SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
money in politics
Trump, Vance, and Musk Have Ushered Us Into Madison’s ‘Very Definition of Tyranny’
American democracy and government—after 240 years—is finally on the verge of collapsing and being replaced by something very much like Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
Feb 10, 2025
So, U.S. Vice President JD Vance is now saying that he and President Donald Trump don’t have to obey federal judges, tweeting, “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” This is how autocrats run things; it’s an extraordinarily dangerous moment.
It was Tuesday, July 17, 1787, and the men writing the Constitution had convened in Philadelphia to debate the separation of powers between the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. They drew their inspiration for that day from French philosopher Charles de Montesquieu, whose 1748 book The Spirit of the Laws had taken the New World and the Framers of the Constitution by storm.
In it, Montesquieu pointed out the absolute necessity of having three relatively coequal branches of government, each with separate authorities, to prevent any one branch from seizing too much power and ending a nation’s democracy. In The Spirit of Laws, he laid it out unambiguously:
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty… Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive.
As the topic of the separation of powers was being debated at the Constitutional Convention that day 29 years after Montesquieu’s book had been published, “Father of the Constitution” James Madison rose to address the delegates:
If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other...
In like manner, a dependence of the executive [president] on the legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner.
He [Montesquieu] conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well-constituted-republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other… for guarding against a dangerous union of the legislative and executive departments.
If the president were ever to dictate all terms to the Congress, which then became a compliant rubber stamp regardless of how excessive or even illegal the president’s actions became, that, Madison said, “may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
We’re there now.
In simplified form, the system Madison and his compatriots came up with that summer gave the power to create and fund government agencies (including the federal court system) to Congress (Article I), the first among equals.
The responsibility of the president was to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution); in other words, to manage the institutions of government envisioned, authorized, and funded by Congress.
And the role of the Article III Courts was to make sure neither overstepped their authority, and independently arbitrate disputes between them. Their decisions must be final for the system to work.
This is more correctly defined as a war against America and our system of government than mere politics.
However, as a result of a 44-year-long effort by morbidly rich American oligarchs to corrupt our government to their own gain (the so-called Reagan Revolution, President George W. Bush, Trump, 1,500 radio stations, three television networks, multiple newspapers and other publications, over 200 television stations, hundreds of billions spent to purchase and then elect politicians), all of this American democracy and government—after 240 years—is finally on the verge of collapsing and being replaced by something very much like Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.
The GOP-controlled Congress has, in both houses, become a pathetic rubber stamp for whatever billionaires, Trump, Elon Musk, and industries like fossil fuels, crypto and tech, and banks want.
The president is nakedly breaking laws and daring both Congress and the courts to do anything about it.
And now JD Vance claims Trump can do whatever he wants and ignore the courts. (Only federal marshals can enforce federal court orders, but they work for Attorney-General Pam Bondi and Donald Trump.)
That is the very definition of a constitutional crisis.
And Republicans on the Supreme Court facilitated the entire corrupt deal by legalizing political bribery in 2010 with their billionaire-funded Citizens United decision.
As a result, every Republican and most Democrats are terrified of Elon Musk or some other billionaire destroying them in the next primary election. The result has been legislative gridlock, a paralysis of the legislative branch.
Going a step farther, Trump has authorized a drug-abusing, Putin-conversing, government-contracting billionaire—his single largest donor who probably was responsible for him becoming president—to access the private information of every American citizen and corporation, dismantle entire agencies created and funded by Congress, and stop multiple investigations into his own business practices.
This is more correctly defined as a war against America and our system of government than mere politics.
A war that must be absolutely delighting America’s enemies, particularly Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi Jinping. Especially now that Musk is calling for the shutdown of the Voice of America that both Putin and Xi hate as much as they both hated USAID.
But it even goes beyond that. Trump and Musk are rapidly moving America—with their attacks on the press, voting, and truth itself—toward the kind of authoritarian police state that several of the men Trump appears to love have established.
Further defying the Constitution, Trump has empowered the richest man in the world to attack and possibly destroy multiple federal agencies that were, just coincidentally of course, investigating his businesses:
- The Federal Aviation Administration’s administrator had launched an investigation into SpaceX after a spectacular rocket explosion; he’s now been fired.
- The Department of Justice was looking into possible violations of securities and other laws by Musk and Tesla; it’s probably safe to assume that investigation won’t go any farther.
