Another Test for America

Election Day was a test for the United States, and it failed. The electorate failed to protect democracy from a narcissistic, deceitful, racist, misogynist, and grifting demagogue who several years earlier had unsuccessfully tried to subvert the constitutional order by promoting disinformation and inciting political violence. It elevated to the highest office of the land a wannabe autocrat who has proposed numerous affronts to the rule of law and who was described by retired generals who previously worked with him as a “fascist.” Half of those who voted opted to hand a potential threat to democracy the opportunity and means to implement that threat.

And now there is another test.

This past week, Trump signaled what was expected: His second presidential stint will be a jamboree of extremism and norm-busting that imperils the security of the nation and the health and safety of its people. Again, the question is, can the American system act to preserve the well-being of the country and its citizenry?

Does this sound a tad hyperbolic? In the last few days, Trump has announced the appointment of cabinet officials who endanger the nation and even perhaps its existence. He has picked the profoundly inexperienced Pete Hegseth, a Fox (weekend!) host, to run the Defense Department, the largest organization in the history of humanity, which has the critical mission of protecting the nation. He has tapped the politically erratic Tulsi Gabbard, a Vladimir Putin sympathizer and enthusiastic promoter of Russian propaganda, to be director of national intelligence, the top overseer of the entire US intelligence community. He has declared his intention to name (now former) Rep. Matt Gaetz, a man of dubious ethics who has been investigated for sex trafficking, illegal drug use, and the improper receipt of gifts, as attorney general, the highest law enforcement official in the land, responsible for ensuring the Justice Department effectively and legally pursues criminals. And maybe worse of all, Trump has selected anti-vaxxer and anti-science conspiracy-monger Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be secretary of Health and Human Services, the agency responsible for safeguarding the health of every American.

These are choices from a bizarro world. Hegseth has demonstrated no capacity for leading the massive American military. He’s more likely to cause instability than readiness in that gargantuan institution by fighting culture war battles within its ranks. Gabbard has expressed kinship with America’s adversaries—not just Putin but also Bashar al-Assad, the tyrannical Russia- and Iran-backed ruler of Syria. America’s allies (as well as members of the intel community) will not trust her, and important intelligence-sharing relationships that contribute to the security of the United States will be frayed, if not shattered, should she become the top spy. Gaetz guiding the Justice Department will undermine confidence in the department’s fairness. If he continues to behave as a staunch Trump loyalist and launches prosecutions of Trump’s political foes, as the president-elect has demanded, it will corrupt the department and divert resources from legitimate investigations of criminals. He has called for abolishing the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. That’s good news for criminals, foreign spies, and terrorists (foreign and domestic).

As for Kennedy, he has made plain how his appointment would jeopardize the health of millions. He has long crusaded against vaccines, frequently citing debunked studies and fake science. During his independent presidential campaign this year, he claimed he was not anti-vax, but that was a boldfaced lie. As the Associated Press reported:

Kennedy said in a 2023 podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective” and told Fox News that he still believes in the long-ago debunked idea that vaccines can cause autism. In a 2021 podcast he urged people to “resist” CDC guidelines on when kids should get vaccines.

“I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby and I say to him, better not get them vaccinated,” Kennedy said.

That same year, in a video promoting an anti-vaccine sticker campaign by his nonprofit, Kennedy appeared onscreen next to one sticker that declared “IF YOU’RE NOT AN ANTI-VAXXER YOU AREN’T PAYING ATTENTION.”

During the past year, I’ve reported on Kennedy. I dug into his connection to a deadly measles outbreak in Samoa in 2019. (He falsely said he had nothing to do with this fatal outburst of measles on the island.) I also examined a bonkers conspiracy theory he had recently promoted: A global elite led by the CIA had been planning for years to use a pandemic to end democracy and impose totalitarian control on the entire world. And I discovered he was a complete charlatan when it came to concocting phony evidence to supposedly prove his loony assertion. And I reported that the super-PAC for his campaign was chock-full of conspiracy theorists who championed baseless notions about 9/11, the 2020 campaign, Covid, and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. People like that will be by his side, as he presides over the nation’s public health system.

