Analysis

The Echoes of McCarthyism: 

What Should Allies and Friends 

of America Do?

 

By Dr Shannon Brincat and Dr Gail Crimmins

Original date of publication 3/31/2025
Australian Institute of International Affairs

        -----------------

    The revival of McCarthy-era repression under Donald Trump’s second term raises profound ethical and political questions for America’s global allies. Australia must navigate these tensions carefully, protecting its democracy while rethinking its role as an independent ally.

    The Western world is in disarray, watching as the US leads the charge against fundamental pillars of liberal global order. The resurgence of political witch hunts under President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14151, which dismantles Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and pressures institutions to survey and report colleagues, echoes McCarthy-era repression. Teachers report on students for deportation by ICE squads. Protesters are threatened with exposure at immigration rallies, and pro-Palestine supporters—even US citizens—are arrested and deported. Like the Red Scare of the 1950s, the climate in the US fosters ideological persecution, forcing individuals to choose between complicity and defiance. This active pressuring of civil institutions of higher education, of corporations, and even law firms, to comply with Trump’s executive decisions calls into question basic minority protections and whether they continue to operate in the US system. Moreover, the actions of the president in ignoring court orders, calling for a stay on such executive actions to permit judicial review, shows that the separation of powers is being actively ruptured. When this is combined with the DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) cuts, the dismantling of the US Department of Education, or the defunding of USAID, we are seeing the real-time erosion of the civic arms of the American state.

    As our closest and most powerful ally, this places Australia within a very difficult position as such internal policies create a normative and ethical rift between the two countries on the grounds of their commitment to liberalism and liberal international order. How can Australia remain both a viable liberal democracy, a friend to the US, and a “good international citizen”?

Trump’s second term: a revival of McCarthy-era tactics

    Upon re-entering office in January 2025, President Trump swiftly enacted executive orders targeting DEI initiatives across federal agencies. Executive Order 14151 not only dismantled existing DEI structures but also required agencies to compile lists of employees involved in such initiatives. Further intensifying this approach, Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity prohibits private organisations from implementing DEI frameworks in federally contracted jobs. This move effectively extends the administration’s anti-DEI stance into the private sector, pressuring companies to abandon diversity-focused programs or risk losing federal contracts.

    This modern-day witch hunt stifles essential discourses on anything outside the ambit of executive power, with devastating effects on freedom of thought and speech. These strategies bear a striking resemblance to the McCarthy era’s oppressive tactics. During the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy spearheaded a campaign to root out alleged communists within the United States, leading to widespread fear, blacklisting, and the suppression of dissent. Individuals were coerced into naming associates, and mere accusations could result in career devastation.

    It is significant to note at this point that “Roy Cohn, whose name is still “synonymous with the rise of McCarthyism and its dark political arts,” was once Trump’s personal lawyer, and likely influenced his approach to power, confrontation, and relentless undermining of institutions.

    During the McCarthy era, many individuals refused to testify against their peers or participate in blacklisting, demonstrating the power of solidarity. Organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) historically played pivotal roles in challenging unconstitutional actions. Perhaps most important in the contemporary context are forms of civil non-compliance. Some corporations like Costco have maintained their commitment to diversity programs and many in the higher education community and individual academics have voiced opposition to executive interference. Today, at least twelve of  Trump’s executive orders are being legally challenged—but under the weight of Unitary Executive theory even this role is being challenged, with Vice President J. D. Vance claiming that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”

What can Australia do?

    What can an outside but “friendly” force do? Here, Australia may be able to play some role towards normalisation in a world order rocked by instability in its core.

    Australia is currently wrestling with its own deep ontological insecurities in the wake of Trump appearing to not even know what AUKUS is and the potential that Trump will renege on the agreement. It has been questioned whether the US can or would even be willing to supply the Virginia class submarines at all. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has lamented that the imposition of tariffs go against “the spirit of friendship” usually found between the two countries. Australia is also reeling from America’s aggressive treatment of its close allies like Canada, its aggressive territorial claims made on allies like Denmark, and most of all, the betrayal of its Ukrainian allies during wartime. Australia’s confidence in its most powerful ally is at an all-time low.

    Every crisis is, however, an opportunity. On the one hand, Australia now has the necessity to enact its own independent foreign policy and re-engage—on its own terms—with the region it has for too long neglected. Taking a reflexive foreign policy stance is crucial for such a realignment; that is, we must consider how our actions and policies might be perceived and reacted to by other actors on the international stage. For example, we must take greater account of the concerns voiced by Indonesia and Malaysia that AUKUS engenders their insecurity. Similarly, we must recognise that our recent self-undermining of key principles of international law means that while Australia may have a “self-perception” as a country committed to a rules-based international order, others may not share this view.

    As part of this process, Australia must look inward, fortifying its own democratic practices as an exemplar of liberal values so that it behaves as, and is seen to behave as, a good international citizen. Without such consistency, any credibility will be lost. There are a number of active measures that would have immediate effect. Enhancing democratic processes by empowering the Australian Electoral Commission to reduce Gerrymandering and tightening regulations on donations to political parties, investing in protections against disinformation through a federal integrity commission, and legislating robust whistle-blower protection laws, would cost very little.

    At the same time, Australia could, in closed diplomatic forums, advocate for the US to return to multilateral forums internationally and reaffirm human rights and democratic practices domestically. Publicly, Australia should offer strong condemnation of any democratic backsliding such as voter suppression, deportation, and unchecked executive expansion, while supporting pro-democracy groups across civil society.

Civic power in illiberal times

    While diplomacy and statecraft matter, democratic resilience depends on active, informed, and engaged publics, not just governments. Democracy holds when people stay informed, engaged, and vocal. Universities, unions, and civil organisations help anchor liberal values through civic education, academic freedom, and truth-telling. Universities Australia champion active citizenship, while the Scholars at Risk network supports persecuted academics across more than 18 Australian institutions, and independent outlets continue to fight for press freedom, reminding us why public interest journalism matters.

    Community-led initiatives also build resilience. Programs like YMCA Youth Parliament foster political literacy and civic confidence in the next generation.

    Backing these efforts is how Australia strengthens its democratic core. Civil society holds the line—and helps shape a future that resists fear and values freedom.

    In these ways, Australia can future-proof its democracy by rooting out corruption, countering foreign influence, and investing in civic trust—while remaining a critical but clear-eyed ally to the US. Australia could play the role of good international citizen as a resilient democracy that doesn’t just follow Washington’s lead but helps steer the world toward stability. To riff on the saying attributed to Gough Whitlam, “a truly independent Australia would be a better ally to the US than a satellite.”