- The USAID inspector general was investigating how Musk's SpaceX Starlink satellite terminals, purchased with USAID funds, were used in Ukraine’s war to defend itself from Russia.
- The Department of Defense’s inspector general opened a review in 2024 into alleged repeated failures by Musk and SpaceX to properly disclose their contact with foreign leaders; he’s now fired.
- The U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector general's office was investigating alleged animal abuse at Neuralink, Musk’s brain implant company; he’s been fired.
- The National Transportation Safety Board, overseen by the Department of Transportation, had several open probes into Tesla regarding its remote and self-driving vehicles; odds are they’ll be dropped if they haven’t been already.
- The Environmental Protection Agency had settled multiple lawsuits with Tesla in recent years over Clean Air Act and hazardous waste law violations; now that the EPA is being gutted there probably won’t be any more.
- The National Labor Relations Board, overseen by the Department of Labor, had 17 open investigations against Tesla and SpaceX for alleged unfair labor practices, safety violations, and discriminatory work practices that are probably now moot.
- The Federal Communications Commission was carrying out investigations and had issued court orders related to Musk’s businesses.
- The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was overseeing some of Musk’s companies and had a consent decree in place.
- Additionally, the Air Force and the Pentagon’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security launched reviews in November 2024 regarding Musk and SpaceX’s compliance with federal reporting requirements.
Musk’s $277 million investment to get Trump elected—legalized by five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court—has, so far, paid off well.
Welcome to Madison’s “very definition of tyranny.”
Now that Republicans control Congress and have surrendered their authority to Trump, the last bulwark against the president converting himself into the sort of monarch we fought the Revolutionary War against is the Supreme Court, which will probably begin weighing in over the next few weeks.
And, in the face of this, the vice president is arguing that he and the president should feel free to ignore court orders.
This attack on our republic represents the most dangerous moment America has experienced since the Civil War.
Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress are entirely capable of ignoring public opinion: It’s vital we all reach out to our elected officials (particularly Republicans) to demand they reclaim their rightful role in our republic and speak out against this illegal, unconstitutional power grab.
It’s also crucial to make our opinions known in every way and every venue possible.
If America is to retain any fidelity whatsoever to our Constitution that was written and survived more than two centuries’ investment of blood and treasure, it’s time to raise absolute holy hell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Trump Threat, Greenland Bans Foreign Political Donations Before March Elections
A parliamentary document says the legislation "must be seen in light of the geopolitical interests in Greenland and the current situation where representatives of an allied great power have expressed interest in taking over" the territory.
Feb 05, 2025
Faced with repeated threats from U.S. President Donald Trump, who wants to take over resource-rich Greenland, the Danish territory's parliament on Tuesday enacted a ban on foreign political donations, ahead of its March 11 elections.
The new measure—which also bars political parties in the self-governing territory from accepting domestic donations above 200,000 Danish kroner (about $27,700) or 20,000 kroner (about $2,770) from a single contributor—is intended to protect "Greenland's political integrity," The Associated Pressreported, citing a parliamentary document translated from Danish.
The document states that the legislation "must be seen in light of the geopolitical interests in Greenland and the current situation where representatives of an allied great power have expressed interest in taking over and controlling Greenland."
According to the AP:
A senior legal officer at Greenland's parliament, Kent Fridberg, told The Associated Press he did not know whether any foreign donors had contributed to Greenland's political parties and the idea for the bill was "basically a preventative measure."
Fridberg noted that some Russian politicians had voiced a similar interest—and that political parties in Greenland are generally funded by public means.
Even before returning to the White House last month, Trump revived his first-term interest in making Greenland part of the United States. In early January, he even refused to rule out using military force to seize both the autonomous island nation and the Panama Canal.
Danish and Greenlandic leaders have forcefully pushed back against Trump's remarks, and polling published last week by a pair of newspapers—Denmark's Berlingske and Greenland's Sermitsiaq—shows that 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the U.S.
Public opinion polling conducted in Greenland in 2018 has also received fresh attention recently, including from Trump himself. Gustav Agneman, an associate professor of economics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, was part of the team that conducted those older surveys, which he discussed in a Tuesday piece for The Conversation.
"Two-thirds of the participants thought that 'Greenland should become an independent country at some point in the future,'" he noted. "Opinions were more divergent regarding the timing of independence. When asked how they would vote in an independence referendum if it were held today, respondents who stated a preference were evenly split between 'yes' and 'no' to independence."