Imagine Kennedy in charge of public health. If he succeeds in eliminating vaccines mandates, measles, polio, and other diseases practically eliminated would come roaring back. Yes, we all should be suspicious of Big Pharma, but his oversight of the Food and Drug Administration could prevent the development of new drugs to fight cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other illnesses. (Kennedy has said that he would shut down approval of all new drugs for eight years.) In the event of another pandemic, he could block the approval and dissemination of a new vaccine. It’s no exaggeration to say that if Kennedy in this position hews to his stance that no vaccines are safe or effective, millions of Americans could die.

With these decisions—and maybe with others ahead—Trump jeopardizes the nation. And the test is whether any of this can be stopped.

When it comes to presidential appointments, the only counterpower to the chief executive is the Senate. These positions must be confirmed by a majority. And the Republicans will control the Senate starting in January with either a four- or six-seat edge (depending on the outcome of the Pennsylvania Senate race). That means any of these nominees could be blocked if three or four Republicans say no. Thus, the test for this moment only applies to members of Trump’s own party, which he has largely transformed into a personality cult. (See Dumbass Comment of the Week below.)

Several of these appointments did prompt initial skepticism from a handful GOP senators. In the case of Gaetz, a few called for the release of a not-yet-public House ethics committee report based on the panel’s investigation of his alleged misdeeds. A couple noted Gabbard’s record must be vigorously scrutinized. And it’s not hard to imagine that the confirmation hearings for the Gang of Four will be explosive, at least from the Democratic side.

Norm Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, proposed an intriguing idea: Before this Congress concludes at the end of the year, Senate Democrats ought to hold pre-confirmation hearings on these nominees and share the horror stories with the public. This moment is also a test for Democrats. Can they rise out of the ashes of their defeat and construct a fierce opposition—at least, rhetorically—to these dangerous appointments?

But the real action is only on one side of the aisle. Will any Republicans endeavor to thwart Trump’s will? It appears as if Trump is indeed testing his party with these radical appointments. If he gets it to roll over for this weird band, what won’t it go for?

And there’s a rub. Trump has raised the prospect of ducking the usual course and placing these misfits in these posts via recess appointments, which don’t require Senate votes. The Constitution allows for such appointments as an option for times of emergency when Congress is not in session and a government vacancy must be filled. Recess appointments, which can last for up to two years, are not supposed to be used to circumvent the regular path. In recent years, the Senate has avoided going into recess to prevent such appointments. Will Republican senators continue to do so to preserve their constitutional prerogative and remain a check-and-balance on the executive? Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who last week was elected the incoming Senate majority leader, said that recess appointments “are on the table.”

And there’s a rub to the rub. Per the Constitution, the president has the power to impose a recess on Congress when its two bodies are in “disagreement” on “adjournment.” If the Senate Republicans refuse to provide Trump the recess he wants for his fanatical appointments, the House GOP could pass a resolution of adjournment, and Trump could declare the two chambers are in disagreement and slam a recess on the Senate. This is only supposed to occur during “extraordinary Occasions.” But would Trump recognize that constitutional limit or happily spark a constitutional crisis? Would the House Republicans go along with this? Would Senate Republicans challenge such a move? It could become quite messy, and we know that Trump relishes chaos.

The ultimate issue is whether Senate Republicans will fulfill their constitutional duty to check the president’s power and mount an effort to stop Trump from placing extremists in positions of immense responsibility and authority. Or will they accept the evisceration of one of the Senate’s most important responsibilities? A critical piece of the US constitutional system is on the line and could be destroyed by Trump and his GOP handmaids. We’ve been learning in this stretch that democracy can hang on a slender reed, and reeds don’t come much slenderer than the Senate GOP.

