SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Trump will undoubtedly attempt to enhance his authoritarian aspirations by subordinating other branches of power to his will, inspire his base in civil society, and then, in turn, employ it to increase pressure on governmental institutions in his behalf.
And, so, it begins—again! Only this time, with new vigor, improved efficiency, and an all-encompassing agenda. Following his four-year layoff from 2020-24, in which he licked his wounds while still dominating the media, Donald Trump’s second presidency has already witnessed a blizzard of executive orders, pardons for fascists and criminals, promises to roll back the welfare state, overt threats to American democracy, and actions that endanger the well-being of the planet. This flurry of activity reflects the sobering truth that, while enough intelligent people expected him to win the election of 2024, no one believed that he would win like he did.
Trump will undoubtedly attempt to enhance his authoritarian aspirations by subordinating other branches of power to his will, inspire his base in civil society, and then, in turn, employ it to increase pressure on governmental institutions in his behalf. This might produce a transition to fascism, but to claim that fascism has taken over the United States is a drastic oversimplification. This empties the word of meaning. We are not yet living in either an authoritarian dictatorship or a “party-state”—and resistance is still possible. America’s democratic institutions and traditions are stronger than those in Italy following World War I or in the Weimar Republic. Institutional checks and balances still exist, though they are under attack, and nominal respect for our Constitution remains.
Most importantly, the military is still independent and no secret police is acting with impunity outside legal constraints. Were the state “fascist,” I would be under arrest and the venues that publish my writings would already have been shut down. Certain members of the “resistance” sometimes like to exaggerate their courage in the face of authoritarian dangers. That is insulting to those living in real fascist states who put their lives on the line daily.
Trump glories in his cult of personality and undoubtedly sees himself as Hegel’s “world spirit on a white horse.” It is his world as far as he is concerned, and the rest of us are simply allowed to live in it.
“Fascist” tendencies are apparent in civil society, but it remains contested terrain: censorship, conformism, segregation, religious intolerance, and racism are rampant in many more agrarian “red states” where Trump’s base is active. In urban environments, however, myriad progressive forces challenge them and interfere with the new administration’s programs with respect to abortion, immigration, multiculturalism, and other matters. Moreover, independent civic associations still exist, other loyalties compete with what any fascist administration would demand, rights of assembly are still exercised, and debate continues in public forums. However, this is not to deny that civic freedom is imperiled—and , under Trump’s rule, the dangers seemingly grow greater every day.
Is the president a fascist? Yes. Whether he actually knows what that means is an open question, but his presentation of self and explicit political ambitions justify that view. His pathological indifference to truth, unsubstantiated claims, blatant bigotry, thoroughly corrupt inner circle, and celebration of authoritarian politics is telling. He thinks that he knows better on every issue. He rages against “enemies of the people,” threatens retribution against his opponents, and places himself above the law. Trump glories in his cult of personality and undoubtedly sees himself as Hegel’s “world spirit on a white horse.” It is his world as far as he is concerned, and the rest of us are simply allowed to live in it.
If Trump’s desired transition to some form of fascist state is successful it will have been enabled by “pragmatic” conservatives, who once foolishly thought they could act as “adults in the room” and control the upstart. The enablers of Hitler and Mussolini thought the same thing, and wound up in the same position. Soon enough the puppet was controlling the puppeteers. The president’s return to office has been marked by the self-serving use of institutional opportunities, perverse constitutional interpretations, and loopholes in the legal system to succeed in becoming the dictatorial presence he believes that he deserves to be.
Democrats still fail to appreciate the shrewdness of this New York real estate broker who closed the ultimate deal. They forget what Max Weber—among the very greatest of social scientists—knew, namely, that charisma lies in the eye of the beholder. It has nothing to do with intelligence, or kindness, or humanitarian politics. It is instead a seemingly magic connection established between the charismatic personality and those who encounter him. Of course, the magic does not magically appear. Charisma is always the product of a tumultuous context, and it is misleading to personalize what is a sociopolitical phenomenon; indeed, this misperception is precisely what Trump himself wishes to reinforce. Ultimately, the charismatic personality’s power rests on an ability to express the political thoughts and emotions of his community during any given crisis. Keeping the crisis alive thus becomes crucial, and Trump grasps that. Under his rule, no less than any other fascist, there is always a crisis and there is always publicity—whether good or bad is immaterial.
Obsessed with him, no less than ratings, established media enhanced Trump’s charisma and also provided him with billions of dollars in free publicity. In the process, they systematically underplayed former President Joseph Biden’s record. Legitimate criticisms could be made of the bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan, the president’s Gaza policy, inflation, and more. But they came while virtually ignoring Biden’s defense of democratic norms in the face of an attempted coup, his life-saving response to the Covid-19 pandemic, his bold infrastructure initiative, his protection of the welfare state and healthcare, his role in generating jobs and higher employment numbers, his reinvigoration of NATO, his defense of Ukraine, his radical environmental policies, and his heightening of America’s standing in the world. Biden’s gravitas was shaken by his disastrous showing in his debate with Trump. Poor packing helped further undermine his popularity and his presidency to the point where his substitute in the presidential race of 2024, former Vice-President Kamala Harris, couldn’t decide whether to embrace her former boss or distance herself from him.
Did this cost her the election? Perhaps. But it remains unclear what her campaign should have done instead: Poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans remained remarkably stable throughout. Not that it matters now. What does matter is that progressives still have no feasible idea for how to “reach” the most intellectually apathetic, ill-informed, prejudiced, and plain reactionary supporters of Trump who—using the colloquial phrase—“just don’t want to hear it.” The idea that the “message didn’t get out” is ridiculous: Every voter either knew or should have known what was at stake—I think they did know and each made his or her decision.
The Democrats are now faced with a stark choice: Either frighten “independents” and moderates with the haunting specter of fascism or mobilize those alienated voters who had formerly been part of their base. Democrats can’t do both at the same time. They need to make up their minds. Best for them to look in the mirror, formulate a message, stop trying to convert the collaborators, and inspire their former friends to return home.
This will require a radical stylistic change in dealing with the media and the public. With very few exceptions, such as Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” and John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight,” the liberal establishment has responded to Fox News and the rest of Trump’s quasi-fascist propagandists like nerds trembling before a school-yard bully. CNN, MSNBC, National Public Radio, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are shifting their most critical newscasters to off hours or simply letting them go. Their hosts and commentators remain too timid, and high-minded, to deal with the vulgar, racist, and demeaning rhetoric that has traditionally been used by fascist insurgents.
Liberal media cannot again afford to provide the new president with billions in free publicity by focusing on him, and wringing their hands over his follies, while ignoring the need for unifying principles and a class agenda. This didn’t work before and it won’t work now. Trump gained votes among every meaningful demographic, and his old base remained firm. Meanwhile, identity formations in the Democratic Party turned against one another—and the wounds are still fresh. The majority of white women voted against Senator Harris, a woman of color, along with a record number of Black men, and Latinos concerned about abortion, empowerment of trans-people, and immigrants. Even worse, perhaps, too many young people stayed home. Today, the self-styled “resistance” appears lifeless, a bold programmatic alternative is lacking, and there is no resolve to move beyond identity politics, soft welfare reforms, and an ideological strategy that neither offends nor inspires.
The timidity of the president’s critics is self-defeating. The bully is still in the schoolyard, and it’s time for the Democrats to stop being scared of their own shadow.
Of course, circumstances may change. Political parties in power tend to lose votes in midterm elections, and Republicans might suffer the same fate in 2026. However, fascist parties have traditionally suffered setbacks before assuming power and there is already whispering that the midterm elections may not take place. Many are afraid that Trump (who will have served two terms) is preparing for a third term in 2028, when he will be 82 years old. We are not there yet, but much harm to democracy will surely have been done by then.