As Agneman detailed:
Each year, Denmark sends a block grant that covers approximately half of Greenland's budget. This supports a welfare system that is more extensive than what is available to most Americans. In addition, Denmark administers many costly public services, including national defense.
This backdrop presents a dilemma for many Greenlanders who aspire to independence, as they weigh welfare concerns against political sovereignty. This was also evident from my study, which revealed that economic considerations influence independence preferences.
For many Greenlanders, the island nation’s rich natural resources present a potential bridge between economic self-sufficiency and full sovereignty. Foreign investments and the associated tax revenues from resource extraction are seen as key to reducing economic dependence on Denmark. Presumably, these natural resources, which include rare earths and other strategic minerals, also help explain Trump's interest in Greenland.
During a January appearance on Fox News, Trump's national security adviser, Mike Waltz, made clear why the Republican has renewed interest in the takeover of the nearby territory, saying: "It's oil and gas. It's our national security. It's critical minerals."
One of the most outspoken critics of Trump's plan is leftist Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede, who supports independence and has said: "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom."
Announcing the elections for Greenland's parliament, the Inatsisartut, Egede said on Facebook Tuesday that "we are facing an unprecedented and challenging time," and stressed the need "for cooperation and unity" among the island's roughly 60,000 residents.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Our Democracy Is in Peril, But Progressives Are Poised to Lead Its Revival
It’s only progressives who not only propose changes to the system supported by the majority, but also practice a form of politics that the public embraces.
Jan 27, 2025
Let us not talk falsely now / The hour is getting late—Bob Dylan, All Along the Watchtower
We can have no illusions. There’s a reason the word “oligarchy” has been trending.
After only one week of U.S. President Donald Trump’s second administration, the idea of America as an open society where the people are sovereign is under serious threat.
So, what is to be done?
It’s time for progressives to step up. If we truly believe, as I know we do, that progressives have the best policies for improving the lives of Americans, protecting the planet, and making peace with the world, we cannot sit on the sidelines anymore, bemoan our marginalization at the hands of moderate Democrats, and merely congratulate ourselves for having the correct analysis. We need to get in the game, en masse.
Progressives are the last best hope for democracy in America.
This is the second article in a series about why progressives must seize this moment. The Democratic Party is in disarray following another defeat to Donald Trump. The ‘‘moderate’’ faction that has dominated the party in recent decades is discredited. Progressives must mobilize to increase their influence within the Democratic Party—for the sake of the party, the country, and the planet.
The Democratic Party cannot claim to be the defender of democracy against the forces of oligarchy if its own base is subjugated to the power of big money within the party.
In my previous article, I focused on the economy, the greatest source of dissatisfaction among the American people, and thus the largest contributing factor to the rise of Trump. However, Trump’s actual economic program will not improve prospects for the vast majority. Only the progressive economic program has a proven track record and can deliver the prosperous middle class society that Americans want. Thus, we must be bold in asserting that the Democratic Party embrace progressive economic policies.
In this article, I will focus on the second great source of dissatisfaction among the American people: the political system, which they see as working for elites and not the average citizen—and they are correct. Polls consistently reveal widespread alienation from, and distrust of, the political status quo, elected officials, and both major parties. Once again, it’s only progressives who not only propose changes to the system supported by the majority, but also practice a form of politics that the public embraces. The time has come for progressives to loudly re-introduce ourselves to the base of the Democratic Party and the public at large.
Currently, the primary beneficiary of the public’s disgust with the political system is Donald Trump, who aggressively condemns the political establishment of recent decades. As Trump and his MAGA movement have effectively taken over the Republican Party, they have effectively cast the Democratic Party, to its detriment, as the party of the old establishment. (This taint doesn’t extend to progressives. Too many people are aware that the Democratic Party establishment worked overtime to defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2016 and 2020.)
Of course, Trump’s challenge of the status quo is much more malevolent than a mere rebellious attitude. He is an autocratic “strongman” who views both common law and the Constitution’s system of checks and balances as little more than annoyances that he can disregard at his whim. And, in contrast to eight years ago, the incoming administration is not populated by “establishment” Republicans, but MAGA yes men; it is also supported by the most successful capitalists of the 21st century, the titans of Silicon Valley (who have long embraced an Ayn Rand-influenced political philosophy that calls for the rule of people like themselves, and now recognize Trump 2.0 as the means to fulfill their fantasy—and they fight to win.)
There can be no downplaying the immediate threat. We must defend communities, institutions, and environments under threat from Trump, and we will. Yet, progressives also need to go on the offense by presenting a clear and realistic plan to preserve and re-build American democracy—and put that plan in motion. A strong offense will complement the defense and vice versa.
Recent public opinion polling points the way forward—and suggests a path that only progressives will pursue.
Before the election, a series of polls grabbed the headlines. They revealed how a frightening number of Americans—in particular, young Americans—were willing to embrace the rise of a strongman leader. However, if you dug down into the polls it was evident that the overwhelming majority of people wanted a well-functioning democracy. Even half of those who were attracted to the idea of a strongman said they only felt that way because our democracy had been corrupted to favor the elite.
How did they want to see our democracy improve? Almost everyone polled wanted to see a reduction of big money’s influence in politics, which, of course, is a position that progressives advocate for, in contrast to moderates and conservatives. However, even more fundamental, was the wish that average people could have a voice in the system, so that the needs of average people would drive our democracy. People feel shut out from influence in our democracy.
Progressives must rectify this—and we can through a very simple strategy: mass entryism into the Democratic Party in a coordinated manner.
In the next essay in this series, I will shoot down the familiar objections to this strategy. Then, in the final installment I will go into greater detail about how the strategy could operate optimally (hint: It should be coordinated through inside-outside organizations like Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), and anchored on the inside by the progressive caucus, or the analog progressive group, of each state’s Democratic Party).
For now, I just want to emphasize why progressive entryism into the Democratic Party fits this moment perfectly and can redeem American democracy in its hour of need.
First off, the Democratic Party is electing new leadership on the weekend. All of the leading candidates for Democratic National Committee Chair have announced that they not only support more progressive influence in the party, but also more progressives becoming party activists. As progressives know, this has not been the case in recent decades. Progressives must seize this opportunity and hold the incoming DNC chair to their word.
Currently, the Democratic Party is such a hollow shell of an organization in most states, it would only take a few hundred extra progressives mobilizing to gain the upper hand inside the party—a couple thousand in the larger states. This is low-hanging fruit. Though, progressives should not approach this task cynically. We can, and should, mobilize in much greater numbers.
Polling shows overwhelming support for progressive policies among the Democratic voters. So, let’s be clear about the heretofore dominance of the moderate, neoliberal wing of the party—it is propped up by the dominant role of big money donors within the party and their high-paid consultants. There is a vast base of progressive activists in the country. No such base exists for Democratic moderates (the very idea of pro-neoliberal activists is comical at this hour of history).
Now, let’s put two and two together. The Democratic Party cannot claim to be the defender of democracy against the forces of oligarchy if its own base is subjugated to the power of big money within the party. Given that dynamic, it is highly unlikely that even the party’s most conservative gatekeepers can afford the public backlash that would come from excluding progressives—i.e. if we do pursue a strategy of mass entryism.
Which brings me to the final, and most salient, point of today’s essay: What other route is there to save American democracy? There is none because it’s only when progressives gain the upper hand inside the Democratic Party that one of the two major parties will begin to practice democracy in a truly inclusive manner—thereby, distinguishing themselves from the GOP, as well as the previous top-down version of the Democratic Party.
For better or worse, America has a two-party electoral system (more on this in my next essay), and the rules and regulations that govern our society are still determined by elected officials and their appointments—at least, until further corrosion of the system takes hold.
That means, while we still have meaningful elections, we’re truly lost at sea if, when the fabric of the constitutional system is under attack, neither of the two parties stands for democracy in a way that resonates with the voting public.
The message is simple. Either we act to reform the Democratic Party, or we acquiesce to our oppression. We either achieve the mass mobilization of progressives into the party, or it will remain the “oligarch-light” party, and that is doomed to fail.
Then, once progressives have more power inside the party, we will bring it into alignment with what the public wants from a party that truly operates in the interest of the people.
That may sound to some like a long shot, but it’s our only shot. I happen to believe it can be readily achieved with some high-quality organizing. After all, having a choice that lines up with what the people want is, well, what people want from a democracy.
Indeed.
Progressives know what democracy looks like, and if we stand up, accept historical responsibility and take action, we can yet fulfill Leonard Cohen’s prophecy that “Democracy is Coming to the USA.” But we must act fast.
Join PDA’s efforts to create a truly progressive Democratic Party, which we desperately need at this crucial hour of our history.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular