Elon Musk

Reality is crashing into the ideology of the Trump administration

by

Heather Cox Richardson | Letters from an American

Heather Cox Richardson

May 6, 2025

In a follow-up story to last night’s information about the Trump family’s cryptocurrency corruption, MacKenzie Sigalos of CNBC reported today that 58 crypto wallets have made more than $10 million each on Trump’s meme coin, gathering a total of $1.1 billion in profits. But 764,000 wallets, mostly owned by small holders, have lost money. Meanwhile, since January the meme’s creators have pocketed more than $324 million in trading fees.

In other news today, reality is crashing into the ideology of the Trump administration.

MAGA ideology was on full display in a meeting of the House Committee on Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, when Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem refused to answer a question from the ranking member—that is, the highest-ranking Democrat—of the committee, Representative Lauren Underwood (D-IL), about whether she believes that “the Constitution gives everyone in our country the right to due process.” The right to due process is clearly established in that foundational document, but Trump refused to acknowledge it in an interview that aired Sunday. Now Noem, too, is refusing to acknowledge it.

Later, at a meeting of a task force overseeing the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, or FIFA, 2026 World Cup, Noem said to Trump: “Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you so much for dreaming big dreams and doing unprecedented things. Your entire life you have stood for doing things that other people thought they couldn’t do and accomplishing unprecedented events and achievements.” Trump announced today that Andrew Giuliani, the son of former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, will head the task force.

But MAGA’s adherence to Trump and MAGA ideology is running up against reality. Charlie Savage and Julian E. Barnes of the New York Times reported today that U.S. intelligence agencies did not believe that the administration of Venezuela’s president Nicolás Maduro was colluding with the criminal gang Tren de Aragua (TDA) when the Trump administration used that claim to justify invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to render Venezuelan migrants to a terrorist prison in El Salvador. A newly declassified memo from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence states: “While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States.”

Savage and Barnes note that when the New York Times made a similar report in March, the Department of Justice under Trump called that reporting misleading and harmful, and opened a criminal investigation. A month later, when the Washington Post published similar coverage, the department redoubled its focus on stopping leaks. Attorney General Pam Bondi used the coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post as justification to roll back protections for the press in investigations of leaks.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard replied to the New York Times story: “It is outrageous that as President Trump and his administration work hard every day to make America safe by deporting these violent criminals, some in the media remain intent on twisting and manipulating intelligence assessments to undermine the president’s agenda to keep the American people safe.”

At a hearing before the House Appropriations Committee today, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hemmed and hawed his way through an answer to a question from Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI), “Who pays tariffs?” clearly trying to avoid the increasingly obvious answer: consumers.

Trump also blustered his way through tariffs at a meeting today with Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney. After Carney told Trump to his face that Canada is not for sale, the president answered, “never say never.” Over tariffs, Trump changed his previous claims. When Trump announced his new high-tariff regime in April, the administration said it would negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world, initially claiming it would make 90 deals in 90 days.

Yesterday Treasury Secretary Bessent told the House that the administration could announce deals as early as this week, but today Trump told reporters:

“We don’t have to sign deals. We could sign 25 deals right now…if we wanted. We don’t have to sign deals. They have to sign deals with us. They want a piece of our market. We don’t want a piece of their market. We don’t care about their market. They want a piece of our market. So we can just sit down, and I’ll do this at some point over the next two weeks, and I’ll sit with [Commerce Secretary] Howard [Lutnick] and [Treasury Secretary] Scott [Bessent] and with our great vice president…and [Secretary of State] Marco [Rubio], and we’re going to sit down, and we’re going to put very fair numbers down, and we’re going to say, here’s what this country, what we want, and congratulations, we have a deal. And they’ll either say, great, and they’ll start shopping, or they’ll say, ‘Not good, we’re not going to do it.’ I said, “That’s okay, you don’t have to shop.” Now, we may think, well, they have a right, you know, that maybe we were a little bit wrong, so we’ll adjust it. And then you people will say, ‘Oh, it’s so chaotic.’ No, we’re flexible. But we’ll sit down and we’ll, at some point in some cases, we’ll sign some deals. It’s much less important than what I’m talking about. For the most part, we’re just going to put down a number and say, this is what you’re going to pay to shop. And it’s going to be a very fair number. It’ll be a low number. We’re not looking to hurt countries. We want to help countries.”

