It’s a War. Do Democrats Get That?

Donald Trump with Elon Musk at SpaceX’s launch site in Boca Chica, Texas, on November 19, 2024. Brandon Bell/AP

It’s a war.

In the first two weeks of his presidency, Donald Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk have initiated an all-out battle against the US government, the rule of law, and decency. They have mounted a blitzkrieg, a coup, an assault on the Constitution. It’s a mad power grab designed to steer the nation toward autocracy and full-fledged oligarchy. What’s under way is not merely the implementation of far-right policies but an attack on the American system and a hostile takeover of the nation.

Trump and his minions have rooted out civil servants who they deem insufficiently loyal to Dear Leader and taken draconian steps to depopulate federal agencies that do the people’s business, such as safeguarding our food supply, researching cures for diseases, protecting workers and the environment, overseeing our transportation systems, and keeping the financial system secure and stable. They tried through an arguably illegal executive order to freeze funding for health care, education, transportation, and other services.

Musk and his mafia took over the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees hiring across the executive branch, installing their own servers. They also invaded the highly sensitive Treasury Department to gain control of the government’s payment system, presumably to cut off funds to programs Musk and Trump want to defund—a step that risked massive privacy violations, hacks, assorted abuses, and the possible breakdown of what is essentially the government’s circulatory system. Trump’s shock troops cut off foreign aid, a move that caused the closure of soup kitchens in famine-stricken Somalia, the cessation of medical services for war refugees in Thailand, the end to heating assistance for Ukrainians on the frontline of the war with Russia, and other programs—increasing misery, death, and disease around the world. Musk, the richest man in the world, called the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which  distributes foreign aid that helps millions of low-income and indigent people, “a criminal organization” and tweeted, “Time for it to die.”

This a revolution of the elite. Trump and Musk aim to gut government. Their intent is to emasculate the one force that can counter the excesses of the powerful and the wealthy. While Trump yearns to be a strongman who commands all corners of the government and demands absolute fealty to his whims and desires, Musk seeks to weaken the one entity that can check corporate power and abuses, including his own. He’s pursuing a right-wing libertarian fantasy of unfettered capitalism. The disrupters and technologists shall rule as they see fit, without the pesky interventions of bureaucrats committed to the public good. This is not the typical fight of the well-to-do for tax cuts and deregulation—which, of course, the Republicans and their billionaire underwriters do crave—but an ideological crusade to change the foundation of American society and crush checks and balances that might prevent Trump, Musk, and others in the oligarchy from reigning supreme. It’s class warfare, top-down. Feel free to call it fascism.

Musk isn’t hiding any of this. He sees hardworking and devoted government workers as the enemy to be conquered. On Saturday, he joyously tweeted, “Very few in the bureaucracy actually work the weekend, so it’s like the opposing team just leaves the field for 2 days! Working the weekend is a superpower.” He added a laughing emoji. And Trump is giddily flexing his muscle, hinting the use of military force to expand the American empire and imposing wide-ranging tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China that will raise prices for Americans. (On Monday, he paused the tariffs on Mexico for a month.) For his greater glory, he tells voters, they will have to go through “some pain”—the opposite of what he promised as a candidate. As any emperor would do, he pursued his purge by firing top FBI officials and federal prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases.

His administration pulled down websites across the federal government and disappeared thousands of data sets. His new head of the Federal Communications Commission has ordered an investigation of NPR and PBS—part of a wider administration effort to undermine the media that Trump has long demonized and schemed to discredit. The Pentagon kicked the New York Times, Politico and NPR out of the working press space, handing over those desks to far-right outlets (and HuffPost). Trump crassly and recklessly blamed the tragic aviation accident in Washington, DC, on DEI to justify his shuttering of diversity programs throughout the federal government. The Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture removed references to and information about climate change from its websites. In true Soviet fashion, Trump is trying to photoshop one of the most pressing problems facing the nation and the world out of existence.

With this war raging, where are the Democrats?

They should have a war room that operates 24/7 to generate and voice loud and smart opposition to the Trump-Musk onslaught. They need to be coordinating messaging and running a nonstop firehose of social media. A never-ending string of fiery speeches on the House and Senate floor, obstructionist tactics, the exploitation of every possible forum and platform. Their best and most media-savvy members—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Chris Murphy, say—should be denouncing and decrying on a daily basis. Instead of licking wounds, Democrats ought to be showing some fight, conveying the perilous reality of the moment and presenting themselves as a fierce and united bulwark against this treacherous attack. It’s not about moving to the left or to the right. They need to rush to the barricades.