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland.corn@gmail.com.

I know the past nine days have not been easy for most Our Land readers. It’s tough to watch half of your fellow voters return to office a fellow who has accurately been called a “fascist” and to see an accomplished and capable Black woman, whatever the faults of her campaign, be rejected after a campaign marred by racism and sexism. Disinformation reigned, and regressive and repressive forces won the day. Yet not by much. The nation is still divided 50–50. That’s the good news, or the best news that might be drawn out of this. We are not alone. Our values and ideals (generally) are shared by one out of two voters. That means the battle for the nation’s soul—as someone once described it—is a toss-up, and it is not likely to be settled for a while. Keep that in mind, do what you must to tend to your own soul, and remain in the fight.

I thank all of you for sticking with Our Land during this grueling, frustrating, and disenchanting election. I hope the newsletter and this community helped along the way. And I further hope you stay with us in the weeks, months, and years(!) ahead. There will be much to witness, ponder, report, and discuss. I’m particularly grateful to premium subscribers. It’s your support that keeps this newsletter going—and it will be necessary for its future survival and, I hope, its expansion. Premium subscriptions have picked up a bit since the election. I take that as a sign that readers understand the importance of independent journalism at this moment, and I’ll continue to strive to produce work that is deserving of your time and dollars.

So let’s gather for another Our Land Zoom get-together on Tuesday, November 26, at 8 p.m. ET, two days before we are obliged to give thanks. As most of you know, these sessions are only open to premium subscribers. On the day of the shindig, these readers will be sent a Zoom link. Click on it at the appointed hour, and our highly trained Our Land bouncers will let you in. See you then. If you’re not a premium subscriber and want to join this noble band, you can sign up here.

For much of this year, my colleague Sam Van Pykeren and I have produced a series of videos called It Can Happen Here, which tracked creeping authoritarianism in the United States. Now it seems that it has happened here, to some extent. In case you’ve missed the last one we did, here it is:

It was a very dumbass week, as Donald Trump rolled out appointments that seemed more appropriate for a clown car than a cabinet. And with that came some rather idiotic utterances. But first, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas). Talking to a reporter about Trump, he said, “There’s no question he’s the leader of our party. So now he’s got a mission statement. His mission and his goals and objectives—whatever that is—we need to embrace it. All of it. Every single word…If Donald Trump says jump three feet high and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads. That’s it.”

Does anyone want to still argue the GOP is not a cult? Republicans didn’t even speak this way about Ronald Reagan back in the day. The oath House members take upon assuming office is to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” It is not an oath to the president or any one person or party. Nehls does not understand the basics of our republic.

Back to the appointments. After Trump announced the startling absurd appointment of Matt Gaetz to head the Justice Department, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whom Trump belittled in 2016 and has now selected to be his secretary of state, was asked by a journalist about the Gaetz move. Rubio replied, “I’ve known Matt for a very long time. I think he’d do a great job.”

Look at that photo of Rubio making this statement. You don’t have to peer too closely to see his soul leaving his body through dead eyes. There’s no way Rubio believed what he was saying. But lying—as well as having no shame and bending the knee—is part of the price to pay for serving as secretary of state and being fourth in the presidential line of succession. A historical note for Rubio: No secretary of state has been elected president since James Buchanan in 1856.

Trump had the top runner-up entry this week. In announcing Tulsi Gabbard as his choice to be director of national intelligence, the official who oversees the entire US intelligence community of 18 different agencies (including the CIA and the NSA), he declared, “As a former Candidate for the Democrat Presidential Nomination, she has broad support in both Parties—She is now a proud Republican! I know Tulsi will bring the fearless spirit that has defined her illustrious career to our Intelligence Community, championing our Constitutional Rights, and securing Peace through Strength. Tulsi will make us all proud!”

Gabbard did not have broad support in the Democratic Party. She hardly had any support. When she ran for president in the Democratic primaries in 2020, she managed to hit 3 percent in New Hampshire and 0.3 percent in Nevada. After Super Tuesday, where she collected between 0 percent and 1 percent in most states, she dropped out.

More important, Gabbard for years has been a stooge for both Putin and Assad and a promoter of Russian disinformation and talking points. She provided a preemptive defense of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and afterward pushed the conspiracy theory advanced by Russia that the United States had been helping Ukraine develop biological weapons to deploy against Russia. Her fondness for Putin—which has earned her much favorable coverage from Russia’s propaganda outlets—has been quite curious, and her appointment will likely spook intelligence services throughout the world and make them hesitant to collaborate with US intelligence.

Not only did Trump this week come in second; he came in first. He topped his dumb praise of Gabbard with his dumb praise of Gaetz: “He is a Champion for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Matt will root out the systemic corruption at DOJ, and return the Department to its true mission of fighting Crime, and upholding our Democracy and Constitution. We must have Honesty, Integrity, and Transparency at DOJ. Under Matt’s leadership, all Americans will be proud of the Department of Justice once again.”

Gaetz was once arrested on a DUI charge. As noted above, he was investigated by the Justice Department for sex trafficking (with no prosecution pursued). The House ethics committee also has been investigating him for allegations of illegal drug use, accepting improper gifts, and sexual misconduct, including having sex with an underage girl. It was due this week to vote on releasing what reportedly is a damaging report based on its inquiry. But Gaetz resigned from the House on Wednesday immediately after Trump declared he was tapping him for AG—perhaps to prevent the release of the report. And there’s more: His colleagues note that Gaetz has displayed photos on his phone while on the House floor of naked women and bragged about having sex with them. This is hardly a man to be proud of. For selling the target of a Justice Department investigation as the best man to become the nation’s top law enforcement officer, Trump surpassed himself to take the prize. 

As you can imagine, there was much mail in the aftermath of the election. Many readers expressed dismay and horror. Some reported they felt like giving up. Others noted they were inspired to fight on against right-wing extremism and Trumpism. Some readers responded directly to my look at the competing explanations for the results. Many shared their own thoughts on this topic.

Alfred Higgins summed up the dark view of many:

Thanks for your enduring dedication to journalism and truth. Despite the marginal difference in the popular vote, it is clear that the majority of voters have embraced oligarchical fascism, and it will run amok for the next two years regardless of any resistance efforts. This election will mark the beginning of the end for humanity, considering the enormous climate and geopolitical ramifications of such a government in the US. As the world witnessed, it required the utter destruction of Europe to dismantle the Nazi regime, and it is evident that the pending Trumpist regime will be unhindered by the corrupt Supreme Court or the corrupt legislative majorities. Those of us who believe in Constitutional Democracy are in for the fight of our lives.

Brian Flanagan wrote:

Sinclair Lewis’ title was unfortunately wrong. It did happen here. May the same fate await our Buzz and his minions as Lewis’ Buzz.

As the co-producer of a video series that quasi-borrowed the title of Lewis’ 1935 dystopian novel, It Can’t Happen Here (see above), I appreciated Brian’s email. He was referring to the book’s Buzz Windrip, the demagogue elected president who quickly auto-coups himself into totalitarian power. It does not end up well for Windrip, as Flanagan notes, but to find out what happens, you’ll have to read this prescient novel.

Margaret Reis shared this:

I disagreed with your opinion of Bernie Sanders. He was responsible for Biden’s progressive agenda, which happened because he was so successful in the 2020 election that he almost turned the election away from the Democrats. He is right that the Democrats blew it for decades by turning toward the rich donors and away from the middle class. You should give him credit for his accomplishments not complain about him. He may yet be the one who saves us from Trump in the future.

Folks can go back and review what I said about Sanders. I appreciate his overall critique of the Democratic Party but don’t accept that a full turn to the left with, say, Medicare for All, will be the big solution for the Dems.

