Hegseth Confirmed as Defense Secretary Amid Controversy

what is reasonable in how he handles this pressure considering the personality of such a person's past failures to run far smaller organizations?

It is reasonable to expect that Pete Hegseth's leadership of the Department of Defense will reflect his personality traits, management style, and past behavior, both positive and negative. Given the immense pressure of running the world's largest organization, here are some considerations based on his past:

1. Reliance on Public Image

• Hegseth's media background suggests he will likely focus on projecting strength and charisma to the public. This could help rally confidence among certain constituencies but may also deflect attention from substantive organizational challenges.

2. Delegation vs. Micromanagement

• If his history of struggling to manage smaller organizations holds true, he may face difficulties handling the complexities of the Pentagon. Effective delegation to skilled subordinates could mitigate this, but a lack of trust or micromanagement might exacerbate inefficiencies.

3. Handling of Accountability

• Given allegations of deflecting blame and downplaying personal responsibility in his past, there’s a concern he might respond to crises defensively rather than transparently. This could erode trust within the military ranks and the public if problems arise.

4. Response to Stress

• High-stress environments tend to magnify a leader's pre-existing tendencies. If his past issues with substance abuse and impulsivity resurface, they could undermine his decision-making during critical moments. Alternatively, if he's worked to address these issues, it could provide a chance for personal redemption and effective leadership.

5. Potential for Overconfidence

• Hegseth's ideological fervor and confidence in his beliefs may push him toward aggressive policy decisions or reforms. While decisiveness can be valuable, overconfidence could lead to rash or poorly executed strategies, particularly in military or geopolitical matters.

6. Support Systems

• Whether he surrounds himself with experienced advisors or loyalists will significantly affect his capacity to manage the department. Experienced advisors could compensate for his shortcomings, whereas an insular team could magnify them.

What’s Reasonable to Expect?

• High public visibility and likely controversial policy stances as he works to align the Pentagon with his administration's political goals.
• Potential struggles with the organizational complexity and internal resistance, especially if he takes an authoritarian or combative approach.
• Public criticism or internal fallout if past personal issues resurface under the stress of the role.
• The possibility of high turnover among senior staff if his leadership style clashes with the Pentagon's culture.

His success or failure will depend heavily on whether he can adapt his leadership style to the realities of the role, manage his personal weaknesses, and build trust within the organization. However, his past challenges managing smaller organizations suggest this will be a steep learning curve.

Hegseth said if he gets the job, he did, he would just quite drinking alcohol because that works so well with alcoholics?

The idea that Pete Hegseth claimed he would "just quit drinking" if confirmed as Secretary of Defense raises red flags for several reasons, especially considering the stress and responsibilities tied to the role. Here’s a breakdown:

1. Oversimplification of Alcohol Dependency

• If Hegseth has struggled with alcohol abuse in the past, simply deciding to quit "cold turkey" without acknowledging the complexity of addiction or seeking support is often insufficient. Long-term recovery typically requires structured intervention, therapy, or programs like Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), particularly under high-stress circumstances.

2. The Stress of the Role

• Leading the Pentagon is among the most high-pressure jobs in the world. Stress is a significant trigger for relapse among individuals recovering from substance abuse. Without a clear and credible plan to manage stress and maintain sobriety, his promise might falter when tested.

3. Impact on Decision-Making

• The stakes at the Pentagon involve life-and-death decisions, long-term military strategy, and national security. Leadership under the influence—or impaired by withdrawal, stress, or untreated addiction—could have catastrophic consequences.

4. Pattern of Dismissiveness

• A statement like this reflects a dismissive attitude toward the seriousness of addiction. It suggests a lack of understanding or acknowledgment of the need for accountability, professional help, and long-term planning, which may extend to how he approaches other challenges in the role.

5. Historical Parallels

• Leaders who have struggled with substance abuse while in power—if untreated—often face scrutiny over their ability to perform their duties. If Hegseth’s approach is superficial or fails to address the root causes of any alcohol-related issues, it could lead to significant public and internal backlash.

Reasonable Expectations:

• Establishing a Plan: If he genuinely intends to quit drinking, it’s reasonable to expect him to engage with professional support systems, openly or privately, to ensure he can maintain sobriety.
• Transparency: The public and military personnel might expect updates or reassurances about his ability to handle the role effectively, given the doubts raised by his history.
• Building Trust: Sobriety claims alone won’t assuage concerns. His leadership decisions, consistency, and ability to handle stress will ultimately determine if he can overcome this shadow from his past.

Quitting alcohol cold turkey might sound decisive, but for those with a history of substance abuse, it’s rarely a sustainable or effective solution, especially when faced with the unprecedented pressure of running the Pentagon.

Few expect Pete to be successful which supports CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump's kakistocracy concept of running our government.

The appointment of Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense has intensified discussions about the concept of "kakistocracy," defined as governance by the least qualified or most unscrupulous individuals. Critics argue that Hegseth's limited experience and controversial past exemplify this notion, suggesting that his leadership may not meet the demands of overseeing the Department of Defense.