In contrast to Trump’s insistence he can simply dictate terms to other nations, after three years of negotiations India and the United Kingdom have agreed to a “landmark” trade deal that will lower tariffs on clothing and footwear, cars, food, and jewelry and gems coming from India and lower tariffs on gin and whisky, cosmetics, electricals and medical devices, and cars coming from the U.K. India’s prime minister Narendra Modi described the deal as “ambitious and mutually beneficial.” The business secretary for the U.K., Jonathan Reynolds, said the benefits for the U.K. would be “massive.”

Also today, president Xi Jinping of China said his country would work to forge closer ties with the European Union. Although Xi did not mention Trump by name, at a meeting in Beijing with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez of Spain, he said: “China and the EU must fulfill their international responsibilities, jointly safeguard the trend of economic globalization and a fair international trade environment, and jointly resist unilateral and intimidating practices.” Sánchez did not mention Trump either, but the U.S. president was clearly on his mind when he agreed that “[t]he complex global landscape makes it necessary for us to bet on more dialogue, cooperation, and a strengthening of our relations with other countries and regional blocs.”

On Sunday, Trump’s trade advisor Peter Navarro, who apparently was the brains behind the tariff walls, called Britain a “compliant servant of communist China” and warned it would have its “blood sucked” dry. Political editor David Maddox of The Independent reported that after the story broke, a White House advisor told him: “Navarro is crazy and most people in the White House see him as a dangerous influence on the president.”

Trump is still standing behind scandal-plagued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, perhaps because Hegseth both believes in MAGA ideology and, with his emphasis on fighting, appears to embody it. Yesterday, Haley Britzky and Natasha Bertrand of CNN obtained a memo from Hegseth ordering cuts of at least 20% to the number of four-star generals and admirals in the senior ranks of the military. Hegseth says he wants “less generals, more GIs.” In a podcast earlier this year, Hegseth claimed that senior officers will “do any social justice, gender, climate, extremism crap because it gets them checked to the next level.” In February, Hegseth fired the chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Navy, as well as the Judge Advocates General, or JAGs, for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

Meanwhile, a second $60 million Navy jet was lost today off the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier. The circumstances are unclear.

Reuters reported today that earlier this year Hegseth ordered a pause in military aid to Ukraine without an order from Trump and without telling officials in the State Department or the Pentagon. The White House reversed the pause and hushed the matter up, although resuming the flights cost an additional $2.2 million.

Also today, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy told Fox News Channel host Martha MacCallum that the Pentagon is not responding to his questions about why an Army helicopter was flying above Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport last week, forcing two commercial passenger jets to reroute.

Finally, perhaps the day’s biggest news is that India launched strikes against Pakistan in what it said was retaliation for a militant attack last month in which gunmen killed 26 people at a popular tourist destination in Indian-administered Kashmir. Pakistan condemned the strikes, which killed eight people, and vowed to answer accordingly. Later, Pakistan said it had shot down two Indian jets.

This kind of a crisis between two nations with nuclear capabilities is one that, in the past, U.S. diplomacy has been key to defusing. When asked about the conflict today, Trump responded: “It’s a shame. We just heard about it, just as we were walking in the doors of the Oval. I just heard about it. I guess people knew something was going to happen, based on a little bit of the past. They’ve been fighting for a long time. You know, they’ve been fighting for many, many decades—and centuries, actually, if you really think about it. No, I just hope it ends very quickly.”

Secretary of State Rubio posted on X that he was monitoring the situation closely and echoed Trump’s hope that the conflict would end quickly. He said he would engage the leadership of both countries to press for a peaceful resolution.

Katherine Long and Alexander Ward of the Wall Street Journal reported today that high-ranking officials who work under Director of National Intelligence Gabbard have ordered intelligence-agency heads to gather intelligence about Greenland. In a statement after the story appeared, Gabbard said: “The Wall Street Journal should be ashamed of aiding deep state actors who seek to undermine the President by politicizing and leaking classified information. They are breaking the law and undermining our nation’s security and democracy.”

Naomi Klein on Trump, Musk and “End Times Fascism”

by

An alliance between the far right and Silicon Valley oligarchs has given rise to a form of “end times fascism,” says journalist Naomi Klein, who details in a recent essay co-authored with Astra Taylor how many wealthy elites are preparing for the end of the world even as they contribute to growing inequality, political instability and the climate crisis.

Klein says that while billionaires dream of escaping to bunkered enclaves or even to space, President Donald Trump and other right-wing leaders are turning their countries into militarized fortress states to keep out immigrants from abroad and ramp up authoritarian control domestically.