How much depends on the extent to which institutional checks and balances remain operative. Trump made 245 federal judicial appointments during his previous tenure and three to the Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court now has a conservative majority, and it already provided the president with immunity from virtually all criminal prosecution. Republicans also hold a slim majority of 219-213 in the House of Representatives and control the Senate 53-47. There should be no mistake: These are Trump’s Republicans and they are marching in lockstep. It is hard to believe that either the House, Senate, or Supreme Court will exercise checks and balances in a consistent manner.
Trump plans to “drain the swamp” and hollow out the federal government by firing tens of thousands of employees from numerous regulatory, cultural, and scientific agencies and departments. In concert with his bizarre cabinet and agency appointments to lead cabinet offices and agencies, whose only qualification is unconditional loyalty to him, this can only lead to bureaucratic anarchy. But that too is part of the authoritarian playbook. Feeding rivalries among subordinates and flunkies, like all successful dictators, the ensuing chaos can only strengthen his position. In addition, purges are being planned for the Department of Defense, the State Department, various intelligence agencies, the FBI, and the Department of Justice.
Herein is the basis for any transition to a more authoritarian state. Fascism is based on the “unification” of all political institutions—the Nazis called it “Gleichschaltung”—under the aegis of the (deified) Führer, Duce, or president. In the context of Trump’s pardons for more than 1,500 convicted insurrectionists, mostly white supremacist members of the underclass, it is not difficult to envision a private militia—a militant and violent vanguard loyal to the person of Trump—that can help bring this unification about. However, it remains incomplete without the support of elites and, to gain it, Trump has fashioned an economic agenda that benefits them. Following in the footsteps of other fascist leaders, indeed, he is selling it to his economically disadvantaged base through the use of psychological projection and his opponents supposed betrayal of the national interest.
Insisting that Democrats are catering to “special interests,” which actually comprise the popular majority, Trump has forwarded a tax cut that will disproportionally benefit the 728 billionaires who possess more wealth than half of American households combined. In the same vein, he has also called for privatizing public lands, deregulating energy production, and cutting agencies that test the safety of consumer goods and the standards of food. With regard to his base, in similar fashion, he is intent on protecting the supposedly real victims of racism (white Christian men) from further discrimination by eliminating “diversity, equality, and inclusion” programs that benefit women, the transgendered, and people of color. For good measure, casting himself as the primary victim of legal persecution, in spite of being convicted on 34 felony counts, Trump has pardoned himself and his family along with the disgraced ex-General Mike Flynn, grifters like Steve Bannon, genuine fascists like Enrique Torres of the Proud Boys, and others of this ilk. Unleashing the former insurrections would in a pinch, of course, create the disturbances that only the president can quell, thus again increasing his own power.
Foreign policy deserves its own separate discussion, but the unifying thread is already clear. It is the desire to transform a popular belief that the United States is a nation under siege into a self-fulling prophecy. It begins with sending 1,500 troops to the southern border in order to prevent an immigrant “invasion.” Trump has also provoked a tariff war with China, and another with Canada and Mexico is hanging in the balance. Outrage has already greeted his saber-rattling over Greenland and the Panama Canal, his withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate accord, and the closing of the humanitarian aid agency U.S. Agency for International Development.
Infuriating Egypt and Jordan, two allies fearful of Islamic extremists spilling over their borders, Trump has called upon them to take in 2.3 million Gazans in order to clear out Gaza for Israel. What will happen with Russia and Ukraine is anybody’s guess, but a $177 billion aid package has already been reduced to $76 billion. For the moment, suffice it to say, that Trump’s foreign and domestic policy aims should converge in a politics that blends conflict with chaos. Our president surely hopes that this will lead citizens to rally around. him, the self-proclaimed “savior,” who always puts “America First!”
Creating such laundry lists of threats and warnings is not the stuff of great journalistic prose. However, they demonstrate the overwhelming sweep of the Trump project and the early signs, if not of fascism, then of a new order that will surely pervert American democracy. Critics need to bare their ideological teeth, unify competing lobbies, and demand a bold class agenda on par with the “New Deal” of the 1930s and “the Great Society” of the 1960s. The timidity of the president’s critics is self-defeating. The bully is still in the schoolyard, and it’s time for the Democrats to stop being scared of their own shadow. Otherwise the next four years will turn into eight—and then, if some acolyte takes on Trump’s mantle, perhaps more.
For-profit industries have enjoyed continuous and ever-growing impunity to advocate for whatever they want, no matter how destructive.
This fall, shortly after the election, the U.S. House passed a dangerous piece of legislation that many are calling the “nonprofit killer” bill.
The bill has an incongruous title: the “Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act.”
Among other things, it would give the Treasury Department the authority to unilaterally accuse nonprofit organizations of supporting “terrorism”—and revoke their nonprofit status. Critics like the ACLU say it’s a blank check for presidents to shut down organizations that criticize them.
Today, not only do corporations have greater means to speak more freely than the rest of us do, they are increasingly grabbing political power to cement their stranglehold.
When the bill was introduced in the spring, it was largely viewed as an effort to silence pro-Palestinian activism. At the time, dozens of House Democrats supported it alongside most Republicans. But after Donald Trump’s White House win, amid fears that the incoming president would use it as a tool to bludgeon his perceived enemies, it passed with significantly less Democratic support.
But really, it should never have been introduced or passed to begin with, no matter the political winds. The bill is considered unlikely to pass the Senate this year, but could be reintroduced next year and signed by President Trump.
This would have a dangerous chilling effect on speech.
Consider the Florida woman Briana Boston, who recently said “Delay, deny, depose. You people are next,” during a phone call with a health insurance representative after her coverage was denied. It was a reference to what the killer of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson wrote on bullet casings in a now-infamous targeted assassination.
Boston has no history of violence, nor does she own firearms. But she wasn’t only arrested—she was charged with threatening to commit an act of terrorism.
What she was really guilty of was expressing vitriol against corporate CEOs for an inhumane business model. It’s not hard to imagine such a scenario applied to nonprofits in the coming years either.
Nonprofits are effectively the voice of civil society in the United States. And even without HR 9495, they already have severe limits on their speech. In order to keep their nonprofit status, groups have to follow strict guidelines published by the Internal Revenue Service when speaking about elections.
As a journalist who works in the nonprofit world, I’ve seen the resulting self-censorship first hand. Many journalists and nonprofit leaders feared compromising their institutions if they warned about Donald Trump’s fascism, or even criticized Joe Biden over Gaza, ahead of the 2024 election.
Meanwhile, for-profit industries have enjoyed continuous and ever-growing impunity to advocate for whatever they want, no matter how destructive.
For example, the health insurance and fossil fuel industries play with people’s lives by denying coverage and spewing carbon, respectively, but have been given the right to spend enormous amounts of their ill-gotten gains in campaign contributions, putting an outsize thumb on the democratic scale.
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, they have greater means to make anonymous donations to Political Action Committees to lobby government and help elect politicians.
The Supreme Court has long considered corporations to be, in a legal sense, people. In contrast to such abstract entities, we humans can be jailed, silenced, or even killed by corporate-controlled systems—and the nonprofits representing our interests can be officially sanctioned for “political speech.”
Today, not only do corporations have greater means to speak more freely than the rest of us do, they are increasingly grabbing political power to cement their stranglehold.
Trump’s incoming cabinet will likely be filled with billionaires. And his proposed Treasury Secretary pick—who would ostensibly oversee the department making determinations under HR 9495—is a longtime hedge fund investment manager named Scott Bessent. Trump has also openly promised to bend regulations for billionaire investors.
Seen within this context, HR 9495 is not only a danger to civil society’s right to speech—it is a serious escalation in favor of corporations.
Do you favor taking money out of politics or not? Because if you don’t favor taking money out of politics, then you are an outlaw in a self-governing society.
There are the laws on the books and the laws that ought to be on the books. There are the laws of nature and the laws that are an abomination of nature. And there are the egalitarian laws of self-governance and the authoritarian laws of the oligarchy.
In most presidential elections for the last forty years, there has really only been one issue that should have been the focus of every voter: Do you favor taking money out of politics or not?
All other issues, such as health care, immigration, criminal justice reform, literally saving the planet, are truly secondary because we can’t address any of them while our system of self-governance is paralyzed by legalized oligarchic bribery.
There has only been one issue for forty years, and until we learn to focus on it, we are wasting the precious time we have left to prevent the Earth’s ecosystem from becoming incredibly hostile to civilization as we currently know it.
So, this has been the question: Do you favor taking money out of politics or not? Because if you don’t favor taking money out of politics, then you are an outlaw in a self-governing society. If you don’t favor taking money out of politics, you favor authoritarian oligarchy that says, “we the few can lord it over the rest,” and that justifies its oppression of others with deceitful justification ideologies claiming moral supremacy based on lies to which the commitment can become so strong it drives the liar into psychological self-delusion. And this delusion does not excuse the people who believe their own lies from the crimes they advance based on those lies. As a mass-psychosis, these delusions are driving civilization off a cliff in an absolutely criminal manner. We do the MAGA-mad among us a favor by holding them accountable for their madness before the election so that they don’t rue it after when the consequences may be unbearable.
Don’t let anyone frame the issue in any other way. Use your words to hold people accountable to declare themselves for or against self-government. Any other discussion is a distraction and irrelevant.
So, here’s some accountability: Bat-sh*t crazy or not, if you, like Justice Kennedy, argue that “independent expenditures, including those by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” then you support an agenda that is criminal in the eyes of the laws of self-governance. But in this election, the sickness of authoritarian oligarchy has spread its delusion so extensively throughout society, that the question is no longer even as far removed to the very immediate issue of taking money out of politics. This election season, the question is absolutely direct: Are you for or against self-government? This is the only issue that matters. This time, we have a candidate we know incited insurrection.
This election, that means the accountability we do our people a favor in insisting upon is this: Supreme Court Justice or not, looney-toon self-deluded Billionaire narcissist or not, proud-to-be-a-MAGA-manipulated-lie-swallower or not, if you believe there is justification for Donald Trump’s instigation of the January 6, 2021 insurrection and so cast your vote for him in the presidential election, then you are an abettor of a sacrilege against egalitarian human nature, and you are breaking the code of your own honor, giving your self-governance away like a beast-of-burden kneeling to his yoke in the field.
It does not matter if the corrupt Supreme Court excuses him with phony arguments, insurrectionist Donald Trump is a criminal. He has been accorded every procedural opportunity. The investigations have been multiple, the evidence is overwhelming, and the record of Donald Trump’s lies is also irrefutable. Everyone knows the Republican nominee for the presidency presumed the authority to try to establish himself as President against the people’s exercise of self-government on January 6, 2021. There is no going back from that assault on our democratic process. Donald Trump is an outlaw. People who would vote him back into power are abetting a crime, obstructing justice, and defying the natural order of civil society.
Journalists, in particular—but all of us who favor and believe in self-government as the law of the land, the law of nature, and the law of a moral society—cannot commit the mistake of arguing the merits of every issue out there. As bystanders or participants in the public debate, there is one and only one issue: Do you favor self-government or not?
We see billionaire Elon Musk spreading misinformation to advance Donald Trump’s campaign, we see him giving people million dollar checks at campaign events, and somehow, the press wants to know why Elon Musk says Trump will be better for our nation. That’s not the question. The question is: Mr. Musk, do you favor self-governance or not? Because if you favor self-governance, we will not allow you to deny that Donald Trump is a criminal who broke the law of self-government. You either denounce Trump and demand his prosecution or we take your conduct as an admission that you are a criminal abettor of a known insurrectionist. There is no other option now that you’ve jumped up and down on his stage.
We see billionaire Jeff Bezos afraid that publishing an endorsement of Kamala Harris in his newspaper, The Washington Post, might cost him devastating damage if Donald Trump returned to power, and the press wants to talk about the corruption of the press, but that’s not the issue. The issue is this, Mr. Bezos: Do you favor the self-government that allowed you to become so successful or not? Because if you favor self-governance, we will not allow you to deny that Donald Trump is a criminal who irrevocably broke the law of self-government on January 6, 2021, and we will force you to either denounce him in your newspaper as a criminal or we take your silence as an admission that you too are a criminal abettor of a known insurrectionist. You wanted to be a newspaper publisher. Now, you are learning that a publisher has to publish. So publish: Is your allegiance to that law of self-government or are you are a criminal oligarch abetting a fascist lunatic? Staying silent is the wrong answer.
And it is not just billionaires we must hold accountable to the law of self-government. It’s every person who appears on a political news show to discuss the issues. There is only one issue. “Are you for self-government or against it?”
It’s all of your friends: “Are you for self-government or are you against it?”
It’s the family member at your dinner table. “Are you for self-government or against it?”
There is no disputing Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. The 2020 election was not stolen. There is no evidence it was. There never has been any such evidence. Donald Trump knew there was no evidence from the start. He rehearsed his lies even before the election day, anticipating he would lose. He is rehearsing them again now, with the same strategy deliberately in mind. Countless court cases and an extensive congressional investigation make clear: Joe Biden won the election and Donald Trump is an insurrectionist. There is no evidence anywhere that allows for any other conclusion.
And even if there was evidence supporting Trump’s lies, under the law of self-government, he still has to follow the law; he doesn't get to violently take over the Capitol. In the 2000 election, Al Gore conceded the election when the corrupt Supreme Court illegitimately threw it to George W. Bush. Gore recognized, win or lose, he did not have the authority to incite insurrection. Self-government required the people to take action through their peaceful political process. The 2000 election result was an abomination before the law of self-government, but that was the Supreme Court majority’s dishonor and abomination. Al Gore was a law-abiding candidate. He left self-government intact to the people, honorably, dutifully.
The 2020 election result, by contrast, actually abided by the law of self-government. Trump lost and Joe Biden won and became President. But whether Trump won or lost is not the issue today; the issue today is that Trump’s actions in fomenting the January 6, 2021 insurrection make him an enemy of self-government, an outlaw whom a self-governing people cannot allow to hold office.
In the remaining days of this election, we, the law-abiding people who are for self-government, need to be absolutely disciplined, civil, polite, but disciplined, firm, and unsparing in our analysis, keeping the conversation always focused on this one question: Are you in favor of self-government or not?
And if someone at your dinner table tries to assert that Trump had the right to incite violent insurrection or that the rioters were not engaged in violent insurrection or that Trump will be better for America, then, if you want your self-government to survive, you need to insist they answer you when you ask: “Are you for self-government or against it? Have you really thought about what it means to lose self-government? It’s not the same as losing an election; it is losing the vote entirely forever.”
And then you need to tell them:
“There has been ample investigation. The facts are clear. Trump’s lies are clear. Your denial of the facts and commitment to Donald Trump’s lies are not an excuse for you continuing to abet a crime against self-government by voting for an insurrectionist whose criminal actions are widely in evidence. If you stole a car to drive to our house for dinner, I would not simply pass you the potatoes. I tell you now, your vote for Donald Trump is a crime that changes my relationship to you the same way it would if you deliberately sought to hurt my neighbor. You need to respect the law of self-government. Nothing is more basic than that. Wake up.”
Don’t let anyone frame the issue in any other way. Use your words to hold people accountable to declare themselves for or against self-government. Any other discussion is a distraction and irrelevant. Help people understand the choice they are making. They will thank you for it, when they come to their senses.