Default

Vice President J.D. Vance has described Hegseth as a "disrupter," emphasizing the need for significant changes within the Pentagon. This perspective aligns with the administration's broader approach of appointing individuals who challenge established norms.

Politico

However, concerns persist that such appointments prioritize loyalty and ideological alignment over competence, potentially undermining effective governance. The narrow confirmation of Hegseth, with Vice President Vance casting a tie-breaking vote, underscores the contentious nature of his selection and reflects broader apprehensions about the administration's commitment to qualified leadership.

Time

In summary, Hegseth's appointment is viewed by some as indicative of a governance style that favors disruption and loyalty over traditional qualifications, reinforcing concerns about a "kakistocracy" within the current administration.

Hegseth's Appointment and the Debate Over 'Kakistocracy'

As for kakistocracy, Tulsi Gabbard comes to mind.

The association of Tulsi Gabbard with the concept of kakistocracy is likely grounded in her controversial political trajectory, polarizing views, and alliances that have garnered criticism from across the political spectrum. While some see her as an independent thinker willing to challenge orthodoxy, others argue that her actions and rhetoric undermine democratic principles or prioritize personal ambition over governance quality.

Why Some Might Connect Gabbard to Kakistocracy:

1. Shifts in Political Alignment: Gabbard’s shift from being a Democratic congresswoman to aligning with more right-wing causes and media outlets has led to accusations of opportunism and inconsistency in her political philosophy.

2. Controversial Foreign Policy Positions:

   • Her frequent criticism of U.S. foreign policy, including her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, was perceived by some as legitimizing authoritarian regimes.
   • Critics argue that her non-interventionist stance sometimes aligns with dictators rather than promoting human rights.

3. Media Role Post-Congress:

   • Gabbard’s move into media, often appearing on conservative platforms, has fueled skepticism about her motivations. This has led to accusations that she prioritizes public visibility over meaningful policy contributions.

4. Reputation for Disruption:

   • Like figures associated with kakistocracy, Gabbard has been labeled a "disrupter." While disruption can bring reform, it can also result in instability or governance challenges when not paired with clear and competent leadership.

Counterpoints:

• Support from Independents and Libertarians: Many supporters praise Gabbard’s willingness to address issues like military-industrial overreach, corruption, and censorship.
• Military Service: Her experience as a combat veteran and her advocacy for veteran-related issues have earned her respect in some circles.

Ultimately, whether Tulsi Gabbard fits into the framework of a kakistocracy depends on one’s perspective. Supporters view her as a principled outlier, while critics see her as a figure whose actions may contribute to governance by those ill-suited for leadership.

IF one were shooting for a kakistocracy, Donald Trump has been following a path supporting that is his intention.

The term "kakistocracy," derived from the Greek words "kakistos" (meaning "worst") and "kratos" (meaning "rule"), refers to governance by the least qualified or most unscrupulous individuals. Critics have applied this term to former President Donald Trump's administration, citing several factors that they argue support this characterization.

1. Appointment of Unqualified Loyalists:

• Trump has been noted for nominating individuals to key positions based on loyalty rather than expertise. This approach is seen as undermining the Constitution's vision of merit-based governance.
  Default

2. Disregard for Established Norms:

• His administration has been characterized by a willingness to flout established political and ethical norms, leading to concerns about the erosion of democratic institutions.
  The Fulcrum

3. Polarizing Leadership Style:

• Trump's leadership has been marked by divisive rhetoric and actions that have deepened political polarization, which some argue is indicative of governance by the least suitable individuals.
  The Atlantic

These factors contribute to the argument that Trump's leadership aligns with the concept of a kakistocracy, where governance is conducted by individuals considered the least qualified or most unscrupulous.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Why CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump Nominates Unqualified People to His Administration Positions

The purpose of a national leader nominating unqualified candidates to lead major departments or divisions of government can vary, often depending on the leader's intentions, ideology, or political strategy. 

Here are some possible reasons:

1. Ideological Alignment Over Expertise

The leader may prioritize loyalty or alignment with their political ideology over technical qualifications. This could be to ensure that appointees are more likely to implement the leader's agenda without resistance, even if they lack the expertise needed for the role.

2. Undermining Institutions

By placing unqualified individuals in key positions, a leader may intentionally or unintentionally weaken the effectiveness of governmental institutions. This could serve to diminish public trust in government or pave the way for restructuring the system to align with their vision.

3. Fostering Dependency

Unqualified appointees may rely more heavily on the leader for guidance or direction, reducing their independence. This dynamic can consolidate power within the leader's inner circle, as decisions and actions are more easily controlled.

4. Cronyism or Nepotism

The appointments might reflect favoritism toward friends, family, or political allies, regardless of their qualifications. This could be a way to reward loyalty, secure financial backers, or strengthen personal networks.

5. Sabotaging or Reforming a Department

A leader may wish to intentionally disrupt or dismantle a particular department or agency they view as obstructive or unnecessary. An unqualified appointee could accelerate dysfunction or make reforms easier to push through by mismanaging the existing bureaucracy.