Ranna LeVoir observed:

I think Biden’s support of Israel has distressed many people, and Harris did not oppose it or suggest alternatives. I think she lost a lot of votes there.

It’s tough to know what the ultimate impact of that was on the vote count. But one big mistake the Dems made during the campaign was to block the Palestinian American state legislator from Georgia from giving a short speech (outside primetime) at the Democratic convention.

Martha Willoughby wanted to point a finger:

Rarely in all these analyses do I see anyone venture, however timidly, to suggest that the American voter has a duty, a responsibility, to make sure that he or she is accurately informed. As a retired college English teacher, I can say that I spent decades trying to explain that responsibility to students and warning them that they should not want to be dupes of propaganda. We tried to show our students how to identify reliable sources. Without knowledge about history and government, without accurate frames of reference, and without accurate facts, it is impossible to make wise decisions. I know there are many considerations in the autopsy of the election, but, damn, voters have some responsibilities too.

Dale Dougherty referred to an article written by my pal Michael Tomasky in the New Republic that contended the “real reason” Trump won was right-wing media, and asked for my thoughts on it. You should read it; here’s what we call the nut graf:

Today, the right-wing media—Fox News (and the entire News Corp.), Newsmax, One America News Network, the Sinclair network of radio and TV stations and newspapers, iHeart Media (formerly Clear Channel), the Bott Radio Network (Christian radio), Elon Musk’s X, the huge podcasts like Joe Rogan’s, and much more—sets the news agenda in this country. And they fed their audiences a diet of slanted and distorted information that made it possible for Trump to win.

I agree with a lot of this piece. But I also believe that right-wing media is not the only explanation and might be described as both one cause of many and the solidifier of other causes.

Donna Halper had a take on this media angle:

One of the things that has always mystified me is the ability of Trump and his allies to take a fringe Democratic position that was espoused by very few folks and make it seem like the view of every single Democrat. I've had Republican friends of mine parrot back to me that they can't vote for Dems because we all want to defund the police, we're all socialists, and we don't believe men are men and women are women. Neither Kamala Harris nor Tim Walz said anything like this, but the right-wing media universe was able to persuade millions of voters that it's Democrats who are extreme and Republicans are "normal." An incredible and cynical ploy, made possible because Dems have never had an effective media strategy.

I had a long radio career (40 years) and I remember begging leading Democrats when the Fairness Doctrine ended in 1987 to invest in radio. They never did, and to this day, talk radio is 95 percent conservative. This matters because immigrant communities still rely on local radio. Later, I begged leading Dems to buy up some internet platforms or support fact-based content. Nope. And now, in large parts of the US, including where some of my pro-Trump friends live, the only viewpoints they encounter, even on local TV (owned in many cases by right-wing companies like Sinclair), are viewpoints that demonize Democrats and glorify the claims made by Trump and his allies. Until we can work on combating the erroneous perceptions so many folks are fed about us 24/7, I see only further disappointment ahead.

Elizabeth Wikfors chided me for writing, "Donald Trump...has won a presidential election with the support of more than half the nation." She exclaimed, “David Corn, this is incorrect!” Indeed, it was. The US population is 335 million, with about 260 million being over the age of 18. About 150 million people voted. That’s about 58 percent of the adult population, and only half of them backed Trump. So he had the support of less than 30 percent of US adults. Perhaps more important, over 40 percent didn’t bother to register an opinion.

Janet Liles sent in the best note of the week:

Thank you for the MoxieCams. They’re the 🌞 among the 😫.

Speaking of which...

“You look worried.”
“Moxie, these appointments are going to be the death of us. Perhaps literally with Kennedy.”
“At least he won’t be in charge of dog food and medicine.”
“Oh, Moxie, don’t you know? It’s the FDA that regulates pet food and pharmaceuticals.”
“Fuck me.”