    Dr Shannon K. Brincat is a Senior Lecturer at the University of the Sunshine Coast. His website with research and publications can be found at https://www.shannonbrincat.com/. Dr Gail Crimmins is an Associate Professor at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Her research interests include gender, equity, diversity and inclusion and academic publications found here: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dQyfeLkAAAAJ&hl=en

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and was republished with permission.

U.S. Law

 ACLU of Illinois: Winning An 

Election Does Not Give Anyone

License to Discard Our Constitution

By Steve Rensberry 

 Commentary

------------- 

    EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. -- 11/13/2024 - Following the presidential election of Nov. 5, 2024, the ACLU of Illinois released a statement making the case that the president simply is not above the Constitution, no matter what anyone says about the legality of exercising such powers or in behaving in such a way.

    "Winning an election does not give anyone license to discard our Constitution and behave as a dictator – on day one or any other day," the organization stated.

     The ACLU should be commended for bringing some sanity to the debate. What action, if any, will be taken to fine or punish or stop a fascist-oriented president who deliberately choses to ignore the Constitution, to jail people he personally considers traitors? That's the million dollar question, I suppose. Justice should be done, or justice is worthless and truth is meaningless.

   The ACLU of Illinois statement: 

    Donald Trump has been elected the 47^th President of the United States. But winning an election does not give anyone license to discard our Constitution and behave as a dictator – on day one or any other day. 

    We saw firsthand the threat that the first Trump Administration posed to basic civil liberties, from the way in which the Administration cruelly separated children from their parents at the border and enforced immigration laws in a biased fashion, to his urging police to use harsh tactics – like stop and frisk – that target Black and Brown young men, to his attacks on immigrants, LGBTQ+ folks and anyone who disagreed with him. And, of course, Trump was the architect of the Supreme Court decision that recklessly ripped away the federal constitutional right to access abortion care.

    The ACLU never shied away from challenging Trump’s reckless disregard for the Constitution during his first administration. We stand prepared to do the same this time.  And, we are committed to building and enforcing a firewall of protections in Illinois to limit the inevitable harm that will flow from the new administration’s attacks.

    In short, we will not abandon those whose rights are being violated and we will not abandon the Constitution. 

 Link to the news release: ACLU of Illinois Responds

 

Environmental Law

Judge Rules Trump International 

Violated Illinois Environmental

Protection Act

Hotel and Tower Found Liable on All Counts

    CHICAGO - (SIERRA CLUB) – 9/12/24 - Cook County Circuit Court Judge Thaddeus L. Wilson ruled recently that the Trump International Hotel & Tower violated and is in violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and committed a continuing public nuisance through a series of failures to comply with state and federal law dating back to 2008. The judge ruled that the evidence was uncontested that Trump Tower, operating as 401 N. Wabash, is liable on all remaining counts brought by Friends of the Chicago River, the Sierra Club Illinois Chapter, and the State of Illinois in this long-running litigation.

    Friends, the Sierra Club, and the Illinois Attorney General filed the lawsuit in 2018 after Friends and the Sierra Club discovered the Trump Tower cooling water intake permit violations during a routine permit review. The Trump Tower can draw in up to about 21 million gallons of water from the Chicago River every day to cool the building. Trump Tower ignored and violated federal and state laws and regulations that require buildings using systems like Trump Tower’s to be designed to minimize impacts on aquatic life, secure permits, operate with protective measures that minimize damage to fish and other aquatic organisms from water intake structures, and prevent harmful heat pollution from its discharges back to the river. A 2018 Chicago Tribune survey found no other cooling intake permits holders had similarly violated the applicable rules.

    The Trump Tower is one of the largest users of water from the Chicago River for cooling and failing to follow the permit requirements resulted in the death of thousands of fish and other aquatic organisms which were sucked into the building cooling system by the intake structure or trapped against its screens. The Trump Tower also failed to accurately compute and report the rate at which the skyscraper’s cooling system withdraws water by approximately 44 percent for more than 10 years. By ruling on the summary judgment, Judge Wilson found that the Trump Tower could not even genuinely dispute that it was in violation of the applicable laws and creating a public nuisance.

    “Judge Wilson’s decision brings us close to the end of a six-year journey to bring justice to the wildlife for whom these laws were designed to protect and the people who enjoy this wildlife,” said Margaret Frisbie, Friends of the Chicago River’s executive director. “The Trump Tower’s complete disregard for the rules carelessly killed countless creatures and degraded the value of the significant public investments over decades to bring about the healthy transformation of the river for people, fish, and other aquatic wildlife.”

     Friends of the Chicago River and Sierra Club Illinois Chapter are represented in this action by Albert Ettinger; the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School; and the Environmental Advocacy Center at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. Rob Weinstock of the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law argued the case for Friends of the Chicago River and Sierra Club.

    “The recovery of the Chicago River into the healthy heart of our downtown is a major accomplishment for the people of Chicago and the Clean Water Act,” Sierra Club Illinois Director Jack Darin said. 

    Friends of the Chicago River was founded in 1979 to protect and restore the Chicago-Calumet River system for all people, water, and wildlife. Supported by 43,000 members, volunteers, and online activists and recognized by more than 50 awards in 45 years, Friends of the Chicago River is at the forefront of the river’s recovery and renaissance and is the only organization exclusively dedicated to the river and its watershed. For more information, vision chicagoriver.org

    “Trump Tower openly violated the Clean Water Act for years, putting the river and the wildlife that call it home at risk. We’re proud to hold these scofflaws accountable, and applaud our pro bono attorneys and the Attorney General for stepping up to protect our river and its recovery. Friends and Sierra Club look forward to further proceedings that will determine how best to restore and protect the Chicago River and uphold the Clean Water Act and the Illinois Environmental Protection Act,” Frisbie said.

  

About the Sierra Club

The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. In addition to protecting every person's right to get outdoors and access the healing power of nature, the Sierra Club works to promote clean energy, safeguard the health of our communities, protect wildlife, and preserve our remaining wild places through grassroots activism, public education, lobbying, and legal action. For more information, visit www.sierraclub.org.

Church and State

Denial of Care Rule Called

'Dangerous Policy'

Group Applauds Biden Admin. for Plan to Rescind Parts of Rule

    Washington D.C. - (AU) - 12/29/2022 - Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser issued the following statement on Dec. 29 in response to the Biden administration’s proposal to rescind parts of the Trump administration’s Denial of Care Rule, which invited health care workers to deny medical treatment and services to patients because of personal religious or moral beliefs:

    “We applaud the Biden administration for taking positive steps toward protecting both religious freedom and patients’ health by rescinding the Trump-era Denial of Care Rule. No one should be denied medical treatment because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

    “The Denial of Care Rule was a dangerous policy that weaponized religious freedom and put the health and lives of women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities and so many others in jeopardy. Today’s proposed rule recognizes the potential harm to patients and upholds the fundamental principle of church-state separation.”