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.

Subscribe to our Daily Email Digest: https://democracynow.org/subscribe

“I run the country and the world”

by

Heather Cox Richardson | Letters from an American

Heather Cox Richardson

May 4, 2025

YIn an interview aired today on NBC News’s Meet the Press, reporter Kristen Welker asked President Donald J. Trump if he agreed that every person in the United States is entitled to due process.

“I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” Trump answered.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees that “no person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Judges across the political spectrum agree that the amendment does not limit due process to citizens. In his decision in the 1993 case Reno v. Flores, conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.”

In his oath of office, Trump vowed to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

When Welker pointed out that the Constitution guarantees due process, Trump suggested he could ignore it because honoring due process was too slow. “I don’t know,” he said. “It seems—it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are—some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

“I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he added.

Welker tried again. “[D]on’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States?”

Trump replied: “I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

Conservative judge J. Michael Luttig explained to MSNBC’s Ari Velshi that far-right scholars have argued that the president does not have to follow the Supreme Court if he doesn’t agree with its decisons: he can interpret the Constitution for himself. Luttig called this “constitutional denialism.” He added that “[t]he American people deserve to know if the President does not intend to uphold the Constitution of the United States or if he intends to uphold it only when he agrees with the Supreme Court.”

Mark Berman and Jeremy Roebuck of the Washington Post reported today that federal judges are becoming increasingly impatient with the incompetence of the Department of Justice lawyers who are defending more than 200 cases against the administration in court. Judges have accused DOJ lawyers of providing inadequate answers and flimsy evidence, defying court orders, and even behaving like toddlers.

Trump has said the justice system is a “rigged system” run by “radical left lunatics,” but former federal judge John E. Jones III, whom President George W. Bush appointed to the bench, agreed that DOJ lawyers have “lost a fair measure of their credibility.”

Authoritarian governments are based on the idea that some people are better than others. This translates into the idea that some people have special insight based only upon their superiority. They don’t have to listen to experts, who just muddle the clear picture the leader can see. When reality intrudes on that vision, the problem is not the ideology of the leader, it is obstruction by political opponents.

As Trump told Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer of The Atlantic about his presidencies: “The first time, I had two things to do—run the country and survive; I had all these crooked guys,” he said. “And the second time, I run the country and the world.”

Trump himself illustrated this ideology again in the interview with Kristen Welker when he explained his trade war. “Look,” he said. “We were losing hundreds of billions of dollars with China. Now we’re essentially not doing business with China. Therefore, we’re saving hundreds of billions of dollars. Very simple.”

It is not, in fact, that simple.

This impulse to downplay expertise and concentrate power in a strongman shows in Trump’s tapping of Secretary of State Marco Rubio as acting national security advisor, as well as acting head of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Clearly, Trump doesn’t think he needs experts in at least three of those four senior posts. Perhaps it also shows there are few experts still willing to work in a Trump White House.

The results of this disdain for expertise shows these days most immediately in the policies of Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As measles continues to spread across the U.S., a spokesperson for Health and Human Services said Friday that Kennedy will turn the country’s health agencies away from promoting vaccination, which is 97% effective in preventing the disease, and toward exploring new treatments for it, including vitamins.

“It’s not that there’s been a lack of studies,” Dr. Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, told Teddy Rosenbluth of the New York Times. Decades of research have not discovered dramatic treatments, while vaccinations have proven safe and effective at preventing the life-threatening disease.

Rosenbluth noted that “[p]ublic health experts are baffled by Mr. Kennedy’s decision to hunt for new treatments, rather than endorse shots that have decades of safety and efficacy data.” This stance seems to contradict Kennedy’s longstanding focus on preventing disease.

Kennedy has also falsely claimed that the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (MMR) contains “aborted fetus debris,” that parents should “do their own research,” and that he will institute testing for new vaccines with placebo-controlled trials, a practice medical experts warn could be unethical as subjects believe they are protected from disease when they are not.

Infectious disease expert Paul Offit told Jessica Glenza of The Guardian: “It’s his goal to even further lessen trust in vaccines and make it onerous enough for manufacturers that they will abandon it.”

At the end of March, Kennedy also vowed to study possible links between vaccines and autism, although repeated scholarly studies have shown no link. Kennedy has tapped David Geier, who does not have a medical degree and was disciplined in Maryland for practicing medicine without a license, to perform the study.

On Thursday, former New York Times global health reporter Donald G. McNeil Jr. noted that both Geier and Kennedy have made significant money thanks to their anti-vax stands as they monetize alleged treatments and sue pharmaceutical companies.

In Ars Technica on April 30, microbiologist and senior health reporter Beth Mole explored another angle to understand Kennedy’s policies. She noted that Kennedy, who is neither a doctor nor a public health expert, does not believe in the foundational principle of modern medicine: germ theory.

In a 2021 book, Kennedy argued the idea that microscopic viruses, bacteria, parasites, and fungi cause disease serves the pharmaceutical industry and the healthcare industry that grew around it by “emphasiz[ing] targeting particular germs with specific drugs rather than fortifying the immune system through healthy living, clean water, and good nutrition.” He accused those supporting this system, including Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who was a proponent of the Covid vaccine, of misleading the American public.

While Kennedy appears to believe germs exist, he also claims to believe in the older theory of disease called “miasma theory,” although as Mole points out, he misunderstands that theory—the idea that diseases are caused by poisonous vapors—and really appears to believe in another old idea: “terrain theory.” Terrain theory maintains that diseases are signs that the internal “terrain” of the body is out of whack.

This would explain Kennedy’s assertion—refuted by doctors—that the children who died of measles were malnourished. As medical blogger Kristen Panthagani, MD/PhD, explains: Kennedy’s way of thinking is “the belief that infections don’t pose a risk to healthy people who have optimized their immune system.”

While underlying medical conditions certainly affect people’s health, Mole notes that “the evidence against terrain theory is obvious and all around us.” But if you think germs are less important than overall health, things like the pasteurization of milk to kill E. coli, salmonella, and Listeria bacteria—which Kennedy opposes—are unnecessary.

In 1876, German microbiologist Robert Koch discovered that the cause of anthrax was a bacterium. Germ theory challenged established practices In the U.S., where doctors in the 1860s during the Civil War believed the best demonstration of their skill was their bloody aprons and instruments, instruments they kept in a velvet-lined case.

In 1881 the doctor overseeing President James Garfield’s recovery from a gunshot wound repeatedly probed the president’s wound with dirty instruments and his fingers, prompting assassin Charles Guiteau to plead not guilty of the murder by claiming, “The doctors killed Garfield, I just shot him.”

But just four years later, germ theory was so widely accepted that the U.S. Army required medical officers to inspect their posts every month and report the results to the administration, and by 1886, disease rates were dropping. By 1889, the U.S. Army had written manuals for sanitary field hospitals, and the need to combat germs was so commonplace medical officers rarely mentioned it.

And now, in 2025, the top health official in the United States, a man without degrees in either medicine or public health, appears to be rejecting germ theory and reshaping the nation’s medical system around his own dedication to a theory that was outdated well over a century ago.

A cure for Trumpism: Radical empathy and radical change

by

Some reflections on Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s playbook for a post-Trump America

By ANAND GIRIDHARADAS

Anand Giridharadas 
Anand Giridharadas 

Here is a strange thing about politics. It’s a competitive arena in which people win by distinguishing themselves from others. And it’s an arena so lacking in originality. How often do you hear a political leader say something truly inspired, or even just slightly fresh? How often do you notice them actually thinking out loud, the mind still active, still with questions, not answers given to them on Post-It notes by an aide?

It is rare enough that, when it happens, it sometimes takes me a second to realize it. But that’s what happened when I interviewed Dr. Abdul El-Sayed. He is a doctor and public health professional in Michigan who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018 and is now running for the U.S. Senate.

What took me time to register was that El-Sayed was doing something more interesting than explaining why he should win his primary. He was laying out a vision for how America can finally be done with Trumpism. Like, actually done.

I don’t think I’ve heard these ideas put together like this in a package before. Each one will have its share of critics. But I think the whole package is worth a look.

The bottom line is this. A lot of what Democrats have ended up offering is contempt for Trump voters and moderate policy ideas. Dr El-Sayed is suggesting a reversal on both counts: radical empathy for Trump voters (which will rankle progressives) and radical change to eradicate the social conditions that enabled Trump (which will rankle moderates). Let them be rankled.

The Ink is brought to you by readers. Support free and independent media that bows to no billionaire or tyrant by becoming a subscriber.

1. The bully and the posse

Growing up with the name Abdul, the son of immigrants from Egypt, El-Sayed knew a thing or two about bullying.