6. Lack of Interest in Governance

In some cases, a leader may not prioritize good governance, focusing instead on personal or political gains. Appointing unqualified individuals might reflect a disregard for the importance of expertise in government.

7. Intentional Distrust of "Experts"

The leader might aim to challenge or reject traditional expertise, seeing it as aligned with an elite or establishment that they oppose. Appointing outsiders, regardless of qualifications, could resonate with populist or anti-establishment rhetoric.

8. Signaling Change

The appointments could be a symbolic gesture to disrupt the status quo. By breaking away from norms, the leader might be trying to communicate a shift in priorities, even if it comes at the expense of competence.

9. Short-Term Gains Over Long-Term Stability

The leader might prioritize immediate political victories or optics over long-term effectiveness. Unqualified appointees may be easier to manipulate or willing to take actions that more qualified individuals might resist.

While some of these reasons could be unintentional or situational, others reflect a deliberate strategy. The consequences of such appointments often manifest in inefficiencies, controversies, or crises that may undermine public trust and governance.

In his second term, Convicted Felon POTUS47 (CFPOTUS47) Donald Trump has nominated several individuals to key government positions whose qualifications have been widely questioned. 

For instance, Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host and military veteran, was confirmed as Secretary of Defense despite allegations of personal misconduct and concerns over his lack of experience in managing large organizations.

AP News

Similarly, Tulsi Gabbard, a former congresswoman and Fox News contributor, was nominated for Director of National Intelligence, a role traditionally held by individuals with extensive intelligence backgrounds. These appointments have raised concerns about the prioritization of loyalty and media presence over relevant expertise.

New York Magazine

Critics argue that such nominations may reflect a strategy to appoint loyalists who align closely with the president's views, potentially at the expense of effective governance. This approach could lead to the undermining of institutional integrity and a consolidation of power within the executive branch.

The Atlantic

The implications of appointing unqualified individuals to critical government roles include potential inefficiencies, ethical concerns, and a decrease in public trust in governmental institutions. These actions may be part of a broader effort to reshape the federal government according to the president's agenda, emphasizing loyalty and ideological alignment over traditional qualifications.

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Weird CFPOTUS47 Trump's Weird Broligarchy is different than Putin's Oligarchy

The oligarchic structures under convicted felon CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump and war criminal Vladimir Putin exhibit notable differences, particularly in their composition and the nature of their alliances.

First up, CFPOTUS47 Donald Trump's EOs:

Tracking Trump's executive orders: What he's signed so far (from Axios).

Oh, and this: Female Bishop Calls Out Trump to His Face at Church Service

Moving on...

Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, on weird Trump's weird "broligarchy" and more.

Putin's Oligarchy: In Russia, the oligarchy primarily consists of individuals who capitalized on the post-Soviet economic turmoil to amass wealth, often through acquiring state assets at undervalued prices. These oligarchs typically have backgrounds in traditional industries such as oil, gas, and minerals. Their relationship with Putin is symbiotic; they support his regime and, in return, receive protection and opportunities to maintain and expand their wealth. However, this alliance is precarious, as any dissent or miscalculation can lead to severe repercussions, including loss of assets or imprisonment.

Financial Times

Trump's Oligarchy: In contrast, the emerging oligarchy in the United States under Donald Trump's leadership is characterized by the involvement of tech magnates and billionaires from the technology sector. Figures such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg have shown significant support for Trump's administration, attending private events and making substantial financial contributions. This alliance suggests a potential shift in American politics, where ultra-wealthy tech elites hold considerable influence over government policies. Unlike the Russian model, this oligarchy is deeply intertwined with the technology industry, potentially affecting areas like federal regulations, government spending, and the dissemination of information.

The Atlantic

Key Differences:

• Industry Focus: Russia's oligarchy is rooted in traditional industries like energy and minerals, whereas the U.S. version under Trump is heavily influenced by the technology sector.

• Nature of Alliances: In Russia, oligarchs often emerged from the privatization chaos of the 1990s, forming alliances based on mutual survival and benefit. In the U.S., tech billionaires are aligning with the government to potentially shape policies that favor technological advancement and deregulation.

• Stability of Relationships: Russian oligarchs operate in a more volatile environment, where falling out of favor with Putin can lead to dire consequences. In contrast, U.S. tech magnates engage in a more stable political climate, using their influence to steer policies without the same level of personal risk.

These distinctions highlight how different political and economic contexts shape the formation and operation of oligarchies in Russia and the United States.

So, Trump has less control of his?

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin exercises substantial control over the oligarchs. During his tenure, he restructured the power dynamics established in the 1990s, ensuring that oligarchs operated under the state's influence. This transformation led to a system where oligarchs serve at the discretion of state officials, consolidating wealth and power within a close-knit circle. Notably, 110 individuals control 35% of Russia's wealth, reflecting the concentration of economic power.

Wikipedia

Trump's Relationship with Tech Billionaires:

In contrast, during Donald Trump's presidency, the relationship between the administration and tech billionaires like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg was more collaborative than controlling. These tech magnates actively supported Trump's administration, participating in private events and making substantial financial contributions. For instance, Elon Musk contributed $200 million to Trump's Super PAC and was prominently featured during the inauguration ceremonies. This support suggests a mutual alignment of interests rather than direct control by the state over these individuals.