    The Denial of Care Rule which was issued in May 2019 by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under former President Donald Trump. It invited any health care worker to deny medical care to patients because of the health care worker’s personal religious or moral beliefs. Health care facilities risked losing essential federal funding unless they granted employees carte blanche to deny services. That risk could have forced many health care facilities to eliminate services such as reproductive and LGBTQ care. Federal courts had blocked the rule from going into effect.

 Americans United and allies filed two federal lawsuits challenging the Denial of Care Rule, arguing that HHS during the Trump administration exceeded its authority and arbitrarily and capriciously failed to consider the rule’s potential harm to patients and the health care system, in violation of the federal Administrative Procedure Act. We also argued that the rule was unconstitutional because it favored specific religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment; violated patients’ rights to privacy, liberty and equal dignity as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment; and chilled patients’ speech and expression in violation of the First Amendment, all to the detriment of patients’ health and well-being.

• In the County of Santa Clara v. HHS, Americans United joined the Center for Reproductive Rights, Lambda Legal, the law firm Mayer Brown LLP and Santa Clara County, Calif., which runs an extensive public health and hospital system that serves as a safety-net provider for the county’s 1.9 million Bay Area residents. Other plaintiffs in the case include providers across the country that focus on reproductive and LGBTQ care, plus five doctors and three medical associations. In Nov. 2019, the district court granted summary judgment in our favor on our Administrative Procedure Act claims, vacating the rule in its entirety.
• In Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Azar, Americans United joined the Baltimore City Solicitor and the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP to represent the Baltimore City Health Department, which has strived to ensure that vulnerable and historically marginalized people can seek medical care without fear of stigmatization or discrimination. After other federal district courts blocked the Denial of Care Rule, the district court held this case in abeyance pending the government’s appeals.

    More information about those lawsuits is available here.

Elections in America

 GOP’s Full-Throated Nativism 

Fails to Resonate Beyond 

the MAGA Base

    Washington, DC – (America's Voice) - Nov. 13, 2022 - An array of voices are highlighting one takeaway from the 2022 midterms – once again, most voters rejected Republicans’ relentless anti-immigrant attacks and larger extremism. As in past recent cycles, the GOP fear-mongering and nativism failed to resonate beyond the MAGA base as Americans voted against leading peddlers of ugly nativism and expressed renewed support for common sense solutions at odds with Republicans’ ugliness. Among the voices and examples:

• Greg Sargent of Washington Post: GOP assumptions on border and immigration again “proved wrong”: As part of his larger analysis titled, “5 big GOP narratives just went down in flames,” Greg Sargent of the Washington Post notes, “Invasion language did little for Republicans,” writing that “Republicans have long enjoyed a presumption of a major advantage on this issue, but aside from Trump’s 2016 victory, it keeps failing to deliver … GOP confidence that President Biden’s ‘disastrous open border’ would spark major electoral repudiation, giving Republicans space to hyper-radicalize their base around the issue, has proved wrong.”
• Paul Waldman of Washington Post: “Arizona Democrats chalk up their big night to GOP focus on immigration.” Waldman writes: “Though Republicans wouldn’t use those terms, immigration was clearly the beginning and end of their strategy in Arizona this year. If you went to any GOP campaign event in Arizona lately, you would have heard a litany of horrors about the border as candidates Kari Lake and Blake Masters painted a nightmarish picture of murder and mayhem pouring into American communities, courtesy of a quasi-conspiracy involving the Chinese Communist Party, Mexican drug cartels and President Biden himself seeking to flood the country with fentanyl and criminal aliens … In Arizona as elsewhere, through victory and defeat, Republicans’ faith in the electoral power of the immigration issue has been unwavering. And all indications are that whatever else happens between now and 2024, that isn’t going to change.”
• “Hatemongering isn’t a sustainable political strategy.” Los Angeles Times columnist Jean Guerrero, who wrote a biography of leading nativist Stephen Miller, responded to Miller’s attempted spin that Republicans didn’t make anti-immigration attacks enough of their focus by noting: “Except this is literally all the GOP ran on. Hatemongering isn’t a sustainable political strategy.”
• “While votes are still being counted, it’s clear Stephen Miller’s racist political ads were a flop” from Gabe Ortiz at Daily Kos: Ortiz writes, “Miller had been assuring his racist base that a “red wave” was in store for Republicans, doing his part by launching massively offensive ads in more than a dozen states that sobbed about supposed “anti-white bigotry” and pushed violent anti-immigrant imagery … But this week, voters largely rejected this bigoted agenda … ‘Stephen Miller predicted that Republicans’ nativism would help usher in a ‘red tsunami,’ but his tens of millions of dollars’ worth of overt racism and nativism fell flat in 2022—just as his similar election predictions about the power of GOP nativism failed in past cycles,’ said Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of immigrant rights advocacy group America’s Voice. ‘The strategy of trying to mobilize the MAGA base around extreme Trumpian grievances and anti-immigrant fear-mongering fell flat.’”

    Indeed, as America’s Voice tracked, the Stephen Miller-affiliated “Citizens for Sanity” spent over $51 million in TV ads across 16 states in the midterms’ homestretch with some of the year’s most vile nativist, racist and transphobic ads (as seen during World Series) – just part of the GOP’s relentless focus on nativism and 3,200 different paid communications on anti-immigrant themes highlighted by the America’s Voice’s ad tracking project.

    Following is a statement from Vanessa Cárdenas, Executive Director for America’s Voice:

    “Nativism has become the beating heart of the Republican Party and the throughline from Trump’s descent down the escalator in 2015 to MAGA extremists taking control of the GOP to the current perilous moment facing our democracy. And once again, the political potency of GOP full-throated nativism failed to resonate beyond the Republican base and may have been part of a larger backlash among many voters against MAGA candidates.

    "One clear takeaway from this election is that the GOP’s massive investment in nativist attacks failed to deliver, which is an especially striking fact given an election environment that overwhelmingly favored Republicans and that the issue was a top message priority GOP-wide. The vast majority of Americans reject the GOP’s radicalism and scare tactics on immigration and recognize that immigrants are a source of strength for the nation. Now, we need policies that meet the vast majority of the country where it actually is – in favor of common sense solutions that address the uncertain futures of Dreamers, TPS holders, and farm workers and in support of bipartisan reforms that will modernize and actually address immigration reform in a real way.”

