donald-trump

Rebuilding the Agencies

When the next administration is sworn in, January 2029, they are going to have some major challenges. Every time you read about another career prosecutor leaving the DoJ over some prosecution they refuse to file, it’s another person that put their agency and their profession above politics. Everyone that stays, and is willing to file those charges, is someone who caves. It’s likely that a number of senior people being promoted, who will promote other people underneath them, at best put their career above their ethics. At worst, they put their politics above their ethics. Perhaps so much so that they will undermine a Democrat administration.

Some of these folks will see the writing on the wall and will leave to start a podcast, “telling all” about the failed Democrat justice department. And with no sense of irony, will talk about how they were pushed toward political prosecutions. They will join a long line of other former federal law enforcement that quit to specially crap on Democrats. That’s nothing new. I would be surprised if the bulk of federal law enforcement didn’t lean Republican. And they’re not above the tribal fighting that the current administration is promoting. What’s happening is the ones who may vote Republican, but put their professional ethics and their agency above politics, are being pushed out. The saving grace, if there is one, is craven people are usually less competent.

But what does the next administration do? Does it start to go through the agencies, with a wire brush, making it clear they want the nakedly partisan people gone? Pam Bondi and Cash Patel will be gone the moment a Democrat president’s hand comes off the bible, January 2029. There will be, and should be, no discussion of keeping those unqualified political hacks in place one minute longer than necessary. Along with many of their deputies and assistants, who would normally be held over into a new administration, at least for a time. I don’t think it will take long for them to see that some people are the result of four years of intentionally injecting politics into prosecutions. And those people have to go.

In a sentence, the next administration will be accused of exactly what this administration is doing. Even if their goal is to simply get rid of the lackeys and hacks.

In the same way the Supreme Court is giving the administration a free hand on even long stand precedent regarding independent agencies, they will try to curtail the new administration. If the Democrat fires commissioners at the FCC, for example, I’m sure they’ll suddenly rediscover the error of their previous decisions. And I’m sure when it comes to suits by civil servants being pushed out because they are brazenly political, they will be horrified that a Democrat would politicize the justice department.

I have no illusions about the Federal Courts any more. I think they mostly follow the law, and some cases depend on how you see the world in interpreting the law, but the result of the Trump appointments (and the failure of Obama and then Biden to fill those appointments) is a more political judiciary. One that will impede the return back to a professional, ethical Federal law enforcement bureaucracy.

Tit for Tat When It’s The Chicken Game

Game Theory was part of my economics education and later my computer science education. Game theory analyzes interactions between competitors to understand the strategies, given the incentives and the rules of the game. The overused example is the prisoner’s dilemma. Two prisoners locked in separate interrogation rooms have two options: to stay quiet or rat out the other prisoner. They are unable to communicate. If both stay quiet, they will get convicted of a crime with a short sentence. The prisoner who rats out the other prisoner, while the other prisoner stays quiet, gets off. The prisoner who stays silent, while the other rats him out, gets the worse sentence. The player that is silent while the other player rats is called the patsy. If they both rat each other out, they get a medium sentence.

Without getting too deep into the weeds, if you play the game repeatedly, players do best if they adopt a tit-for-tat strategy. One player stays silent, and on the next iteration the other player also goes silent. If they both stay silent, they do much better. If one player decides to “get one over” on the other player by ratting them out, the other player goes back to ratting. And the player who ratted has to accept the cost of staying silent and being the patsy to get back to a better outcome. Therefore, no one has an advantage when cheating, except it will cost them more than if they hadn’t cheated. I’ve heard the argument made the Democrats need to start playing tit for tat instead of being a permanent patsy.