AP News

Comparative Analysis:

While Putin maintains a hierarchical structure where oligarchs are subordinate to state authority, Trump's interaction with tech billionaires indicates a partnership model. In this model, both the administration and the tech leaders pursue shared goals, such as reducing federal bureaucracy and influencing policy directions. Therefore, it can be inferred that Trump has less direct control over his allied billionaires compared to Putin's authoritative stance over Russian oligarchs.

Tech Billionaires' Influence in Trump's Administration

AP News
Elon Musk's prominence during inauguration ceremonies stamps tech titan's place in Trump's orbit

The Atlantic
The Tech Oligarchy Arrives

AP News
As Biden warns of an 'oligarchy,' Trump will be flanked by tech billionaires at his inauguration

Which is more dangerous for their country?

Elon Musk, January 20, 2025

Putin's Oligarchy:

Characteristics:

• Centralized Control: Putin's tight grip over Russian oligarchs creates a system where dissent is punished, leading to reduced checks on government power.
• Economic Dependency: A significant portion of Russia's wealth is concentrated in traditional industries (oil, gas, and minerals), making the economy vulnerable to external shocks like sanctions or fluctuating commodity prices.
• Suppression of Dissent: This system stifles political opposition, independent media, and civil society, fostering authoritarianism.
• Global Risks: The reliance on state-controlled oligarchs allows Putin to weaponize economic resources (e.g., gas supplies to Europe), affecting international stability.

Dangers to Russia:

• Concentrated power undermines democratic development.
• Economic stagnation due to corruption and lack of innovation.
• Long-term instability if the system collapses without Putin's centralized control.

---

Trump's Oligarchy:

Characteristics:

• Decentralized Influence: U.S. billionaires like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg exert influence independently, often shaping policy through lobbying, donations, and media ownership.
• Focus on Technology: The dominance of tech magnates introduces risks of monopolization, privacy violations, and algorithmic manipulation.
• Weaker Government Control: Unlike Putin, Trump does not directly control these individuals but aligns with them on policies that benefit their interests, such as deregulation and tax cuts.
• Polarization: The relationship between wealthy elites and government may exacerbate political polarization and inequality, undermining public trust in institutions.

Dangers to the U.S.:

• Increased inequality and erosion of public trust in democracy.
• Greater influence of unelected billionaires on public policy.
• Potential manipulation of information ecosystems (e.g., social media algorithms) to shape public opinion and elections.

---

Which is More Dangerous?

1. To Their Own Country:

   • Putin's oligarchy is arguably more dangerous to Russia due to its suppression of political freedoms, economic stagnation, and reliance on authoritarianism, which can lead to long-term instability and collapse.
   • Trump's oligarchy presents a subtler danger through the erosion of democratic norms, increasing inequality, and empowering tech giants to influence policy without accountability.

2. To Global Stability:

   • Putin's oligarchy poses a more immediate threat to international stability through aggressive foreign policies and economic weaponization.
   • Trump's oligarchy might destabilize the global tech landscape, raising concerns about privacy, monopolization, and the spread of disinformation.

Conclusion: While both systems have significant risks, Putin's oligarchy appears more dangerous in the short term due to its authoritarian grip and international aggressiveness. 

However, Convicted Feon POTUS Trump's model could well have longer-term ramifications for democracy and global governance, particularly if left unchecked.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

 

America in 2025: Democracy to Oligarchy (& Kakistocracy)

With the inauguration of convicted Felon Donald Trump today, we have to consider where we are at. And it does not look good. While some praise it as a New America. Something we have heard criminals claim at various times in the past, always proven to be untrue. Those like Joseph McCarthy with his "red scare" who, as with Trump, is just a calling of others to arms to empower himself, first and foremost. 

Donald Trump as POTUS47. It this the beginning of the end for us? Or the end of the beginning? Is this the beginning of an authoritarian America, or simply growing pains to strengthen America from ever again going down this anti-democratic and authoritarian path of disingenuity, disinformation, disruption, and destruction?

Kakistocracy. by the way, refers to a system of government in which the leaders are the least qualified, most corrupt, or most incompetent individuals available. The term comes from the Greek words kakistos (meaning "worst") and kratos (meaning "rule" or "power"), and it describes a government run by those who are corrupt, inept, or unfit to govern. In a kakistocracy, power is typically held by individuals who act in their own self-interest rather than for the benefit of the public, often leading to mismanagement, widespread corruption, and poor governance.

Why? Because this IS what (and who) Trump is, in nominating to lead our government institutions people lacking proper qualifications for their nominated positions. 

Why?

Putting unqualified individuals in positions of power and institutions can happen for a variety of reasons, often influenced by political, economic, or ideological factors. Here are a few common reasons why this might occur:

1. Political Patronage and Loyalty: In some cases, leaders or political parties may prioritize loyalty and personal connections over qualifications. Appointing friends, allies, or political supporters, regardless of their competence, helps maintain power and solidify political support. This can lead to positions being filled by individuals who lack the skills or knowledge required to perform effectively.

2. Ideological or Partisan Goals: Political leaders might appoint individuals who share their specific ideological or partisan views, even if they are not qualified for the role. The goal may be to advance a particular agenda rather than ensuring competent governance. This is often seen in the appointment of judges, agency heads, or other key figures in the administration.

3. Cronyism and Corruption: In some cases, the appointment of unqualified individuals is a result of cronyism or corruption. Individuals may be chosen because they are willing to engage in corrupt practices or because they offer financial or personal benefits to those in power. This often undermines the effectiveness and integrity of institutions.

4. Political and Business Influence: Large corporations, interest groups, or wealthy individuals may influence the appointment of unqualified people to positions of power to protect their own interests. By placing their allies in positions of influence, they can shape policies that benefit their business or financial goals, sometimes at the expense of public welfare.

5. Lack of Accountability: In some systems, especially those with weak checks and balances, leaders may be able to appoint unqualified individuals without facing significant public scrutiny or consequences. In such environments, there may be little to no pressure to ensure that the most qualified individuals are appointed to positions of power.

6. Short-Term Political Gains: Some leaders may prioritize short-term political or electoral gains over long-term governance and effectiveness. Appointing individuals who can mobilize a certain voter base, or who are seen as symbols of a particular movement, may be seen as more beneficial in the short run, even if they lack qualifications.

7. Ideological Disregard for Expertise: Some populist or anti-establishment movements deliberately place unqualified individuals in power as a rejection of traditional elites, experts, or institutions. This is often framed as a way to "drain the swamp" or challenge the establishment, though it can lead to ineffective governance.

In all these cases, the decision to place unqualified people in power can harm institutions, diminish the quality of governance, and erode public trust in the system. It may also result in poor decision-making and the mismanagement of critical issues, potentially leading to long-term damage to a country's political and economic health.

While some may believe that Donald Trump is saving them from our government (apparently by destroying it), it is an irrational and disreputable view regarding our most immoral (and effectively nearly our worst) POTUS...a convicted felon who was re-elected under circumstances of delusion and frankly, criminal intent. 

In presidential rankings, Abraham Lincoln rated #1. Barack Obama rated #10. Donald Trump...#41 out of our 46 presidents as of today (with tomorrow being convicted felon Donald Trump's inauguration as POTUS47.

The image above illustrates themes of power dynamics and collective action. It depicts a transformation from oppression to liberation: initially, a figure wields a whip over a submissive group, but the group eventually rises against the oppressor. The image suggests that solidarity and collective action can overpower tyranny.

In the context of the past 20 years in America, and particularly with the framing of Donald Trump as either a savior or a manipulator, interpretations vary depending on political alignment. But it's quite obvious to anyone paying close, or even distant attention (as with our friends worldwide) that Donald Trump is part of a tyrannical orientation with an easily uncovered disreputable career.

Conservative Perspective:

Many conservatives see Trump as the figure fighting against entrenched elites, "saving" the people from oppressive systems like "the swamp," big government, or globalist agendas. To them, Trump represents the individual who breaks the whip held by these powers. "Conservatism" today, is not what it once was. Or as it's still claimed to be.

While both forms of conservatism value national identity, personal liberty, and tradition, Trump’s conservatism has brought a more combative and populist tone to the forefront, often challenging the status quo and the institutions that traditional conservatism sought to preserve.

Opposing Perspective:

Critics argue that Trump himself embodies the authoritarian figure, concentrating power and leveraging divisive rhetoric to maintain control. From this perspective, his actions and policies (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental deregulation, and alleged undermining of democratic norms) disproportionately serve elites rather than ordinary citizens, contradicting the notion of him as a liberator.

Overarching Theme:

The image underscores the potential for manipulation of collective belief systems. Trump's supporters might view themselves as the liberated group, but critics could argue that their alignment with Trump perpetuates systemic oppression under the guise of populist rhetoric. The image invites reflection on how leaders use narratives of "us versus them" to wield influence and whether true liberation is achieved or if the cycle of oppression continues under a different guise.

Pointing out how the objective view about Donald Trump is not a good one as he is a convicted felon and has been a lifelong and career criminal.

The claim that Donald Trump is a "convicted felon" is inaccurate as of now. While he has faced numerous legal challenges, including indictments and civil lawsuits, none have yet resulted in a felony conviction. However, he has been found liable in certain civil cases, including one involving sexual abuse and defamation. It is critical to distinguish between criminal convictions and civil liabilities when discussing his record.

That said, Trump has faced significant legal and ethical controversies over the years that invite scrutiny. Here's an objective overview of some of the major issues often cited by critics:

1. History of Fraud and Business Misconduct

• The Trump University case resulted in a $25 million settlement after allegations that the program defrauded students.
• The Trump Foundation was dissolved in 2019 following a lawsuit alleging misuse of charitable funds for personal and political purposes.
• Multiple contractors and employees have accused Trump of failing to pay for services rendered.