Politics and Corruption

Trump White House Official 

Peter Navarro Indicted 

For Contempt of Congress

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (Common Cause) - 6/3/2022 - The Justice Department indicted former Trump White House official Peter Navarro today for contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the January 6th Select Committee. The former trade adviser was a leader in the Trump White House effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. In April, Common Cause urged House Members to vote to certify criminal contempt citations against Navarro and fellow White House official Dan Scavino.

Statement of Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause President

    Americans expect and deserve to know the full truth about the insurrection on January 6th. And they expect and deserve to see justice served to those responsible for unleashing the violent, racist mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election. The forces that sought to overturn the election are still present today and the threat to democracy is ongoing.

    Although some witnesses like Peter Navarro have failed to comply with duly-issued subpoenas, the Select Committee will begin sharing its findings with the public in its historic hearings that begin on June 9. The Committee has conducted more than a thousand interviews and depositions and collected more than 140,000 documents as part of its bipartisan investigation.

    Today’s indictment of Peter Navarro will help ensure that Congress is able to learn the full truth behind the White House attempts to steal the election that Donald Trump lost. This indictment has been slow to come, but we sincerely hope it is the first of many to come from the Justice Department.

    There must be consequences for those who brought about the insurrection and there must be consequences for those who refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas. Congress has the power and responsibility of oversight and its subpoenas cannot be ignored without repercussions or else our system of checks and balances will break down. Today’s indictment is a victory for the American people and a victory for the rule of law.

Elections and Politics

Ohio Election Official: 

Politics are Political; 

Election Administration is Not

By Mary Schuermann Kuhlman, Producer
Public News Service

    (PNS) - 2/10/2022 - Since Election Day 2020, the integrity and accuracy of the vote has been the subject of speculation across the country, with local boards of elections often caught in the crosshairs.

    Here in Ohio, election officials seem to have avoided much of the controversy. With far-right groups and supporters of former President Donald Trump still questioning the 2020 results, several red states have moved to give legislatures more power over elections instead of secretaries of state, and penalize election workers for technical mistakes.

    Aaron Sellers, public information officer for the Franklin County Board of Elections, said while politics are political, elections administration in Ohio is not.

    "Everything we do here is done in bipartisan teams," Sellers emphasized. "For example, when the voting-location person brings back the supplies on election night, if that person is a Republican, there's a Democrat ride-along person that comes along with them, or vice versa."

More than half of voters in a recent Quinnipiac poll said they do not believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Ohio's postelection audits revealed an accuracy rate of 99.98% in 2020 and 99.99% in 2021, based on data from counties utilizing a percentage-based audit.

    While other states scrambled to develop a plan for voting in 2020 due to COVID, Sellers pointed out Ohio was ahead of the curve. Critics argued mail-in voting is more susceptible to fraud, but he explained there are multiple verification processes before the ballot is even mailed out.

    "And when it is returned, there's additional measures that we go through before we put that in the pile to count," Sellers added. "It's verification signatures, the last four digits of their 'soc,' (Social Security number) their driver's license number, whatever they're providing, those things are checked on the front end and the back end before those ballots are counted."

    With Ohio's legislative and congressional district maps still not set in stone, Sellers noted boards of election are in a holding pattern when it comes to preparations for the May 3 primary.

    "We're just as anxious as I'm sure our elected officials are to get this resolved," Sellers emphasized. "Elections officials, we take an oath to do this, and when it's scheduled we'll do what we need to do like we did in 2020 because of COVID."

    Wednesday, Republican Senate President Matt Huffman suggested keeping the May 3 primary for statewide and local elections, and holding a second for statehouse and congressional seats. There are concerns about the cost for two primaries, as well as the possibility of lower turnout.

    Support for this reporting was provided by The Carnegie Corporation of New York. Story credit: Public News Service, 2/10/2022, Mary Schuermann, Producer

Domestic Extremism

ADL Survey: Three Quarters of

 Americans Concerned About 

Domestic Extremism

NEW YORK (ADL) - 1/17/2021 - Following the seditious riot at the U.S. Capitol, Americans are highly concerned about violent extremism, according to a survey taken after the events released Jan. 12 by ADL (Anti-Defamation League) that evaluated perceptions of the threats facing the country.

Image credit: Anti-Defamation League

    “Most Americans now see the direct connection between the dangerous rhetoric from President Trump, others on the far right, and extremist groups to the horrifying violence at our nation’s Capitol,” said Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “At ADL, we have been monitoring the concerning rise of extremism and the way national leaders, including President Trump, have enabled and empowered this hate to spread, especially online. The events of this week were the latest example of why it’s essential that policymakers and social media companies take concrete action to prevent future violence.”

Approximately two-thirds of Americans believe Donald Trump (67 percent) and members of white supremacist, far-right or militia groups (64 percent) are at least somewhat responsible for the violence at the Capitol. Roughly three-quarters of Americans are at least somewhat concerned about violence in the next year from anti-government and militia movement members (77 percent) and white supremacists (75 percent).

Over half of Americans also believe that social media companies like Facebook and Twitter (61 percent) and Congressional Republicans who said they would oppose certification of election results (55 percent) are at least somewhat responsible for the violence on Wednesday.

Unequivocally, Americans want the government to do more to address violent domestic extremism. Sixty-five percent want the government to do more to address the rise of far-right extremism.

“Violent domestic extremism is a global threat that will outlast President Trump’s time in office and so the incoming Congress and Biden-Harris Administration must work together proactively, deliberately and swiftly dismantle this domestic terror threat.” Greenblatt said. “Additionally, we applaud mainstream social media companies for removing President Trump from their platforms, but there is more work to be done to stop the widespread hate and extremism.”

The survey also found that 66 percent of Americans believe that the government should prosecute individuals who stormed the Capitol, while 20 percent oppose prosecuting those responsible, and 13 percent do not know.

Americans also support social media companies taking action, with 63 percent agreeing that social media companies should ban posts and individuals encouraging or celebrating extremism and conspiracy theories.

Twenty-seven percent (27 percent) of Americans believe that antifa is significantly responsible for the attack on the U.S. Capitol, and 64 percent are at least somewhat concerned about violence associated with antifa. While ADL has expressed concerns about violent encounters between antifa and the far right previously, there isno evidence to support this claim.

The survey of U.S. adults was conducted from Jan. 7 to Jan. 8, 2021 by YouGov, a leading public opinion and data analytics firm, on behalf of ADL. There were 1,176 respondents, 1,102 of whom were aware of the incident in the capitol. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all U.S. adults aged 18 or over. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.95 percentage points.

Impeachment

ACLU Again Calls for 

Impeachment of President Trump

    NEW YORK (ACLU) — Jan. 10, 2021 - The American Civil Liberties Union’s national board of directors unanimously passed a second resolution Jan. 10 calling for the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump.

    As a matter of organizational policy, the ACLU does not regularly call for the removal of public officials. Such a move requires action by the ACLU National Board of Directors. The full resolution states:

    “Having considered the ACLU’s mission to preserve, protect, and advance civil liberties and civil rights, its commitment to nonpartisanship, and its policy permitting it to take a position on impeachment only where an official’s acts pose a ‘grave and imminent threat to civil liberties,’

    “The National Board of Directors of the ACLU previously resolved, on Dec. 19, 2019, that President Trump committed impeachable offenses and violated his oath to preserve, protect, and advance the Constitution.

    “The Board now resolves by a unanimous vote that President Trump has committed additional impeachable offenses, violated his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and poses a ‘grave and imminent threat to civil liberties’ by engaging in an extended pattern of bad-faith conduct designed to subvert the results of a democratic election, thereby violating the core principles of our constitutional democracy: the right of the people to choose their representatives, and the obligation of officials to abide by the results of free and fair elections, and ensure the peaceful transition of power.

    “The pattern includes:

•     Repeatedly making knowingly false statements about voter fraud and improprieties designed to undermine the legitimacy of the election results, including in a series of frivolous lawsuits, without evidence to support the claims;
•     Pressuring election officials in several states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, to interfere with the results of the election, including a Jan. 2 taped phone call in which he abused the power of the presidency by demanding that the Georgia secretary of state ‘find 11,780 votes,’ and threatened criminal liability if the secretary of state did not do so;
•     Seeking to disenfranchise people of color by targeting many of these efforts at counties and jurisdictions, such as in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, with predominantly Black or Brown populations;
•     Directing Vice President Pence to block Congress’ certification of the Electoral College results, where the vice president had neither the authority nor the grounds to do so; and
•     Urging an unruly mob to riot at the United States Capitol on Jan. 6, in an effort to prevent the certification of the Electoral College results and to intimidate members of Congress from carrying out their constitutional duties.

    “The Board recognizes that officials have a right to pursue good-faith challenges to election results, where there is an arguable basis for doing so, including through public statements, outreach to government officials, filing lawsuits, and encouraging one’s supporters. But the pattern of conduct engaged in by President Trump displayed an unfounded, unconstitutional, and bad-faith effort to undermine the election results merely because the president lost in order to maintain himself in office. 

    “Because our democracy rests on a commitment by representatives to let the people decide, these unprecedented acts constitute high crimes and misdemeanors that pose a grave and imminent threat to civil liberties, and to the foundations of our Republic, warranting President Trump’s impeachment.

    “The Board, therefore, supports the impeachment of President Donald Trump a second time on the aforementioned grounds.”

    Calling for the impeachment of President Trump in December 2019 was the second instance in the organization’s history that the ACLU National Board of Directors voted to support impeachment of a president. This is the first time the ACLU is calling for a second impeachment. The organization also supported the impeachment of President Richard Nixon.

Illinois Politics

 Politics, Prejudice,

and Party Realignments

in Southern Illinois

A Look at 52 Downstate Counties and How They Voted in 2020

By Steve Rensberry
Opinion / Analysis

_________________

EDWARDSVILLE, Ill., - 12/1/2020 - Look at a map of how Southern Illinois residents have voted since the late 1990s and you won't see much competition, nor much blue. This year's colossal presidential election was a perfect example, with Republican candidates -- the president included -- receiving support from roughly 70 percent of voters in nearly every county at-or-below the Springfield line.

Results per county (pg 1). See citations for data sources.

   How deep does the red run in Southern Illinois, and how long will its love affair with the GOP continue? If the two main political parties stay as they are, with Democrats leaning liberal and Republicans leaning conservative, probably for a good while yet. But there are no guarantees.

This particular analysis, compiled from the most recent election data available, looks specifically at 52 of the state's 102 counties, the most southern, with statistics on how each county voted in the 2016 and 2020 elections, and a select number of other demographics. Believe it or not, as of this past week not all votes in every county had yet been finalized or completely counted. I chose to use percentages for comparison rather than vote totals for this reason. The declared winners are not expected to change.

Results per county (pg 2). See citations for data sources.

   In one sense, given the region's history, the latest expression of political sentiment shouldn't come as much of a surprise. Historically, the region has always leaned conservative, the experts say, sharing cultural values with the South in general as well as with neighboring Missouri and Upper Southern states such as Tennessee and Kentucky. For decades it was a more conservative Democratic Party that captured their votes, dominating elections from before the American Civil War, through Reconstruction, up until the 1960s. Then things began to change. "Beginning as recently as the presidential election of 2000, Democrats have under-performed in Southern Illinois despite winning Illinois consecutively," this online description about the region states.

What is surprising to me is the depth of Republican allegiance and loyalty to such a polarizing president, apparently oblivious to the integrity they've sacrificed in the process -- a question more than a few people have asked since Nov. 4

  One estimate is that nationwide Trump won approximately 92 percent of the vote that he had in 2016. By comparison, of the 52 Southern Illinois counties considered in this study, Trump captured 98.7 percent of the vote he received that year.

   In the aggregate, pro-Trump voters in these 52 counties represented 69.6 percent of the region's vote totals in 2016, and 71.73 percent in 2020. Approximately 2.437 million votes were cast for Trump by Illinois voters in the 2020 General Election, compared to 2.135 million in 2016. See: 2020 Election Results.

"According to the national exit poll, Trump won 92% of the voters who cast a ballot for him in 2016. He also took 85% of self-described conservatives and 94% of self-described Republicans. Trump won only 81% of conservatives and 88% of Republicans back in 2016," writes Harry Enten in a 2018 article for CNN, How Biden won: He built on Clinton's successes. "Biden emerged victorious by winning an even larger share of the Democratic base than Clinton in 2016 and picking off voters in the middle of the electorate."

Southern Illinois has become a sea of red.

   Having been a resident of five southern counties since 1988, specifically the counties of Bond, Effingham, Madison, St. Clair and Clinton, I can tell you first-hand a good deal of the animosity toward the northern, more Democratic half of the state has been here for at least that long. The kind of intense devotion to a presidential candidate, like we've seen with Trump, is different however -- and a bit difficult to process. Where are the guard rails? Does might make right? I haven't seen a satisfying answer from Illinois Republicans to either of these questions, despite a platform in previous years that touted principles, ethics and fiscal conservatism. Have they changed that much, or was it all a ruse to begin with? You tell me.

We are, it's been noted, at a point where the pressure to rally around one political party and unite to defeat a common political enemy is everything. It's all hands on deck. Conservative Southern Illinoisans, however, were in the polarized camp long before Trumpism came along.

Again, from first-hand experience, if you're talking politics with a typical resident in small-town Southern Illinois, it's automatically assumed that you: 1) Hate Michael Madigan. 2) Know without question that Democrats are to blame for the state's economic problems. 3) Hate Chicago, and the people who live there. 4) Despise taxes from the depths of your soul, especially property taxes used to fund public schools. 5) Know that everyone north of Springfield is out to rob you of your hard-earned tax dollars, in order to fund a Democratic-led spending spree that benefits only those who live in-or-around Chicago. 6) Believe that everyone who leaves Illinois does so because of high taxation and the state's Democratic leadership.

There is no middle ground in the debate, and if you don't share these assumptions or insist on more proof or evidence, expect to be scoffed at.

Madigan, of course, does have some serious corruption issues on his hands, but thankfully for the Republicans they now have Gov. JB Pritzker, who conveniently fills the need for a downstate nemesis. Evidence of corruption or rural bias? Who needs it. He's a Democrat. Thus we see "Pritzker Sucks" signs on display, even when he's not on the ballot.

I've seen at least three types of analysis with respect to Southern Illinois and its political alliances.

One involves economics. Though both parties share blame for the state's fiscal woes, Democratic Party critics have successfully hammered their case home, painting Democrats as spendthrifts, out of touch, and the source of all that's wrong with the state's economy. One of the more neutral articles I've read on the subject was written by Daniel Vock in 2018: Who Ruined Illinois? 

Edward McClelland, writing for ChicagoMag in a 2018 article Why It's So Hard for Republicans to Win in Illinois, quotes Southern Illinois University Professor of Political Science John Jackson who cites the loss of unions and their influence in the region as a major factor in the loss of Democratic Party strength. "The same thing that’s happened to the South has happened here, though ours came more recently," Jackson said.

George W. Smith, 1824. Wikipedia Commons License

 

     Another type of analysis involves culture and the very early days of the state. Go back far enough and the most southern counties were clearly more aligned with pro-slavery attitudes and less progressive policies than those to the north.

Consider this description of the state's southern-most county, Alexander County: "Settled largely by white migrants from the Upland South, southern Illinois had many racial attitudes of the South. As African Americans settled in Cairo to seek jobs on steamboats, ferries, in shipping and railroads, there were tensions between the racial groups. White residents sometimes used violence and terrorism, as well as discrimination, to keep black residents in second-class positions. They excluded them from the city government and the police and fire departments, and relatively few African Americans were hired to work in the local stores . . . There were three lynchings of blacks in Alexander County in the years between Reconstruction and the early 20th century. The county had the second-highest number of lynchings of African Americans in all of Illinois."

Mary Bohlten, writing for Illinois Times about touring the National Memorial for Peace and Justice in Montgomery, Alabama, states: "When I toured the museum and memorial last spring, I was disheartened to realize Illinois had 56 documented lynchings from 1877 to 1950. St. Clair County had the most with 40, but Sangamon County had two, associated with the 1908 race riots. Deep southern Illinois counties had lynchings but so did Cook, Macon, Marshall and Vermillion. So did such states as Oregon, California, North Dakota, Michigan and Trump’s native New York."

Increased mobility across the nation has been cited as another factor in increased polarization, and in the concentration of residents of like mind. Speaking in 2014, NPR Correspondent Shankar Vedantam had this to say about the relationship between geography and ideology:

"There's new research now that links the red state/blue state phenomenon with the fact that 40 to 50 million Americans move every year. So we are an increasingly mobile society," Vedantam explained, citing research by University of Virginia Psychologist Brian Nosek showing that liberals and conservatives tend to migrate to areas that are more aligned with their own ideology. "The downside is that if this mobility phenomenon is real, it means that the more mobile we get as a society, the more polarized we're going to become. Red states are going to get redder. Blue states are going to get bluer. The United States is going to get less united."

Reform and change is good, but what are we supposed to make of the kind of radical, norm-breaking presidency we've just lived through, apparently supported by a large number of residents in Southern Illinois? I suppose we should continue to expect the unexpected. The irony is that while the Republicans in downstate Illinois fixate on what they see as "corrupt and irresponsible Democrats," they've all but climbed in bed with one of the most corrupt and irresponsible Republican presidents in our nation's history. Who their next reactionary leader will be, and how extreme they'll be, is anybody's guess.

Graph Data Sources
Statistical Atlas (educational/income/ethnicity data)
Politico (2020 election results per county)
Politico (2016 election results per county)
Wikipedia (county population data)
270towin (national and state election results)

 

Election Analysis

  Counties That Voted for Biden

Account For 70 Percent of US GDP

By Steve Rensberry
RP News

_________ 

Graphic courtesy of statista.

 EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. - (RP NEWS) - 11/20/2020 - A recent report by the Brookings Institute shines a light on the growing economic divide in the country, made even more apparent from the results of the latest General Election, with president-elect Joe Biden winning just 477 counties to Donald Trump's 2,497.

The big difference: Residents and businesses in the 477 counties that Biden carried accounted for an aggregate share of U.S. GDP of 70 percent, compared to just 29 percent for counties carried by Trump. The difference was somewhat smaller in 2016 when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, but was still very large, with Clinton carrying 472 counties with a US GDP of 64 percent, to 2,584 counties carried by Trump accounting for 36 percent of US GDP.

GDP figures used for comparison, pertaining to the 2020 election, are from 2018.

As noted in this summary by statista data journalist Niall McCarthy: "The 2020 presidential election was notable for considerable political and geographic divides but it also highlighted a huge economic divide. . . . The political outcome of this year' contest is different and the country's economic voting chasm has widened. Biden won virtually all of the U.S. counties with the biggest economies including Los Angeles (CA), New York (NY), Cook (IL), Harris (TX) and Santa Clara (CA) while Trump was the candidate of choice in small towns and rural communities with correspondingly smaller economies," McCarthy writes. "The most economically powerful counties won by Trump in 2020 were Nassau (NY), Suffolk (NY), Collins (TX) and Oklahoma (OK)."

The Brooking Institute's report notes the often-cited differences between the two demographics of metropolitan vs rural or small-town America.

"Biden’s counties tended to be far more diverse, educated, and white-collar professional, with their aggregate nonwhite and college-educated shares of the economy running to 35 percent and 36 percent, respectively, compared to 16 percent and 25 percent in counties that voted for Trump," the Institute states, "In short, 2020’s map continues to reflect a striking split between the large, dense, metropolitan counties that voted Democratic and the mostly exurban, small-town, or rural counties that voted Republican. Blue and red America reflect two very different economies: one oriented to diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital services occupations, and the other whiter, less-educated, and more dependent on 'traditional' industries."

The report forecasts coming gridlock in Congress and between the White House and Senate because of the country's deep economic divide. "The problem . . . is not only that Democrats and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but that they represent radically different swaths of the economy," it states. "Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports."

The possibility of significant serious economic harm to just about everyone in the country is a concern, especially if the divisive pattern made apparent in the last few election cycles continues, they said.

"Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country, but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base," the report states, noting the special needs posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, making it "a particularly unsustainable situation."

See: Brookings Institute Report

Society and Culture

 

Take-Aways From Trump's 

'Suburban Housewives' Myth

By Cheryl Eichar Jett
Opinion/Analysis

_______________

 

A stereotypical 1950s era housewife.

   EDWARDSVILLE - 10/29/2020 - During President Donald J. Trump's recent campaign rally at Jamestown, Pennsylvania, his supporters – and the world – heard a desperate plea from an incumbent president attempting to hang on to the battleground states he is in danger of losing: “Do me a favor, suburban women, would you please like me?” For good measure, he added, “Please, please. I saved your damn neighborhood, okay?”

    Back in August, Trump introduced his talking point of “saving the suburbs” in an attempt to appeal to what he called “suburban housewives.” It was little more than a thinly-veiled dog whistle to his base of keeping “low-income housing,” i.e. black or minority renters, out of what he sees as a 1950s stereotype of racially pristine neighborhoods looked after by attractive white housewives.

   “Suburban housewives” as a segment of the American population is as out-dated in fact as it sounds.

   But it isn't news that Trump lives in the past. From the introduction of his “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan in 2016, we've known that he has a longing for the “good old days,” which appears to mean before the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, or financing of housing. (In 1973, Trump was poised to take over the New York City middle-class rental empire built by his father, Fred C. Trump, when they were both named in a suit by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging discriminatory practices.)

   But besides the racial dog whistle and the implication that Trump is talking about all-white neighborhoods, the whole talking point reflects his basic misunderstanding – or ignorance – of women's history. The 1950s-60s wasn't just a time that many white men (remember Alabama Governor George Wallace and his supporters?) still believed that blacks should know their place. Women were generally expected to know theirs as well, and that place was in the home, maintaining the nuclear family while wearing a pretty housedress, in sharp contrast, of course, to the image of the unattractive Communist Russian woman toiling in a factory every day.

   Trump's 1950s highlight reel may be playing in his head, as he promotes his idea of “suburban housewives” flocking to his “save the suburbs” promise, although polls are showing that the majority of women are having none of what he's selling. But Mr. Trump, we “suburban women” would like to clear up a couple things:

Source: Pew Research Center

   First of all, we aren't Mrs. Cleaver (if we ever were), mother of the Beaver. We aren't the Stepford wives. And we aren't afraid and in need of protection from the people next door. Take another look. We female inhabitants of suburbs may be white, or black, Latina, Asian, Native American, or multi-racial. And sure, some of us are married – to men. But some of us are single, or married to women. American suburbs are growing in both population and diversity. Please don't put yourself out saving us from our neighbors.

   And, to show you who we are and how fed up we are with four years of your misogyny and racism, we're voting in droves against you, standing in lines for six or eight hours and sharing our food and our stories with those standing with us. We've shattered early voting records. We've marched, protested, put signs in our yards, written postcards to undecided voters in battleground states, texted, and phoned.

   With those points hopefully cleared up, here are my four take-aways from Trump's appeal to “suburban women”:

   First, his fundamental misunderstanding, no, ignorance, of history – basic American history, post-WWII history and culture, Mid-Century pop culture, let alone American women's history – have not served him well.

   Secondly, his deep-rooted misogyny and “playboy” persona never allows him to acknowledge that “suburban women” could ever think for themselves. Again, we're not the Stepford wives – we're intelligent, educated, thinking human beings.

   Third, he may yet underestimate the collective anger of women at his racism, misogyny, cruelty, and incompetence (which looks likely to be demonstrated in epic fashion at this year's ballot box) – the last five years has seen women organize in numbers, strength, and fervor reminiscent of the years of women's suffrage.

   And my final take-away from Trump's plea to “suburban women” – his desperation in his struggle to keep his head above water in this election, a desperation highlighted by begging for the votes of a segment of the population – “suburban” women – that he underestimates, doesn't understand, and will never respect.

   Even Mrs. Cleaver would see right through it.

For further reading

 Mrs. America: Women's Roles in the 1950s

Women in the 1950s
Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump
FBI releases files on Trump apartments' race discrimination probe
Suburban Housewives Take a Pass on Trump's Cringeworthy Ploy
All the President's Suburban Housewives

Drinking from a Poisoned Well

Psychological Warfare and 

Anti-PC Fanaticism Are  

A Threat To Peace 

By Steve Rensberry 

Opinion / Analysis

________________

EDWARDSVILLE, Ill. -  (RP NEWS) - 9/25/2020 - The term political correctness has become thoroughly weaponized in today's socio-political climate. It's a cheap shot meant to tar, knock down, and delegitimize an entire framework of thought and reasoning, but it works.

   Most often it is used as a pejorative term against liberals -- denoting an intolerance toward certain types of speech and offensive behavior -- but a chorus of writers has made the case in recent years that the far bigger and more pervasive threat to the country is right-wing political correctness, also dubbed conservative correctness, or patriotic correctness. 

It is, as they say, all relative -- especially in terms of linguistics, with the meaning of words dependent almost entirely on the context.

If your world view dominates and is reinforced by social institutions, if your norms and values seem favored in educational, government, and business environments, then to you it is likely going to feel like justified normalcy, something good and right, the way things ought to be, and no more a political matter than the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. If you're the outsider, on the other hand, of course it's going to feel to you like this dominant value system is politically constructed, something false and alien in contrast to your own presumed genuine values. And consequently, the words one uses to describe what's going on are going to reflect that.

Summarizing how those on the right have used the term politically, Moira Weigel writes in a story for The Guardian: “PC was a useful invention for the Republican right because it helped the movement to drive a wedge between working-class people and the Democrats who claimed to speak for them. 'Political correctness' became a term used to drum into the public imagination the idea that there was a deep divide between the 'ordinary people' and the 'liberal elite,' who sought to control the speech and thoughts of regular folk. Opposition to political correctness also became a way to rebrand racism in ways that were politically acceptable in the post-civil-rights era.”

The term has been framed as a contest over civil rights, as a battle between the establishment of social norms, as an exercise in the definition of reality, as a measure of offense sensitivity levels, as a manifestation of cultural Marxism, as Capitalist realism, as a struggle over social framing, and as typical human behavior meant to establish acceptable in-group and out-group behavior.

All of these analyses have some merit, I think. The problem is that the phrase has shifted in meaning over the years, and continues to be used and weaponized in novel ways.

In a piece published in the CS Monitor, Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg claims that the person critical of modern PC culture is largely arguing for a license simply to say whatever they want to say, regardless of the repercussions. “It’s a license to say things that at one time would have branded you as a boor or a bigot. Whenever you’re charged with those things, now you can respond by invoking political correctness. That invests the criticisms with a political meaning, and suggests they’re merely the self-indulgent concerns of an elite that’s out of touch.”

U.S. President George H.W. Bush made an interesting assertion in a 1991 commencement speech he gave in Michigan, tacitly acknowledging the country's long-standing prejudices while joining the trend of anti-PC criticism. "The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land,” Bush said. “And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits."

There is a deeper story to all this, as you might expect, given a term that has meant different things to different people at different times in history, but three of the most disturbing and recent connections are to William Lind, Theodore Kaczynski (a.k.a. the Unabomber), and to President Donald Trump, all of whom appear to view political correctness solely in terms of a liberal-leftist existential type of threat, and an idea and set of beliefs worthy only of complete destruction.

Lind, a paleoconservative, conspiracy thinker and author, is one of the first to have weaponized the term. Working with others, Lind helped develop the theory of fourth-generation war theory (4GW) in the late 1980s, war which would be fundamentally decentralized and mainly psychological in nature. It's clear from reading Lind's writings that he lives in a conspiratorial world aligned with the alt-right, far-right, and the president's own words, a world where the media have conspired with academia and leftist politicians to destroy traditional culture and traditional orthodox values, and therefore must be destroyed. Lind's work can be found here.

Salon staff writer Chauncey Devega notes: “A sub-component of 4GW is William Lind’s conspiracy theory of the internal war for supremacy between what he called 'cultural Marxists' and their ideology of 'Political Correctness' or 'multiculturalism' and the 'traditional American culture' or 'Judeo-Christian culture.' Lind argued that 'cultural Marxists' hate America’s 'Judeo-Christian culture' and were seeking to destroy it. The losers were to be rich, white, conservative, Christian, heterosexual men.”

Trump's core policies, Devega says, are consistent with Lind's writings from 2005, citing his call for a “Berlin-style wall on the U.S.-Mexican border,” support for the Minutemen militia, and likening Latino and Muslim immigrants to invaders. “Lind’s ideas have circulated throughout the right-wing for just over a decade. Trump is just telling the Republican base what they have already heard or read.”

Say all you want about the idea of 4GW, but one thing that plays heavy is the use of deception and propaganda, enacted through a prolonged conflict involving embedded enemies and a deliberate blurring of the lines between ordinary citizens, activists and combatants.

I would encourage you to read Devega's article in full, given that it was written in 2016 before Trump was first elected, and about as relevant today as it was then. “Trump is reaping what the Christian Right, Fox News, conservative talk radio, Christian radio and television, and the blogosphere has sown,” Devega says.

And that brings us to Kaczynski. It doesn't take long to realize that he was a nut -- a former mathematics professor and certified right wing extremist who railed in a lengthy manifesto against political correctness, cultural relativism, identity politics, class warfare, and leftism in general. Kaczynski, born in 1942, is currently serving eight life sentences without the possibility of parole, incarcerated in the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. 

Kaczynski feared an all-powerful government, hated the modern technological world, and idolized primitive, historical civilizations where people were free from “non-productive” work (meaning work that doesn't contribute to the basic necessities of life). If this brings to mind a life of perpetual slavery with no time to actually live and enjoy the fruits of one's labor, or to create and invent, you can be forgiven. You can also be forgiven if this raises a red flag with respect to actual human history and the brutality and bloodshed that has taken place, not to mention the fact that half the world likely would die if industrial and agricultural-based systems were destroyed.

“A return to primitive society would soon entail a return to primitive, tyrannical forms of governance as a result, not a new age of liberty,” this entry on Wikipedia states.

I know there have been some who have praised Kaczynski's manifesto as ingenious and actually rational, but to me it is nothing but a delusional, conspiratorial, anti-liberal hack job, providing plenty of fodder for both critics and extremists, but not really saying much of anything except to show Kaczynski's incredible ignorance of human history. Although there were early attempts to describe Kaczynski as a left-wing “ecoterrorist,” his manifesto makes it clear what his real target is: leftism and all of the “politically correct” thinking that goes along with it.

Consider this (delusional) excerpt: “Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned society” without the necessary technological base. 

After alleging, in so many words, that “leftists” (and only leftists) are ruled by weak emotions and a lust for power, Kaczynski states: “We use the term 'leftism' because we don't know any better words to designate the spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political correctness, etc., movements, and because these movement have a strong affinity with the old left.”

Equality is another one of his targets, as well as a target of Lind's and Trump's, suggesting the push for equal opportunity for minorities is merely a political power grab, and a dire threat to the entire country.

Another telling excerpt: “The leftist wants equal opportunities for minorities. When that is attained he insists on statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority, the leftist has to re-educate him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people, fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be restricted if not banned.”

Why Kaczynski should be offended having to treat “disabled people, fat people, old people, and ugly people” with respect, and not spit on them or insult them, or to treat other people in society in a humane fashion, says a lot about his level of disdain for other human beings, as well as about his deep-rooted bigotry. He rails against identity politics, but plays the game himself even more intensely. He rails against the left as being totalitarian and petty, but advocates for a system and culture that would turn out to be even more so. He attempts to discredit entire groups and cultures as being a threat to the very existence of the nation and western civilization, but wants to destroy those groups himself in order to dominate and control every aspect of society with his own all-embracing, totalitarian mandates. He paints the left as dehumanizing and violent, then goes on to kill three people and seriously wound 23 others through a terrorizing mail-bombing campaign that lasted from 1978-1995.

Where does Donald Trump and those he surrounds himself with get their ideas? From the very same poisoned well of ideological bigotry and ignorance.

For Further Reading:

A Phrase in Flux: The History of Political Correctness

Anti-PC is 'Political Correctness' for the Right

Right-Wing Political Correctness, Censorship, and Silencing

Political Correctness is Rampant on the Right

Conservative Political Correctness and Colin Kaepernick