The Republicans keep ratting (abandoning norms and breaking the law) and the Democrats keep silent (playing by norms and rules). In game theory speak, the Republicans are defecting (not cooperating) and the Democrats are cooperating. But I’m not sure that’s we are playing the prisoner’s dilemma. There’s another game called the chicken game. (Named for the “sport” of two drivers hurtling toward each other in their cars, with the one who swerves becomes the loser). In this game there are different payouts. If player 1 does not swerve, but player 2 swerves, player 1 gets their best outcome. Player 2 loses some face. The worst outcome (they both die) happens when the both do not swerve. Unlike the prisoner’s dilemma, where if they both rat on each other, the outcome is not their worst. For the chicken game, this is not just the worst outcome, it is a catastrophically bad outcome. If they both swerve, it’s a draw and neither wins or loses face. In this game swerving is cooperating strategy and not swerving is considered the defecting (not cooperating) strategy.

A slightly modified chicken game is the game I think Republicans are playing. They can reign in the administration, by cooperating with Democrats, but that costs them their job during primary season. Unlike the normal chicken game, where if both parties cooperate it’s a tie, any cooperation with Democrats is loses face. But the the country is in tact. Or, they can defect and not reign in the administration, expecting the Democrats will cooperate by obeying norms and laws, and the Republicans expand their power. That’s their best outcome. But what happens if we apply tit-for-tat to the chicken game and Democrats stop cooperating until Republicans cooperate? We get a catastrophic outcome. In the cold war days, this was the strategy of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The US can back down and lose face, the Soviet Union can back down and lose face, but if neither backs down, there aren’t enough bulldozers to scrape up all the dead bodies.

Look at what happened when Joe Biden came to power. Initially, the goal was to prosecute just the protestors breaking into the Capital. The norm was to never prosecute the opposite party, lest that open up a Pandora’s box of criminal accusations at every transfer of power. The restrained effort to hold the ex-President accountable moved through bi-partisan commissions and through Congress, not the White House. They retained Republican appointees at Justice for their full terms. Republicans didn’t cooperate, while the Democrats reliably cooperated. As the Democrats had cooperated by preserving order in the Senate during the made up “norms” Mitch McConnell discovered about Supreme Court nominees. The Republicans are fully expecting the Democrats to swerve again, should they lose the presidency in 2028 or the house, and maybe the Senate, in 2026. Republicans are not expecting something like a two year delay on the a Supreme Court appointment, if Clarence Thomas leaves the bench.

The idea the Democrats will fall back to norms partially preserves the system. If there’s a transfer of power we can all take a breather. We might get lucky and everyone goes back to norms from here on. At least half of the political machine is still invested in the system. If Democrats play tit for tat and stop cooperating until the Republicans cooperate? If no one is invested in the system, it completely breaks down. At that point it’s no longer a democracy. It’s mob rule and he who has the biggest mob rules. Instead of an orderly transfer of power it’s a shoving match at the end to see who comes out on top and woe to him that does not. There are countries like this all over the world, where once power changes, people flee the country to avoid being arrested. And we could very well become that kind of country. (Although some people think we’re already there because they’ve never traveled to any one of these places and are deluded).

The more brazen the Republicans get, the less tied they are to norms and rules, the bigger the stakes if the Democrats apply tit for tat. With the conduct of ICE, and the the highly politicized FBI covering for ICE, we may already see the people they’ve killed as extra-judicial murders. What if Democrats come into power and decide to arrest hundreds of ICE agents and arraign them on Federal murder chargers and others with felony murder? (Felony murder is charging someone with murder if they aid or abet a murder. Even lending a car, without knowing there was a murder, has been grounds to charge someone with felony murder). And what if the DoJ and Treasury (no longer independent and summarily replaced with partisans) go after the right wing pod casters and big Republican donors. (I suspect there’s something Elon can be charged with without even stretching the truth). Maybe start charging anything crypto related with money laundering, unless they buy into the new Democrat run “clean” crypto. Maybe force the companies Trump has bought into to higher key Democrats into the C-suite?

And let’s be clear about something. In countries where norms don’t form or where norms are abandoned, corruption follows. As long as you have power you need to extract wealth and create a system of patronage, just as the Republicans are doing now. To hold power, you need people who are vested in you maintaining power. That flows by bestowing money or status. Tim Cook and Apple would be just as happy to give a Democrat a gold iPhone, if it meant some kind of special treatment. They might grumble, but even oil executives will happily line blue as well as red pockets. And if enough executives are getting snatched up for tax evasion, they could be incentivized to behave themselves. And if those that behave are rewarded, even better. Especially if they were were afraid the arrest would involve a degree of physical violence.

So what’s the out, if we don’t want to become as ineffective a government as your stereotypical banana republic? Are Democrats turned into eternal patsies, while Republicans take increasing liberties with the constitution? Unlike the prisoner’s dilemma, chicken game participants can and do communicate. The Democrats can signal they will stop cooperating next round and that they will be just as bad, if not worse. To make this threat credible, they really need to gin up the base. This isn’t easy, but some of the administration’s actions are making it easier. This is not something Chuck Schumer, or his imaginary friends the Baileys, can do. Or the Obamas, frankly. As Amanda has said, this “we go high” strategy doesn’t always work. Sometimes, if they spit in your face, you need to make them spit out their teeth. Nor is the far left useful. They are more willing to tear apart the slightly less politically correct left, than do anything particularly useful.

Of course, the Republicans may not believe it. This was the real danger of MAD (mutually assured destruction). If the other side mistook your actions as guaranteed cooperation, and lost confidence in your willingness to respond, you could very well wind up in nuclear war. To avoid nuclear war, you had to convince the other side you would respond quickly and robustly. But we don’t have to completely convince every Republican, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it would be the end of the American system. We would only need to make them think it is sufficiently likely. Unless they moderate and return to norms, and look at cooperating as not so bad compared to other outcomes, they have no incentive to change. Right now, I don’t think Republicans believe Democrats have the balls. If things get bad enough, the danger is the Democrats get pushed into a tit for tat strategy when the base demands they don’t chicken out this time. And we wind up not with the third worst outcome (from prisoner’s dilemma), but with the destruction part of mutually assured destruction.

Finally, Someone Engaged with Reality

In the effort of appearing statesmen or scrupulous guardians of norms and decorum, too many politicians and members of the press have used language mask the illegal, brazen, and power hungry nature of the administration’s actions. They couch the actions in terms of difference of opinion or something on which they can “work with the administration.” I never expected the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to be the one that calls out, in plain language, exactly what is happening.

Politicians on the left and the right have been intentionally or unintentionally legitimizing an illegal authoritarian drive toward power by not wanting to directly confront the problem. Too many in the press have treated insane statements by the administration not as the crazy they are, but as something on which “legal experts disagree,” as if there is a legitimate debate. Their inability to face reality is leading us down a road to the end of the American experiment. A country that is a constitutional republic in name only. The irony is America’s experiment may be coming to an end as we approach its 250th birthday.

If it were just this action, I would assume it was petty, vindictive, and likely a dead end. But this is just one more data point in a long line of data points where complicit republicans and compliant democrats largely rolled over. And a supreme court that uses the shadow docket to “let it slide for now.” (Don’t worry, they’ll re-discover limits to executive power when a Democrat is president).

The drive to establish a fraud prosecutor tied directly to the White House instead of the DoJ smacks of the kind of political prosecuting that happens in dictatorships. Putin didn’t start by throwing his enemies in jail for what they said, they were often prosecuted for “tax fraud.” Xi didn’t purge his opposition by charging them with personal disloyalty, he arrested them for corruption. In America the indictment may not result in an automatic conviction, but even if it doesn’t, the defendant has to hire lawyers capable of defending them in Federal criminal court. That may be multiple attorneys, each billing in the neighborhood of $500 an hour on up.

I have a friend who believes that Trump didn’t do anything wrong on January 6. That the rioters were not criminals, or were let in, or were driven to it by FBI provocateurs. I can’t bring him back to reality. That people were prosecuted as part of the January 6 riot as part of a concerted effort to undo the 2020 election. To replace legitimate electors with frauds. To effectively overturn the election to keep the previous Trump administration in power. I could sit him in a room with Jack Smith and have Jack Smith walk him through all the evidence and I don’t think it would make a difference. It’s because my friend isn’t engaged with reality. And he’s representative of many of the people who voted for Trump. People who sometimes felt Trump had been treated unfairly, even if they didn’t understand all the facts about what was being alleged.

Republicans who bemoan this state of affairs in private, or sometimes in public, have often failed to step up when asked, picking their party over the country with devastating consistency. To those Republicans who stick their heads in the sand, or wish things were different in private, I say “fuck you” and grow a pair of balls. To those democrats looking for a middle ground that isn’t confronting this for what it is, I say “fuck you” and wake the hell up or get out of the way. To the media that tries to sound balance at the expense of excusing this illegality, I say “fuck you,” and grow a spine. At the end of the day, the lot of you seem like you’ve disconnected from reality. That you inhabit another country where the president is normal and maybe just a little ‘colorful.’

This is the very real hellscape we’re in. Most Americans are more focused on the memes they can get out of it, rather than the fact a sitting president is trying to indict the Chairman of an independent body, in order to force him to change policy. If you think “well, he is the president, he gets to set policy” I say you are a fucking moron ignorant of basic American civics. You don’t understand our system of government. These independent agencies and the Federal Reserve were created by acts of congress and signed into law by previous presidents to keep their operations specifically out of the political spoils system. That made us not like some banana republic or tin-horn dictatorship. Now the courts are largely political and they have eroded the separation between the executive and the independent agencies to the point that we can’t really call them independent. The Federal Reserve is one of the last bastions.

To the “don’t worry, it’ll be fine in the end,” crowd, I say fuck you. I’m not sure why you think everything just turns out fine. To the “courts will deal with it” crowd, I say fuck you. There’s no guarantee you won’t get an Eileen Cannon who wouldn’t be in the tank for Trump.

For all those who wonder what the Germans, or the Italians, or the Russians were doing when their countries slid into dictatorship, it was exactly what we’re doing now. Trying to find the reasonable middle path, or trying to appear even handed, or moderating your tone to keep your press access, or sticking your head in the sand because at least your party was staying in power. There wasn’t any one day when someone could say “well, it’s official, we’re a dictatorship now.” Bit by bit they got there as everything soured. Each day a little more spoiled and rotten. This is starting to smell like the end.

Totalitarianism Is an Unneeded Expense

I covered nationalism and authoritarianism and why I think the latter is the serious issue. While you can’t have blood and soil politics without nationalism, in it’s weak form it isn’t a problem. Then I covered authoritarianism and that there is no acceptable level of authoritarianism. And why you can have authoritarianism even when the people choose it. We come to the third, but not to last, leg of the dictatorship table. Unlike a three-legged stool, dictatorships have probably four legs, maybe five, or even six legs. It takes a lot of work to dislodge the autocrat and the peoples’ thirst for an autocrat. People have a craving for order and strange fetishes a democracy will never really satisfy. Totalitarianism is just another leg. One that may not be critical in the modern age.

Total control has largely fallen out of favor. The Nazis, but more so the Soviets, really brought it home. (I will use the term Soviets broadly, encompassing the USSR and allied regimes, like East Germany, Hungary, Romania, or Yugoslavia). A totalitarian state is one where the totality of civic, artistic, and professional life falls under sway of the autocrat. There is no other party. There is no protest. There are no ‘liberal’ cities in opposition. There are no books sold at the store that are not approved. There are no films shown, records played, or news broadcast that isn’t approved by the state. In the Soviet period, especially in the 1930’s to the 1950s, possessing contraband items, expressing contraband ideas, or just running afoul of an apparatchik who desired your apartment could earn you a stint in a slave labor colony.

Modern dictatorships have not picked up the extreme totalitarian mantle. China is a hold-over from the old Soviet model, but even they realize they can’t have a modern society and truly perfect control. They’ve left that to the starving North Koreans. Which is why they allow a limited form of protest and discussion. Within narrow bounds you can make specific points, but no other power centers are permitted. Other dictators, like Orban, Erodgan, or Putin, have differing degrees of social and political control. Russia maintains a tighter control over its people than Turkey or Hungary, but they all have limits on expression and do not tolerate any challenge to their authority.

Autocrats are pulled toward totalitarian control. Dictators can’t help themselves. In little and big ways, their need to control manifests itself. Why has Trump injected himself into the Kennedy Center? Why does he threaten entertainers with investigations or arrest? Why does he use the FCC to intimidate news outlets? And also a late night comic by going after his parent company? Part of it is ego. Part of it is legitimacy with his own base of popular support. No more garish displays of love and acceptance, just proper entertainment like eulogies to fallen internet trolls and odes to the their gold-plated tin god. Part of it is calculated to discourage dissent, intimidate his opposition, and stifle debate. But the need to totally control is just is their insatiable desire for power.

The modern dictator slowly tightens the totalitarian noose, but never pulls it hard enough to completely choke the opposition. This ‘kindness’ accomplishes does two ends. First, it allows the dictator the fig-leaf of not being a dictator. How can we say someone is a dictator if there are still media outlets to oppose them? They’re not a dictator, they’re just the popular choice. When they go after a news outlet or nascent party, it’s over some fraud or a dense legal issue around permits. Because one or two independent sources still exist, other closures were obviously not for political reasons. It provides a handsome veneer over the rotten state of affairs. It allows their apologists to claim it is not a dictatorship or autocracy because control is not total.

Second it reduces the cost of staying in power. Those networks of informants, jails, collecting data, and surveilling cost resources. There is a degree to which the population naturally policies itself, if the regime has a degree of legitimacy. A true believer will rat out the person they see as a traitor or a threat. We like being cozy, safe, right, and righteous. For them, throwing someone in the gulag is for a better society is its own sick reward. Then there are those that can be cheaply coaxed into cooperation. Rat on your neighbor and you’ll be promoted to a better job. At the end of the day it still requires a network of informants, dossiers, and piles of “evidence.” Even in the AI age, that is not cheap. An algorithm might select, but cannot arrest, jail, or torture someone. That requires a paid human being in a jail that must be maintained. By some estimates, the cost of the internal security in Russia exceeded the cost of the military before the war.

It is impossible to put a minder in every home. In the Soviet era “samizdat” circulated even in the darkest days. These are well-worn, dog eared, hand-made, hand-copied, and hand-circulated books, essays, stories, works of art, and news that the Soviet boot heel could not smother. Despite the blaring of propaganda from radio, film, television, and even the PA system in the subway, it was impossible to snuff out the minds of millions of people. People developed the skill of being outwardly compliant but inwardly rebellious. An unseen mass that just needed a spark to set them off. And to the regime, these dangerous people were everywhere. The regime knew this and spent untold efforts to eradicate traces of “foreign” influence. They did so in a brutal and frightening campaign of terrorizing its own population. In the Stalinist peak, people were simply plucked off the street or out of their homes. Accused of some crime or another, it didn’t matter, they were headed to the gulag or a drunken firing squad.

The parallels in the US are obvious. We’ve seen the true believers reach out to quickly remove books form libraries and schools. The fantasies some have of their political opponents arrested, en-masse, are beyond troubling. An administration targeting public opposition with threats of investigation or being charged with the thinnest of crimes. Violently abducting immigrants, and not being too concerned if any citizens who are opposed are also arrested and roughed up. Threatening news outlets with law-suits or revoking press access because they made the dear leader unhappy. Or the sycophancy on display during public events. Or working with police to use excessive force at every opportunity on protesters. Or even taking over the reigns of culture at the Kennedy Center. If you don’t see it, you are pathetically and hopeless ignorant or are a willing participant who won’t admit to it.

A degree of social control is part of the picture, but it is no longer total. We will be allowed some degree of opposition. California exists as a foil to the goodness of the autocrat and his worshipers. A hell-hole of crime and liberal values that the core supporters can contrast to their own cozy sense of safety. The dictator doesn’t need to disappear California politicians from the street. It is enough to force his presence into their civic life. Soldiers standing around a Humvee in the middle of a park. The dictator keeps the protests in check by making it known accusation of excessive force are of no concern. South Park, until it becomes too much of a threat to the profits of its owners, can continue to make essentially obscene mockery of the dictator. The blogs and the “liberal” social networks can continue to exist. As long as it doesn’t actually threaten the hold on power, costly totality is not necessary.