2. Tax and Financial Irregularities

• Trump was the first president in decades to refuse to release his tax returns voluntarily, raising questions about transparency.
• The New York Times' investigation into his taxes revealed years of aggressive tax avoidance, claiming substantial losses to offset income and paying little to no federal income tax in some years.

3. Criminal Indictments (2023–2024)

• Trump has been criminally indicted four times in connection with:
  • Classified documents case: Mishandling sensitive national security documents after leaving office.
  • 2020 election interference: Allegations of attempting to overturn election results in Georgia and on a federal level.
  • Stormy Daniels hush money case: Alleged falsification of business records to conceal payments.
  • January 6th Capitol attack: Charged for conspiring to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and inciting insurrection.

4. Evasion of Accountability

• Critics argue that Trump's tactics often involve delaying and deflecting through lawsuits, appeals, and public attacks on institutions like the judiciary, FBI, and DOJ. This behavior erodes trust in the rule of law and democratic norms.

5. Ethical Concerns During His Presidency

• Emoluments clause violations: Accusations of profiting from the presidency by promoting his properties for official government and foreign delegations.
• Nepotism: Appointing his children and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to key advisory roles despite their lack of qualifications.
• Use of presidential power for personal gain: Pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden (which led to his first impeachment).

6. Patterns of Manipulation and Deception

• Trump has a documented history of making false or misleading statements, with fact-checkers counting tens of thousands during his presidency. Critics argue that his frequent use of misinformation undermines public trust.

7. Social and Political Impact

• Trump's divisive rhetoric has exacerbated polarization, emboldened extremist groups, and fueled distrust in democratic institutions.
• His role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection marked a low point in American democracy, with many viewing it as an attack on the peaceful transfer of power.

The Broader Implications

While Trump’s supporters delusionally view him as a fighter against corrupt elites (which he is himself), critics and most rational thinkers argue his actions consistently reflect self-interest, authoritarianism, and a disregard for democratic norms, the US Constitution, and the law.

Controversies surrounding Donald Trump and those from his inner circle, suggest patterns of prioritizing personal and political gains over accountability, ethical governance, or public service. To wit, a career of criminality and abuse.

With convicted felon Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday, January 20, 2025, a new era of America arises under the auspices of an authoritarian and convicted criminal as POTUS47. 

US institutions and the US Constitution, aside from the Department of Justice (recognizing its own failures in holding Trump accountable after he left office in 2021), politically swelter under the weight of the Trump crime organization, now being assimilated within the US Government as it reforms it from an oligarchy or plutocracy, with elements of kleptocracy, into a kakistocracy.

As of January 19, 2025, the most fitting description of the United States, based on current political and economic trends, could be oligarchy or plutocracy, with elements of kleptocracy and meritocracy also being relevant, depending on the specific issue being discussed.

• Oligarchy: Many critics of the U.S. system argue that power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of wealthy individuals, corporations, and interest groups, who influence policy through lobbying, campaign contributions, and media ownership. This has led to concerns that the government serves the interests of the elite rather than the general population, especially on issues like tax policy, healthcare, and corporate regulation.

• Plutocracy: With the growing influence of wealth in politics, such as the rise of super PACs, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals, and the outsized impact of billionaires on elections, the term "plutocracy" is often used to highlight the role that wealth plays in shaping political outcomes. This has raised concerns that economic inequality has reached levels where the rich can effectively control government policy.

• Kleptocracy: While the term "kleptocracy" generally refers to the outright theft of state resources for personal gain, there have been instances where government officials or business elites have been accused of corruption, embezzlement, and self-dealing, particularly in relation to issues like government contracts, tax policy, and regulatory capture. Critics of the current system sometimes use the term to suggest that corruption is pervasive at the highest levels of power.

• Meritocracy: Despite its ideal, the U.S. is increasingly criticized for not functioning as a true meritocracy, especially with regard to social mobility. Structural inequalities related to race, class, education, and geography have made it difficult for many Americans to succeed based purely on merit. However, meritocratic ideals are still often used to justify policies, particularly in education and employment.

As of January 19, 2025, the most fitting description of the United States IS, based on current political and economic trends with Donald Trump's inauguration tomorrow, is that of a plutocracy or oligarchy, where wealth and concentrated power shape the political landscape, limiting true democratic representation. 

However, aspects of kleptocracy (with lingering remains of an ever-decreasing meritocracy), still play roles in the broader discussion of American governance, depending on the specific issue being discussed.

Much of the problem is Donald Trump's divisional tactics to divide and conquer America. WE can do better together. We all need to see that.

We can do better. But not if one cannot see beyond one's partisan, especially when delusional, beliefs.

Do we even want to do better anymore? Because it doesn't seem like it as those on the right denigrate democracy, praise authoritarianism and autocratic enemies of Western democracies, and continue to confuse reality with fantasy and tribalism.

We CAN do better. Easily. 

Reality still matters. While we are welcome to our own opinions, we are not welcome to have our own personal (or tribal or partisan)...facts.

Let's end with these two thoughts:

Twenty Lessons On Tyranny, From the Twentieth Century - Timothy Snyder.