Yet…this is not yet happening. The recent confirmation hearings for Trump’s most extreme and dangerous appointments—Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Department of Health and Human Services), Kash Patel (FBI), and Tulsi Gabbard (Office of the Director of National Intelligence)—suggested that the Ds may not be up to the task. There were moments when individual Democratic senators harshly grilled these nominees, but they generally were not able to collectively and effectively highlight the radical extremism of these Trump picks and the absurdity of awarding them top positions.

At the Patel hearing, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee tried to depict him as a Trump loyalist who would abuse power to seek revenge for Trump. Yet Patel managed to get away with smugly insisting he would abide by the rule of law. They never mentioned that he had been a QAnon supporter and lied so much about the Trump-Russia scandal to protect Trump that it would be fair to call him a useful idiot for Vladimir Putin. His irresponsible grifting—he peddled supplements that he claimed without any evidence “reversed” the Covid vaccine—received insufficient attention. His promotion of a social media post encouraging violence against Trump’s political enemies came up only briefly.  

When Tulsi Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee, no Democrat dared raise the touchy subject of her life-long connection to a cult that demands complete loyalty to its megalomaniacal founder and that is tied to a Hong Kong company that has been a target of criminal and civil cases alleging fraud and racketeering in at least seven countries. This association certainly raises questions about her judgment and, perhaps, her priorities.

At the two confirmation hearings for Kennedy, Democrats pressed him on his anti-vax opposition but let him slide on the many bizarre and baseless conspiracy theories he has expounded over the years. And when the news broke that Kennedy had settled two cases in which he was accused of “misconduct or inappropriate behavior,” Democrats did not raise a fuss about this or demand details. (Kennedy claimed the charges were “unfounded” and refused to provide specifics on these cases.)

It's far from certain that sharper questioning would lead to the defeat of any of these nominees. And the format of these sessions—generally five or so minutes per senator—prevents grilling that goes deep. But the Democrats needed to use these hearings as an opportunity to deliver a single message: Trump is stocking the government with radical and inexperienced extremists who pose tremendous risks to the nation. Some Democratic senators aimed to do this, others stuck to polite policy discussions that did not serve the simple mission of the day: Stop these people. When I asked Democratic aides if they intended to deploy video clips during these hearings to discredit the nominees, they said they did not have the capacity to pull something like that together and, if they could, the Republicans controlling the committees would not permit the display of videos.

I’m not the only one who sees a failure of fierceness among DC Democrats. Last week, as the New York Times reported, a gang of six Democrats called Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and urged him to be more aggressive in challenging Trump, his nominees, and his agenda. Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas, the chair of the Democratic Governors Association, told Schumer the Democrats needed a “down and dirty” online strategy. Schumer replied that Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) was in charge of the Senate Democrats’ social media and praised Booker. The newspaper noted:

Last week, Mr. Booker delivered a PowerPoint presentation to fellow Democrats about how to deliver their message online. In the slides, which were obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Booker offered his colleagues guidance on how often to post on each platform. Instagram: once or twice a day. Facebook: once a day. LinkedIn: three to five times a week. X: two to five times a day. TikTok: one to four times a day.

That paragraph should make any Democrat scream. The Democrats are bringing a teaspoon to a gunfight. This is not how a party battling for its survival and the survival of the nation behaves. On Monday, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries sent a letter to his party colleagues in the House outlining a 10-point plan for confronting Trump. The measures he advocated were reasonable and included proposing legislation—a largely symbolic effort, given the Dems minority status—to block Musk’s raid on the Treasury Department and various Trump executive orders of dubious legality. And that afternoon, Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Don Beyer (D-Va.) and several other Democratic legislators assembled at USAID headquarters to blast what they called “Elon Musk’s illegal shutdown” of the agency. At this event, Murphy proclaimed, “This is a constitutional crisis that we are in today. Let's call it what it is.” But the Democrats only have a chance of success if the entire party can demonstrate consistent boldness.

For years, Trump and MAGA have advertised their plans. Steve Bannon, for one, has declared the ultimate goal is to annihilate what he derisively called the “administrative state.” They have demanded and prepared for this holy war, and now they are prosecuting it. Democrats as a party overall don’t seem to understand what’s at hand. This is an existential crisis for the party and the nation. While the MAGAists are implementing scorched-earth tactics, some Democrats have talked about working with Trump or Musk when they agree with them. (Rep. Ro Khanna and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s not quite a Democrat, are in this category.) This only legitimizes Trump as a normal president who might have some good ideas.  

In recent days, there have been a few heroes. Two top security officials at the USAID tried to block Musk operatives from gaining entry to its computer networks. Officials from Musk’s misnamed Department of Government Efficiency wanted access to USAID security systems, personnel files, and classified information available only to those with security clearances. The DOGErs eventually got in, and the two security officials were placed on administrative leave.

At the New York FBI field office, the top agent, James Dennehy, sent out a defiant email to his staff and vowed to “dig in” after the Trump administration fired officials involved in January 6 investigations. He wrote, “Today, we find ourselves in the middle of a battle of our own, as good people are being walked out of the F.B.I. and others are being targeted because they did their jobs in accordance with the law and F.B.I. policy.” As the Times pointed out, this email “came after the Justice Department ordered the FBI on Friday to collect the names of bureau personnel who helped investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, raising the possibility that Mr. Trump’s political appointees plan to purge career bureau officials, including rank-and-file field agents. That number could reach 6,000—or about a sixth of the bureau’s 38,000 employees, according to the FBI.”

How long can Dennehy hold the line?

This is a break-glass moment. A five-alarm fire. The Democrats must tell that story to Americans over and over, every day and in every way. They must make sure the public clearly sees the crisis at hand, understands what’s at stake, and perceives the Democrats as ferocious warriors for the common good. That is indeed a tall order. But one thing is for sure: You cannot win a war you are not fighting.

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

On Friday, Pat Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, proudly tweeted out an opinion column that had appeared in his newspaper that contended that “Trump’s healthcare disruption could pay off—if he pushes real reform,” and he said that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is “our best chance of doing so.”

There was just one problem: The article had been edited without the approval of its author, Eric Reinhart, to remove highly derogatory references to Kennedy. As Reinhart noted on X, in response to Soon-Shiong’s post, “I am the author of this OpEd, which was given a misleading title and from which key lines were cut—lines that made very clear that RFK Jr is dangerously ignorant, has absolutely no business near HHS, and is effectively a mass murderer in waiting.” Deleting a “mass murderer” reference to RFK Jr. is heavy-duty accomplice work.

Executives at Paramount and its controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, are in the possible-accomplice-to-be category. Remember when Trump filed a ridiculous $10 billion suit against CBS News, claiming 60 Minutes had deceptively edited an interview with Kamala Harris? Paramount owns CBS, and it’s now trying to work out a merger with Skydance, an entertainment company tied to billionaire Larry Ellison—a deal that could earn Redstone billions of dollars. Redstone and Paramount execs are reportedly considering settling the Trump suit—which would likely entail a pay-off to Trump—to grease the way for this megadeal, which could be blocked or delayed by the Trump administration. This would be akin to paying a mob boss protection money—and a good example of crony capitalism in the Trump 2.0 Era.

Emelia Pérez, Anora, and Conclave. I’ve been trying to make my way through the list of Best Picture nominees for the Academy Awards. So far, it’s been disappointing. Is it me? Or is this crop—or what I’ve seen of it—not that impressive? Of the contenders I’ve watched, Emelia Pérez was the most captivating. Writer-director Jacque Audiard pushed the limits on not one but two fronts: form and story. He made a crime drama about a Mexican drug lord that’s a musical and that focuses on a macho-looking criminal kingpin who transitions to a woman. Talk about working without a net. The musical numbers are impressive, especially those featuring Zoe Saldaña. She plays Rita Mora Castro, a young lawyer recruited by the title character to help him through the procedure. Afterward, Castro assists Perez, as she forms a nonprofit and uses her old ties to locate the remains of Mexicans who have disappeared due to cartel violence. There’s one stupendous number when Castro, at a glitzy fundraiser for the nonprofit, sings and raps a condemnation of the corrupt power-elite of Mexico.

Yet the film has an uneven pace and doesn’t make the best use of Selena Gomez, who plays Pérez’s party-girl wife, who believes her husband died and is unaware that Pérez was once her spouse. Moreover, the ending was a substantial letdown and undercut the imaginative accomplishments of the film. (This past week, Karla Sofía Gascón, who plays Pérez and who’s been nominated for Best Actress, was widely criticized when past tweets emerged in which she made racist, anti-Islam, and anti-gay remarks.)

I was excited for Conclave. Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow each playing a conniving Catholic cardinal, as the leaders of the church gather in the Vatican to pick a new pope—that sounded like a can’t-miss, a political thriller situated in one of the most secretive and influential assemblies in world history. Director Edward Berger (All Quiet on the Western Front) keeps the drama taut, as Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (Fiennes), the dean of the College of Cardinals, schemes with Cardinal Aldo Bellini (Tucci), a liberal-minded American, to deny the top post to Cardinal Goffredo Tedesco (Sergio Castellitto), an Italian with hard-core traditionalist views, who wants to bring the Catholic Church back to the Middle Ages. All the while, Lawrence is quietly investigating another contender, Cardinal Joseph Tremblay (Lithgow), a Canadian moderate, who was suspected by the late pope of having engaged in shady dealings. There’s intrigue and plenty of unholier-than-thou backstabbing, as the gang of cardinals moves through one round of voting after another, and onlookers gaze toward the sky for the white smoke.

Yet…I didn’t buy it. Fiennes, Tucci, and Lithgow are wonderful actors, but none managed to fully inhabit his role. For two hours, I felt I was watching not cardinals dealing with nasty political infighting but Fiennes, Tucci, and Lithgow going through the motions. And the improbable conclusion—you know all along a big surprise must be coming—was unconvincing. With a brilliant premise and all this talent, Conclave was a frustration.

Anora is supposed to be something of a modern-day Cinderella tale, with a touch of Pretty Woman. It won the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival and has been widely touted. The film is the story of Anora “Ani” Mikheeva (Mikey Madison), a 23-year-old lap dancer who works in a strip club in Brooklyn and who provides other services when the money is right. One night, she meets Ivan Zakharov (Mark Eydelshteyn), the 21-year-old party-boy son of a Russian oligarch, who becomes smitten with her. He retains her for a week of sex and romping that ends up in Las Vegas, where he proposes marriage, in part so he can get a green card. When they return to Brooklyn, a married couple, chaos ensues as Ivan’s godfather, a local Armenian priest named Toros, and two henchmen, Garnik and Igor, following the orders of Ivan’s parents, confront Ivan. He flees, Ani beats the crap out of the henchmen, and then the whole gang goes in search of Ivan, with Toros aiming to get the marriage annulled before the oligarch and his enraged wife hit town the next day.

There are plenty of wry and comedic moments, as much goes wrong during this very long night. And I was glad to see that writer-director Sean Baker did not make this a story of the big, bad Russian mob. Toros, Garnik, and Igor are more hapless than menacing, but not above applying a touch of force when necessary. The movie has been hailed for its portrayal of a sex worker who’s exploited by a Russian rich kid and the demimonde in which she resides. Yet Ani shows little spunk or agency. She happily marries this immature clod, claiming that she is really in love with him after knowing Ivan only a fortnight. Does she not see this as an act of desperation? Maybe that’s the point. But once the shit hits the fan, she’s just along for the ride and does not do much to change the trajectory of the narrative. The acting, though, is superb, and Yuri Borisov well deserves his Best Supporting Actor nomination for his portrayal of Igor, the sympathetic muscle. In the end, Ani is mostly a victim of circumstance, and it’s unclear if this journey has left her anything but sad.

After these intense films, I need to watch Wicked.

“The 100 Best Protest Songs of All Time,” Rolling Stone. Last week was an appropriate time for Rolling Stone to publish one of its most eclectic best-of lists, compiling what it considers to be the 100 greatest protest songs ever. (Actually, the magazine covers only the past 86 years, and I’m sure you can find plenty of old ballads that would count as noteworthy protest tunes.) The roster ranges wildly from Billie Holiday (“Strange Fruit”) to Public Enemy (“Fight the Power”) to Loretta Lynn (“The Pill”) to the Dead Kennedys (“Nazi Punks Fuck Off”) to Fela Zuti (“Zombie”).

RS knows the fun thing about such lists is they can stir passionate argument. Why is “Sun City” by Artists United Against Apartheid (the collection of rappers, rockers, punks, and jazz musicians organized by Little Steven in 1985 to decry racism in South Africa) only at No. 75? Is Sam Cooke’s masterful “A Change Is Gonna Come” truly the top protest song of all time? More so than Pete Seeger’s “We Shall Overcome (No. 8),” or Bob Dylan’s “Blowin’ in the Wind” (No. 17)? Why doesn’t Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land” (No. 11) crack the top ten? Or the Plastic Ono Band’s “Give Peace a Chance” (19)? You’ll be familiar with most of these songs, but there were a few—some heavy metal numbers and Spanish-language tunes—that were new to me.

This list is hindered by the general principle of not including too much work from any one artist. The Clash rate only one entry (“The Guns of Brixton”), though the British punkers probably warrant more slots. Only a couple of musicians hit the list more than once: Dylan (thrice), Guthrie (twice), Phil Ochs (twice), Gil Scott-Heron (twice), and Bob Marley (twice). Clearly, Dylan could have taken up much more space. And then there are MIAs. Two of my favorite protest songs didn’t make the cut: The Ramones’ “My Brain Is Hanging Upside Down (Bonzo Goes to Bitburg),” which excoriated President Ronald Reagan for visiting a German military cemetery that contained the remains of SS troops, and Elvis Costello’s “Tramp the Dirt Down,” which bitterly condemned British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Maybe the list should have been longer.