What he sees in Trump is a bully par excellence. But bullies are often secretly weak, El-Sayed observed. What props them up is their posse. Trump’s posse is millions of voters. Without their allegiance, he is a childhood-scarred, semi-literate, narcissistic bully halfwit. With their allegiance, he has a path to making himself Caesar.

El-Sayed argues, therefore, that the pro-democracy movement must obsessively seek to separate the posse from the bully. Which means adopting a posture that some fellow Democrats may not like: showing what he calls “radical empathy” for Trump voters, and viewing the choice millions made as an expression of desperation in an unresponsive system, a shout into the void.

That means not lapsing into the condescension toward lay voters that feels so satisfying and, oftentimes, so justified. It means not calling them Magats and brainwashed and irredeemable racists all. It means strategically biting your tongue and opening your arms. For winning’s sake.

Confront the bully. But woo the posse.

2. Don’t prove them wrong. Get them to right

Winning movements don’t humiliate potential followers. They fix them a drink.

Trump’s chaotic and economy-quaking opening months are already causing lots of pain for his own supporters, let alone all the other people in his policy crosshairs.

Open any social media site, and what do you see these days? Gleeful Democrats sharing stories of MAGA types now being hurt by the policies they voted for.

Understandable psychologically? Yes. Smart politically? No. Not even a little bit.

Dr. El-Sayed framed the approach he favors instead succinctly: “We’ve got to get folks to being right, not prove them wrong.”

What’s the difference? It’s about creating, he says, “a space within which you felt safe enough…to say, you know what?, I made a mistake.”

So next time you hear a veteran who voted for Trump complaining about benefit cuts, or a shopkeeper complaining about tariffs, or a CEO complaining about the stock market, resist the temptation to gloat. If you want to save your country from hell, invite these potential newcomers to the pro-democracy cause in. Pour them a drink.

3. America is good, actually

In some of the progressive circles Dr. El-Sayed travels in, well-earned critiques of American policy and history can sometimes devolve into contempt for America.

Progressives have a patriotism problem, often conceding the flag to those who would break the country rather than share it. They become so consumed with what is wrong with the country that they forget to say whether there is anything they love about it, and they leave the impression, sometimes true, sometimes not, that they think it irredeemably flawed, rotten at the root.

This is fine for your academic seminar. But please keep this pose out of politics. Because it’s risking the republic itself and plays right into Donald Trump’s hands.

Dr. El-Sayed, as a child of Egyptian immigrants, has a way into this issue that is compelling and worth listening to. He knows all the critiques leveled at America; he levels many of them himself. But his dualness — being from here and being from there — gives him another way of seeing.

He spoke in our conversation about going back to Egypt in his youth. He would sit with his grandmother who, he said, half-jokingly (or maybe not?), would sit with him and tell him that this cousin of his was better looking than Abdul, and this one more athletic, and this one smarter. But you know what Abdul had, his greatest gift that would matter more than any of these others? He would soon be leaving Egypt.

It’s a bittersweet truth that many of us with similar experiences of dualness know from childhood. And many of us who, like El-Sayed, would grow up to have criticisms of how America functions would also, like El-Sayed, never forget that America has real and profound gifts, that it offers many, many people — not enough, but more than most places — life chances and an opportunity to flourish and create and speak and become the fullest version of yourself. That this is a great country, which is, sadly, language many progressives would find way too cringe. Enjoy autocracy, guys!

What El-Sayed reminds us is that to be a progressive who comes partly from somewhere else can be to hold two competing ideas in tension: that America is flawed, and is built on ideals and ways rare in history and worth defending.

“America sucks” is a lazy shrug too often heard in progressive organizing spaces, and it is weirdly provincial in its obliviousness to how life is in other places around the world, and what El-Sayed is pointing toward instead is a progressive patriotism.

“I love America because I know exactly what my life would have ended up as if I didn’t, but for the accident of history, get to grow up here,” he told me. And: “My critiques about America are about the difference between what she gave me…and what she has not given too many kids.”

His advice to Democrats and progressives: “Wrap yourself in the flag as you demand the flag represent the things that you believe are best about this country.”

4. Fighting Trump isn’t enough. Win the peace

Since Inauguration Day, I, like so many of you and so many across the country, have argued that Democrats need to show fight.

Boneless and skinless is fine for chicken thighs. It’s not adequate for a party that purports to be interested in beating back an attempted authoritarian breakthrough.

But El-Sayed challenged my thinking on the fight point. A former team captain in school sports before he became a Rhodes Scholar and a medical doctor, he pointed to scars on his face and spoke obliquely about not being afraid to fight when needed.