And finally...

Why I remain hopeful about America Even as darkness falls - Robert Reich

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Gospel of Power: Trump, Crime, and the Illiberal Republican Vision via Christian Nationalism

Christian Nationalism in a liberal democratic constitutional republic, is a blight, as is American Evangelicalism when fused with things outside (and inside) the realm of religion (see also, mega-churches, and RICO) that is leading to a Kakistocracy.

From Democracy to Theocracy, from Oligarchy to Kleptocracy: 

Trump’s Exploitation of the nightmare of Christian Nationalism (see also, pre-WWII German and the rise of Hitler's Nazism), and the advent of Kakistocracy.

• Democracy: literally, rule by the people. Democracy is vital for a civilized society. When a country or community is democratic, it lets everyone have a say in who runs the country, makes the laws, and governs the people. If only some people are allowed to make these decisions, it is not fair to everyone else who has to live by them.
• Theocracy: Theocracy is a form of government where it is believed that a god, deity, or group of deities, or a deity is in charge. The supreme being is usually thought to rule through human figures, like politicians and clergy, who are believed to be in direct contact with and/or of direct descent from the supreme being.
• Oligarchy: A system of government in which a few individuals are responsible for ruling over or making governing decisions for a country. The word has Greek roots and is derived from oligoi, which means ''a few,'' and arkhein, which means ''to rule.'
• Kleptocracy: Most explanations of kleptocracy – derived from the Greek for ‘thief’ and ‘rule’ – stress the aspect of ‘grand corruption’ whereby high-level political power is abused to enable a network of ruling elites to steal public funds for their own private gain using public institutions. Kleptocracy is therefore a system based on virtually unlimited grand corruption coupled with, in the words of American academic Andrew Wedeman, ‘near-total impunity for those authorized to loot by the thief-in-chief’ – namely the head of state.
• Kakistocracy (see also, Donald Trump, POTUS45, & POTUS47): A government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens: Kakistocracy is one of those words so seldom heard that it might be taken to represent some­thing that never existed. It means “a government by the worst men.” Lowell gave the term an intolerant but more colorful definition, “a government… for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools.” To wit: "Trump’s kakistocracy invites possible catastrophe."

First, here are a couple of references, the first from a recent blog of mine:

• Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 Years
• A History of Christian Nationalism
• Meet The Christians Pushing Back On Christian Nationalism

Now, to detail how Donald Trump has abused Christian Nationalism to bring their illiberal fantasies to fruition, in giving them the power to empower him, to breach our separation of church and state, to bring about their anti-American, nonsensical and dangerous, Christian delusions.

Donald Trump has leveraged Christian nationalism to consolidate support among religious conservatives and bolster his political power. By aligning his rhetoric and policies with the movement's goals, Trump has become a figurehead for an illiberal vision of governance that intertwines religion with state authority, undermining the separation of church and state.

Christian nationalism promotes the idea that the U.S. is divinely chosen as a Christian nation and that its laws and governance should reflect conservative Christian values.

This...is utter bullshit.

Trump exploited this narrative by casting himself as a defender of "traditional" Christian values against perceived secular and liberal threats. For instance, he frequently invoked religious themes, such as protecting "religious freedom," while implementing policies that aligned with Christian nationalist priorities, like restricting abortion rights and favoring policies seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ+ individuals.

Trump's courtship of Christian nationalists often involved overt displays of religiosity, despite his personal history being at odds with evangelical values. His appointment of conservative judges, particularly to the Supreme Court, fulfilled a long-standing goal of Christian nationalists to shift American jurisprudence in a direction more sympathetic to their worldview, particularly on issues like abortion and religious exemptions in public policy.

This strategy has roots in the Republican Party's historical alignment with religious conservatism, dating back to the "Southern Strategy" of the Nixon era. The approach used race, religion, and cultural issues to polarize voters and diminish the salience of class and economic concerns. Trump took this further, employing more explicit appeals to xenophobia and racism while maintaining the focus on culture wars. His framing of liberals, secularists, and immigrants as existential threats to the nation echoed the Christian nationalist narrative of defending America from both internal and external enemies.

These tactics have mobilized a substantial base of religious conservatives while drawing criticism from other Christian groups and secular organizations that view the movement as a distortion of democratic and religious principles. Many have argued that Christian nationalism's focus on power and dominance conflicts with the pluralistic ideals upon which the United States was founded, and they see Trump's exploitation of this ideology as a direct challenge to the constitutional principle of separating church and state​.

What is the fix to this crap perpetrated by an ever-increasing illiberal Republican Party and a criminal element as exemplified by Donald Trump, his crime family, and the criminals Donald Trump has empowered in his cabinet, and his administration?

Addressing the rise of Christian nationalism and its impact on American governance requires a multi-pronged approach that reaffirms democratic principles, protects the separation of church and state, and fosters a more inclusive society. Here are key steps to mitigate this trend:

1. Civic Education and Advocacy

• Promote Constitutional Literacy: Increase public understanding of the First Amendment and the principle of church-state separation. Educational programs and public campaigns can help counter misinformation.
• Empower Advocacy Groups: Support organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which work to uphold secular governance and challenge policies that undermine religious neutrality.

