Editorial rights purchased from iStock. Photo by HBesen.
“The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to make sense.” — Tom Clancy.
If I'd written a book about Donald Trump's presidency ten years ago, no one would have bought it. "That's ridiculous! That could never happen here!" If someone else had written a book about Donald Trump's presidency ten years ago, I would have said the same thing.
In the most recent episode of the January 6th Committee hearings, we learned that Donald Trump was repeatedly asked to stop the violence at the Capitol. With a gladiator's instincts and an emperor's moral inhibitions, Trump's response was to cheer on the rioters.
The insurrectionists wanted to hang Mike Pence — Trump said Pence deserved it.
We also learned that Trump has a history of throwing food when angry. According to testimony under oath, Trump allegedly threw a porcelain plate at a wall in the dining room near the Oval Office. During another tantrum, Trump is alleged to have screamed, "I'm the effing president," while attempting to grab the wheel of a vehicle, presumably to take control, when his driver refused his request to be taken to the Capitol on January 6th.
We are now seeing evidence of the true nature of Donald Trump (the man whose niece, Mary Trump, so eloquently described in her book Too Much and Never Enough). I long suspected he would be more like the worst emperor of Rome than the respected leader of the free world. I wasn't wrong.
Ten years ago, if I heard someone say, "It can't happen here," I would immediately think of Hitler and World War II. What couldn't happen was never specified but it was understood. It was understood to mean allowing a sociopath to lead our country and do unspeakable things to people deemed "other." It meant electing someone who would take us down the road of fascism and autocracy — two concepts antithetical to democracy. It meant allowing our values and national identity to be shredded and discarded for the benefit of a strong man who would destroy democracy as we know it. In other words, it meant electing someone like Donald J. Trump to the office of president.
So, I have three questions:
Why did we think it couldn't happen here?
Why did it happen here?
Does the end justify the means?
It can't happen here.
Most of us thought it couldn't happen here because we are a nation of immigrants. In this way, we are all "others." It was inconceivable to us that a country of immigrants founded on the principles of freedom and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, would knowingly elect a sociopath to lead this great American experiment.
I am not implying that Americans are perfect. But there has been a clearly stated and agreed-upon goal of continuing to improve this American experiment that has been part of our culture since its inception. Electing a sociopath to lead our country would not promote improvement in any sense of the word.
But the Republican leadership of today never intended to elect an experienced politician to serve the country. They were in search of a golden calf to lure their base into a blind and unquestioned alliance. Donald Trump gave them what they asked for.
Trump is the perfect figurehead — a celebrity with a large fan base. He is also malleable — sort of. His ego is so fragile he will do almost anything if he is given constant adoration and approval. Unfortunately, he has the discipline of a toddler. So while somewhat malleable, he is not easy to control.
(I am suddenly reminded of the saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.”)
This brings us to my second question.
Why did it happen here?
When political leaders make a concerted effort to mislead the public, they have a distinct advantage. For one thing, they have extensive resources at their disposal. Fox TV (I won't call it "news"), the religious leaders of their evangelical base, and the political leaders of the far-right were all in sync with the goal of electing Donald Trump to the presidency.
The leadership of the Republican Party utilized the same steps every autocratic leader has employed to subdue and control people since the beginning of time. Their methodology was guaranteed.
The steps are simple: 1) Vilify your opponent, 2) prop up your candidate of choice, 3) convince the public that the end justifies the means, and 4) tell your constituents God is on their side.
The Republican leadership lied about their candidate while utilizing sophisticated and manipulative techniques to convince their Republican constituents that Trump was someone he wasn't — a successful businessman who could make their lives better. They knew Trump would be no more than a figurehead in the White House, one who knows nothing about our government or our Constitution and cares nothing for our laws and norms.
Still, even those who knew Trump was a fraud never imagined the kind of catastrophe his response to COVID would create. With millions of people unwilling to vaccinate or wear masks, in a misguided response to perceived government control (encouraged by then-President Trump), an incalculable number of people died unnecessarily. And still, Trump's cult following continues to believe Democrats are lying about COVID and are using it to control them. But to what end? Why would anyone pretend a disease existed when it didn't? Why would anyone promote wearing a mask if it didn't curtail the spread of the disease?
Republicans no longer ask such questions. They no longer apply critical thinking skills to their decision-making. Some may take exception to the term "cult following" when describing Trump's followers, but no other word will suffice.
Logic no longer matters to Trump's base. Facts do not resonate with them. There is no other way to accurately describe those who continue to support the Big Lie and the Republicans who sold it to them. Cult thinking is the only explanation for such insanity on the part of otherwise normal people.
As the January 6th Committee hearings continue, we are starting to see the extent of Donald Trump's mental illness. We can no longer pretend he is a successful businessman — a little rough around the edges, unafraid to speak his mind — but otherwise, just like us.
We can no longer dismiss his transgressions with trite sayings like, "Sometimes good men do bad things," or "God's servants take many forms."
The leadership of the Republican Party violated their responsibilities to the Constitution of this country when they allowed Trump to run for president of the United States. They probably believed Trump would bring them more power. Instead, Trump's abuse of power has discredited their party and made a mockery of American democracy.
The legitimacy of SCOTUS is now also in question after Trump's three unqualified appointees joined Justices Alito and Thomas in overturning Roe v. Wade. Their arrogant and backward decision has embedded their version of Christianity into our supposedly secular laws. They finally delivered what their evangelical base wanted — a far-right Supreme Court willing to take away women's rights.
Was it worth it? Does the end really justify the means?
Does the end justify the means?
There is just one problem with believing the end justifies the means. Practically speaking, it's a f****** nightmare. If the end justifies the means, you can do anything to get what you want. You can break the rules, ignore morality, and commit crimes. If you're moving toward your goal, anything goes.
But what about the consequences of breaking the rules, ignoring morality, and committing crimes? The natural universe isn't prepared to hand out mulligans for all the mistakes made in the process. When we sacrifice our values to get what we want, S#*t happens.
As we watch the January 6th Committee hearings in horror and disgust, we see firsthand what happens when people will do anything to get what they want. It is now evident that this will not end well for Donald Trump and his Republican conspirators. The wheels are coming off the bus, and there's nothing the Republican Party can do to stop it.
For now, however, the religious right seems content. They got what they wanted. But they would do well to remember that the power to eviscerate women's rights is a power that could be aimed in another direction in the future. If we allow Christians to control women today, what might happen tomorrow?
Historically, Greeks were "other" to Romans; the indigenous peoples of the United States were/are "other" to European settlers and their descendants; Jews were "other" to Hitler; Blacks were/are "other" to whites.
The problem is that "other" can be anybody you don't like. Convenient, isn't it?
Today, the "other" is people like me — women who grew up believing our nation's Constitution guaranteed the right to bodily autonomy — and who are now reeling from the realization that we were wrong. And all it took was a group of Republicans who believe the end justifies the means and are willing to sacrifice the rights of the "other" to satisfy themselves.
Today, we do not live in a democracy. I hope tomorrow is better.