But he argued Democrats need to be more interested in winning the peace than the war: “Nobody fights the war to just win the war. You fight the war to win the peace.”

What he means is remaining focused on healing the causes of the pain that made Trump possible, instead of over-fixating on Trump as the sum total of the ill.

The mantra to fight more and fight harder, which I have touted as much as anyone, risks fetishizing fight for its own sake. The real goal, El-Sayed says, must be creating conditions where the fighting is unnecessary.

And how do you win the peace?

The Ink is powered by readers like you. Subscribe to support independent media.

5. The age of insecurity

There are a lot of ways to frame the times we live in. But El-Sayed offered one that stuck with me: this is an age of insecurity.

What’s powerful about insecurity as a grand unified theory is that it encompasses all manner of sentiments, from all sections of the political spectrum, some based in reality, others more in fantasy, but all with emotive, often explosive political effect.

Brutal hyper-capitalism creates insecurity. Not being able to afford things creates insecurity. Feeling vulnerable to crime creates insecurity. Feeling deluged across a poorly managed border creates insecurity. Racial and gender progress, when you are not well prepared for your own new role and standing, creates insecurity. New and unfamiliar ideas about history and the meaning of your country create insecurity. New technology and the threat of obsolescence create insecurity. The loss of control over one’s children and their vulnerability to outside influences creates insecurity.

You will no doubt identify with some forms of insecurity listed above, and not with others. El-Sayed’s point is that insecurity in general has been roiling our hearts and politics, and has achieved what he, a public health doctor, calls “epidemic” status.

“The thing about insecurity is that you may have what you need right now, but you’re constantly at risk of losing it.”

So part of winning the peace beyond Trumpism, rather than just making war with Trump, is addressing the roots of insecurity.

And how bold should Democrats be in doing that?

6. Abolish vanilla

Some of El-Sayed’s arguments above — the radical empathy part of his solution — might strike some Democrats as too solicitous of Trump voters, too eager to make accommodations. But El-Sayed is not a mushy moderate. Rather, I think of him as being in the mold of many of the organizers I wrote about in my book The Persuaders: advocating more flexibility on how you reach out to and court moderates and MAGA voters, but more stridency in policymaking.

A lot of what you see from Democrats right now is the opposite: Snideness and condescension toward MAGA types, but mushy moderate policies. El-Sayed wants to flip that script: Gentle, openhearted outreach and aggressive, even radical, policy.

“You can’t beat something with nothing,” he told me. “And, love him or hate him, when it comes to Donald Trump, he’s always saying something. And the problem that folks have with Democrats is that we say nothing, but we say it with a lot of enthusiasm. It’s like somebody screaming ‘Vanilla!’ at you. You’re like, Well, I don’t know, what if I like cookie dough? What if I like cookies and cream? What if I like Rocky Road? The folks are like, ‘Vanilla! vanilla!’”

El-Sayed has advocated aggressive policy responses to America’s overlapping crises — including Medicare for All, which he wrote an entire book about. Whatever you think about individual policy questions, the larger point is worth grappling with: that the proper place for moderation is in the stance one shows to potentially politically adrift Americans. The place for unbending passion is on substantive policy ideas that would drastically change the country, drain some of the insecurity, and therefore heal the conditions that enabled Trump, so that we don’t keep returning to square one.

7. Reclaim common sense

Listening to El-Sayed, it struck me that he was pushing against both his fellow progressives and the more moderate wing of the Democratic Party, in distinct ways.

His message to progressives is to ditch the label. I am referring to him as a progressive, but he didn’t call himself that, although his policy vision lines up with any conventional definition. But he seemed determined to frame ideas like clean air and water, healthcare for all, ending wasteful wars, and such as basic common sense, not radical or out of the mainstream. (Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been making similar arguments on her “Fighting Oligarchy” tour stops.)

But he also has a bracing message for those moderates so singularly fixated on Trump that they think the goal of political struggle should be to return America to the day before the golden escalator ride in 2015. “That’s our own version of Make America Great Again. It just happens to be 2015 instead of 1930-something,” he told me.

America wasn’t working for most people in 2015. The way to move past Trumpism is to champion drastically, boldly upending what wasn’t working, and to do so with an openhearted posture toward converts who will have many reasons to seek a new political home in the days that are coming.

If The Ink helps you think and connect with others and stay sane in these times, support the work that goes into it by subscribing. Or give a gift or group subscription.

Source: The Ink