2. Strengthening Legal Protections

• Enforce Church-State Separation: Courts should continue to uphold rulings that prevent religious influence from dictating public policy, such as school prayer mandates or preferential treatment for specific religions.
• Challenge Misuse of Religious Freedom: Monitor and contest laws that misuse the concept of religious liberty to justify discrimination or erode rights.

3. Building Broad-Based Coalitions

• Interfaith and Secular Collaboration: Encourage alliances between religious and secular groups that oppose Christian nationalism, emphasizing shared values like justice, equality, and respect for diversity.
• Community Engagement: Foster dialogue within communities to address the concerns of religious conservatives while advocating for policies that are inclusive of all faiths and beliefs.

4. Political and Electoral Strategies

• Counter Culture War Narratives: Politicians and public figures must articulate alternative visions that focus on unity, economic fairness, and individual freedoms rather than divisive cultural issues.
• Encourage Voter Turnout: Mobilize voters, especially among younger and more diverse demographics, to elect candidates committed to upholding secular democracy.

5. Promote Religious Diversity

• Highlight Pluralism in America: Showcase the rich diversity of religious and non-religious traditions in the U.S. to combat the notion that the country belongs to one faith tradition.
• Support Public Religious Dialogue: Encourage discussions that emphasize the role of religion as a personal, not political, force in society.

6. Media and Counter-Narratives

• Fact-Check and Debunk Propaganda: Actively counter misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by Christian nationalist movements.
• Support Independent Media: Fund and follow outlets that provide balanced reporting and expose the dangers of merging religion with state power.

7. Grassroots Action

• Empower Local Communities: Encourage grassroots efforts to resist the imposition of Christian nationalist policies, such as organizing against book bans or curriculum changes that promote religious indoctrination.
• Engage Youth: Invest in youth programs that teach critical thinking, civic responsibility, and respect for diversity.

Long-Term Cultural Change

Ultimately, reducing the influence of Christian nationalism requires cultural change that embraces pluralism, reinforces democracy, and rejects authoritarianism. This involves creating spaces where diverse beliefs can coexist peacefully and ensuring that political power is not monopolized by any one ideology or group​.

How do we address the challenges posed by an increasingly illiberal Republican Party and the influence of Donald Trump, his associates, and policies that have empowered a criminal and authoritarian political culture, a multifaceted approach is essential?

Here's what can be done:

1. Restore Accountability in Government

• Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms: Bolster independent bodies like inspectors general, ethics committees, and watchdog organizations to monitor and investigate abuses of power.
• Legal Reforms: Close legal loopholes exploited for personal or political gain, such as strengthening laws around emoluments, conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice.
• Prosecutions and Transparency: Ensure that alleged crimes and misconduct are investigated and prosecuted, no matter how high-ranking the official, to restore faith in the rule of law.

2. Reaffirm Democratic Norms

• Election Integrity: Counter voter suppression efforts, enhance election security, and make voting more accessible to combat undemocratic tactics.
• Strengthen Civic Institutions: Support nonpartisan initiatives that promote democratic norms, media literacy, and informed participation in governance.

3. Combat Authoritarian Narratives

• Fact-Checking and Media Accountability: Actively counter misinformation and lies, especially those propagated by high-ranking officials and partisan media outlets.
• Public Education Campaigns: Promote an understanding of democratic principles, emphasizing the dangers of authoritarianism and corruption.

4. Rebuild Ethical Leadership

• Cultivate Moral Leadership: Elect leaders who prioritize public service and ethical governance over personal enrichment or party loyalty.
• Promote Whistleblowing Protections: Safeguard those who expose wrongdoing within administrations.

5. Engage Grassroots Movements

• Mobilize Local Action: Empower communities to resist undemocratic policies and advocate for reforms through local government, protests, and voter education.
• Support Nonprofit Advocacy: Strengthen organizations that fight for justice, transparency, and democratic governance.

6. Strengthen Judicial Independence

• Depoliticize Judicial Appointments: Advocate for reforms that reduce partisanship in selecting judges to maintain impartiality in the judiciary.
• Review Supreme Court Policies: Consider measures like term limits or ethical standards for justices to ensure accountability.

7. Reduce Corruption's Influence

• Campaign Finance Reform: Limit the role of money in politics to reduce the power of wealthy donors and lobbyists over public policy.
• Transparency in Governance: Require robust financial disclosures from public officials and enforce anti-corruption laws.

8. Foster a Unified Resistance

• Cross-Partisan Coalitions: Work with conservatives, moderates, and progressives who share concerns about authoritarianism to build a broader defense of democracy.
• Promote Unity Around Democratic Values: Focus on shared goals like fairness, accountability, and the rule of law to bridge divides and counter authoritarianism.

By taking these steps, it is possible to restore democratic principles, resist authoritarian tendencies, and ensure that the government serves the people rather than entrenched power structures or criminal elements.

I wish us all the best...

Image by & Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT