this re-activates the anxiety i discovered while reading "how civil wars start" by barbara f. walter. might be interesting to see if any of these charts line up directly with the book
American exceptionalism has always been a self-serving delusion. In that sense, Trump is a more apt president than we'd like to believe. He is a man given to bloated, ridiculous assessments of himself and his place in history, which, rightly understood is as the worst president ever in this country.
What Trump has done is fully expose our many shortcomings and reveal how our self-assessment has never been accurate. We're far better at distorted self-congratulation than we are at living up to the standards we pretend to achieve. "The greatest country on Earth" has never been true, but it is probably impossible to find a president going back decades before Trump, who hasn't claimed that title. That said, Trump makes two assessments, both as dishonest as the man himself. The first assessment is what a complete failure the US is whenever Trump is not in power. When he took over from Obama, Trump gave his "American Carnage" speech that was appalling in its dishonesty. Then, suddenly, not in the four years he was president, but virtually overnight, the US became a utopian's dream. The best economy the world had ever seen even as he badly mismanaged the pandemic and sent this country down a path of mindless anti-science. In comes Joe Biden and again, virtually overnight the streets are filled with murderous gangs of savages. terrorism we now discover was funded by George Soros, and the economy crashes into 4th, 5th, or 6th-world status where no one can afford anything. Los Angeles burns because Democrats wouldn't "turn on the water" and other idiocies tell us that America has failed yet again and needs to be saved, can only be saved, by Donald Trump.
No one will ever go wrong ignoring Trump's assessments of the US, but it is dangerous indeed to ignore his blurted threats and promises. Trump is a fascist. Anyone who denies that today is living in a fantasy world where denying reality, not baseball (or football) is the national pastime.
We are neither as good and virtuous as we have claimed or as crime-ridden and overrun by left-wing terrorism as Trump fantasizes. The overwhelming source of domestic terrorism is the extreme right, which increasingly is simply the American right and Trump himself. Using American cities as "training grounds" for American troops is certainly illegal, but who knows today when an even greater threat to democracy than Trump is housed in six judicial robes on the SCOTUS. Michael Luttig, who was a well-respected, very conservative appeals court judge, who twice was on George W. Bush's SCOTUS short list, recently observed that the man he considers a friend, Chief Justice John Roberts, the man who famously claimed he merely calls "balls and strikes" is "leading this country down the road of lawlessness" (Luttig's words.) Luttig also called Trump v. United States, in which Roberts, writing for the extremists, anointed Trump our first monarch, the worst SCOTUS decision in US history. That is a tough call, since there are now so many challengers to decisions such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson that have come since Roberts became a justice.
At least that is how Trump and numerous later SCOTUS decisions see the "president's" role. Increasingly, with each new SCOTUS decision, Trump is deemed farther beyond from any meaningful accountability. The current SCOTUS majority has been in the tank for Trump for years, with only occasional less important decisions putting any constraints on him. Despite the clear wording of congressional statutes, the high court has now set Trump free to fire any government official based on a whim or for no cause at all. The one remaining category of official that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled subject to the pleasure of Trump are those that sit on the Fed board. Expectations are growing that despite a recent decision claiming that they are in a unique class, the Court my soon bring down the guillotine on their necks as well.
Trump is the tool, the SCOTUS is the wielder behind the end of democracy in this country. If Democrats are ever able to regain a majority in the Senate -- it is not realistic to imagine them getting sixty seats in this America -- they must kill the filibuster and add four well-vetted justices to the SCOTUS. The Federalist Society has been the main force behind stacking the SCOTUS with extreme right wing, hyper-partisan, and hyper-religious justices. I don't want a Democratic version of that perverse and destructive group, but it will be important to choose new justices who are both reliable and young enough to negate the effects of his court's majority for years to come. This court's disdain for stare decisis must be turned against it and countless decisions of the past two decades must be overturned in order to undo much of the damage John Roberts' calling of balls (for Republicans) and strikes (for Democrats) has done. Otherwise, this court, or the one that exists when Trump is finished with this term, his last, unless the SCOTUS finds a loophole in the 22nd Amendment, which is preposterous, but would be unsurprising today, will continue to destroy democracy, good government, free and fair elections, and common decency. The basis for this majority's decisions is not the Constitution, but whatever distorted, twisted, manipulated version of that document the majority can corruptly conjure up to rule to fulfill their extremist agenda.
I'm sorry for the length of this comment, but it doesn't begin to cover the threats this county faces.
I consider the ”six” in the Supreme Court almost or as as responsible as Trump for USA is not any longer a democracy. These ”six” so called judges are simply Trump politicians with a law degree.
When you have a political and or corrupt Supreme Court there is not anymore a democratic country.
I see that, before I could finish writing this comment, you corrected the error I intended to comment on. But I'd still like to address the impact of the African-American electorate between the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. During Reconstruction, roughly 2,000 African Americans held public office, including 16 U.S. Congressmen. Then, staring in 1877, a system of oppressive restrictions, along with violence and intimidation, disenfranchised "black" citizens *in the Southern states.*
African-Americans who lived in or migrated to the North and West generally had better access to voting rights. By the 1940s, cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia (where I was born in 1946) had substantial African-American voting blocs. And the African-American vote became increasingly significant in national elections before 1965. It was crucial in Harry Truman's upset victory in 1948 and contributed significantly to John F. Kennedy's narrow victory in 1960.
The mistake you corrected (possibly only a wording misfortune) implying that African-Americans didn't get the right to vote until 1965 is one seen elsewhere and does a great disservice to the hard work and accomplishments of the civil rights movement before 1965.
It is true that African Americans formally got the right to vote long before the 1960s, but they were not often free to exercise that right, especially in the "Confederate States."
Three years after the end of the Civil War, in 1868, nearly 97% of Black Mississippians (men only) were registered to vote. By 1870, Black men made up 14% or the state senate and 47% of the state House of Representatives. In 1877, Reconstruction ended and the Jim Crow era began. By 1892, less than 6% of eligible Black Mississippians were registered to vote.
Today, the Republican Party continues to try to rig elections through hyper-partisan gerrymandering often aimed at disenfranchising African Americans. Chief Justice Roberts, ignoring the critical idea of one person, one vote, claimed the SCOTUS had no role in redistricting disputes. It was, he claimed, a political issue and thus outside of the purview of the Supreme Court. All Roberts was doing was setting racist Republicans as free as he could to make voting meaningless for Black Americans where Republicans held sufficient power, this ensuring them unfair representation. Roberts is politically corrupt.
Yes, civil rights advocates worked hard, often without much success, before the 1960s, but the passage of the Civil Rights legislation and Voting Rights Act, now gutted by Roberts and his corrupt fellow extremists, made a real difference.
This question is indirectly about democracy, I guess. Is there any polling showing how the public feels about the Supreme Court after all their partisan anti-Constitutional shawdow docket rulings?
Yes, the Supreme Court's "approval" is at or near an all-time low. In 2025, according to one poll, only 26% of Democrats* had a favorable opinion of the SCOTUS. Seventy-one percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion. The partisan divide shouldn't be a surprise. Roberts, et al. continue to rule in favor of Trump on the majority of issues and many of their decisions, made via the "shadow docket" (and without explanation) are truly bizarre, at best. For example, they have given Trump the go-ahead to purge people he doesn't like from entities whose statutes place severe limitations on any president's ability to fire personnel. Statutes that say, for example, the president may only remove personnel for neglect of office, malfeasance, and for no other cause were ignored and Trump has been allowed to get rid of people for no reason at all.
* I doubt the intelligence or awareness of those 26% if that is an accurate number. The SCOTUS has made one outrageous, even indefensible decision after another allowing Trump to continue his lawless and unconstitutional behavior. Historically, we have considered the SCOTUS to have the final say in what is what is not constitutional. However, their decisions are straying so far from the norm and rewriting a long history that I don't consider the six majority justices to have any credibility left at all. In my opinion, they are corrupt and simply fulfilling their own hyper-partisan wish list, not applying rational thinking to the question of constitutionality.
Of the 29% of Republicans who don't have a favorable opinion of the SCOTUS, I would assume many of those want the court to exercise even more extreme right wing partisanship. Any Republican who has a low opinion of the SCOTUS for sensible reasons probably doesn't support Trump anymore and that is not a large percentage, otherwise Trump's own approval ratings would be much lower. He is, amazingly, still hovering in the 40% positive approval range. Given his extraordinarily destructive 2025 record and the fact that he was even less popular after eight months of his first term, tells me that many millions of Americans are even worse now than they were in 2017. That is truly scary.
I think it's slightly more accurate (though less attention-grabbing as a title) to say the U.S. is "in transition to" a mixed/illiberal democracy. That's how I would interpret the "closer to" language, as well as the accompanying data.
Sorry to be a pedant. I cling to hope where I can find it.
Sam, clinging to hope is fine, when it is rational and supported by reality. Given the following:
1. Millions of Americans are extremely ignorant about history, economics, and politics, and are unlikely to do better...
2. Trump is acting not "like" a fascist, but as a fascist...
3. The SCOTUS continues to hand down one outrageous, indefensible decision after another, often via the "shadow docket" and without explanation...
4. Democratic leadership, principally Schumer and Jeffries, continues to fail this country and democracy...
5. The Republican Party is thoroughly corrupt and has repeatedly violated their oaths of office and offered no push-back at all to Trump... (and it's really much worse than that)...
I don't see much reason for hope. That doesn't mean giving up. On the contrary, it means working harder, but being realistic. Realistically, Trump's approval rating is unbelievably and indefensibly high given what he has done in the past eight months. Unless there is a major shift in the awareness and reliability of the American electorate in support of democracy I see no way democracy will survive in any meaningful sense. (Democracy is a catch-all term that includes free and fair elections, respect for the rule of law and due process, common decency, a just and equitable society, unlimited rejection of Trump's criminality and corrupt personal enrichment, demands that elected officials fulfill their constitutional duties, which include meaningful oversight of the executive and accountability, and more.)
I'm not going to live much longer and it sickens me to think what I will leave behind. I think too many Americans, even very good citizens and human beings, are not realistic. Right now, everyone on the left or who is opposed to Trump, is looking forward to the mid-terms as a sign that Trump has lost support. But even if he has, the electorate will be essentially the same one that elected Trump twice. Souring on Trump because he has failed to lower prices or because he's been brutal and cruel to immigrants is not the same as being well-informed and engaged. It doesn't mean understanding how and why things happen. That takes ongoing effort and it is effort I don't think is likely. If that is the case, then after rejecting Trump and Trumpism in one or two elections, voters will be just as poorly informed and as susceptable to being misled and believing empty promises as they were in November 2024. In that event, we will continue to elect Republican majorities when Democratic ones fail to deliver all that voters want. However, as long as voters elect enough obstructionist Republicans, Democrats won't be able to accomplish enough to satisfy selfish and fickle voters for whom the price of eggs trumps democracy.
When voters go to the polls, one of the considerations that should be critical is what kind of society do they want to live in. If the answer is one in which cheap eggs and gasoline are more important than democracy and a just society, then we are doomed. That was what happened in November 2024.
You write: "full voting and civil rights have been reserved for only a subset of the American people: only in 1920 did women gain the right to vote, for example; Black Americans got it in 1964, barely 60 years ago."
If the "it" for Black Americans refers to the same "right to vote" that women gained in 1920, then in 1920 it must have been only non-Black women who got the right to vote.
I have read that in 2024 the largest voting bloc was white, married, non-college-educated Christian women. I wonder if this is still true.
interesting. if you can find a source, add it here!
this re-activates the anxiety i discovered while reading "how civil wars start" by barbara f. walter. might be interesting to see if any of these charts line up directly with the book
American exceptionalism has always been a self-serving delusion. In that sense, Trump is a more apt president than we'd like to believe. He is a man given to bloated, ridiculous assessments of himself and his place in history, which, rightly understood is as the worst president ever in this country.
What Trump has done is fully expose our many shortcomings and reveal how our self-assessment has never been accurate. We're far better at distorted self-congratulation than we are at living up to the standards we pretend to achieve. "The greatest country on Earth" has never been true, but it is probably impossible to find a president going back decades before Trump, who hasn't claimed that title. That said, Trump makes two assessments, both as dishonest as the man himself. The first assessment is what a complete failure the US is whenever Trump is not in power. When he took over from Obama, Trump gave his "American Carnage" speech that was appalling in its dishonesty. Then, suddenly, not in the four years he was president, but virtually overnight, the US became a utopian's dream. The best economy the world had ever seen even as he badly mismanaged the pandemic and sent this country down a path of mindless anti-science. In comes Joe Biden and again, virtually overnight the streets are filled with murderous gangs of savages. terrorism we now discover was funded by George Soros, and the economy crashes into 4th, 5th, or 6th-world status where no one can afford anything. Los Angeles burns because Democrats wouldn't "turn on the water" and other idiocies tell us that America has failed yet again and needs to be saved, can only be saved, by Donald Trump.
No one will ever go wrong ignoring Trump's assessments of the US, but it is dangerous indeed to ignore his blurted threats and promises. Trump is a fascist. Anyone who denies that today is living in a fantasy world where denying reality, not baseball (or football) is the national pastime.
We are neither as good and virtuous as we have claimed or as crime-ridden and overrun by left-wing terrorism as Trump fantasizes. The overwhelming source of domestic terrorism is the extreme right, which increasingly is simply the American right and Trump himself. Using American cities as "training grounds" for American troops is certainly illegal, but who knows today when an even greater threat to democracy than Trump is housed in six judicial robes on the SCOTUS. Michael Luttig, who was a well-respected, very conservative appeals court judge, who twice was on George W. Bush's SCOTUS short list, recently observed that the man he considers a friend, Chief Justice John Roberts, the man who famously claimed he merely calls "balls and strikes" is "leading this country down the road of lawlessness" (Luttig's words.) Luttig also called Trump v. United States, in which Roberts, writing for the extremists, anointed Trump our first monarch, the worst SCOTUS decision in US history. That is a tough call, since there are now so many challengers to decisions such as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson that have come since Roberts became a justice.
At least that is how Trump and numerous later SCOTUS decisions see the "president's" role. Increasingly, with each new SCOTUS decision, Trump is deemed farther beyond from any meaningful accountability. The current SCOTUS majority has been in the tank for Trump for years, with only occasional less important decisions putting any constraints on him. Despite the clear wording of congressional statutes, the high court has now set Trump free to fire any government official based on a whim or for no cause at all. The one remaining category of official that the SCOTUS has not yet ruled subject to the pleasure of Trump are those that sit on the Fed board. Expectations are growing that despite a recent decision claiming that they are in a unique class, the Court my soon bring down the guillotine on their necks as well.
Trump is the tool, the SCOTUS is the wielder behind the end of democracy in this country. If Democrats are ever able to regain a majority in the Senate -- it is not realistic to imagine them getting sixty seats in this America -- they must kill the filibuster and add four well-vetted justices to the SCOTUS. The Federalist Society has been the main force behind stacking the SCOTUS with extreme right wing, hyper-partisan, and hyper-religious justices. I don't want a Democratic version of that perverse and destructive group, but it will be important to choose new justices who are both reliable and young enough to negate the effects of his court's majority for years to come. This court's disdain for stare decisis must be turned against it and countless decisions of the past two decades must be overturned in order to undo much of the damage John Roberts' calling of balls (for Republicans) and strikes (for Democrats) has done. Otherwise, this court, or the one that exists when Trump is finished with this term, his last, unless the SCOTUS finds a loophole in the 22nd Amendment, which is preposterous, but would be unsurprising today, will continue to destroy democracy, good government, free and fair elections, and common decency. The basis for this majority's decisions is not the Constitution, but whatever distorted, twisted, manipulated version of that document the majority can corruptly conjure up to rule to fulfill their extremist agenda.
I'm sorry for the length of this comment, but it doesn't begin to cover the threats this county faces.
I consider the ”six” in the Supreme Court almost or as as responsible as Trump for USA is not any longer a democracy. These ”six” so called judges are simply Trump politicians with a law degree.
When you have a political and or corrupt Supreme Court there is not anymore a democratic country.
You also have to factor in the impact of Citizens United and the flooding of money into elections as another factor in eroding democracy.
I see that, before I could finish writing this comment, you corrected the error I intended to comment on. But I'd still like to address the impact of the African-American electorate between the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. During Reconstruction, roughly 2,000 African Americans held public office, including 16 U.S. Congressmen. Then, staring in 1877, a system of oppressive restrictions, along with violence and intimidation, disenfranchised "black" citizens *in the Southern states.*
African-Americans who lived in or migrated to the North and West generally had better access to voting rights. By the 1940s, cities like Chicago, Detroit, New York, and Philadelphia (where I was born in 1946) had substantial African-American voting blocs. And the African-American vote became increasingly significant in national elections before 1965. It was crucial in Harry Truman's upset victory in 1948 and contributed significantly to John F. Kennedy's narrow victory in 1960.
The mistake you corrected (possibly only a wording misfortune) implying that African-Americans didn't get the right to vote until 1965 is one seen elsewhere and does a great disservice to the hard work and accomplishments of the civil rights movement before 1965.
It is true that African Americans formally got the right to vote long before the 1960s, but they were not often free to exercise that right, especially in the "Confederate States."
Three years after the end of the Civil War, in 1868, nearly 97% of Black Mississippians (men only) were registered to vote. By 1870, Black men made up 14% or the state senate and 47% of the state House of Representatives. In 1877, Reconstruction ended and the Jim Crow era began. By 1892, less than 6% of eligible Black Mississippians were registered to vote.
Today, the Republican Party continues to try to rig elections through hyper-partisan gerrymandering often aimed at disenfranchising African Americans. Chief Justice Roberts, ignoring the critical idea of one person, one vote, claimed the SCOTUS had no role in redistricting disputes. It was, he claimed, a political issue and thus outside of the purview of the Supreme Court. All Roberts was doing was setting racist Republicans as free as he could to make voting meaningless for Black Americans where Republicans held sufficient power, this ensuring them unfair representation. Roberts is politically corrupt.
Yes, civil rights advocates worked hard, often without much success, before the 1960s, but the passage of the Civil Rights legislation and Voting Rights Act, now gutted by Roberts and his corrupt fellow extremists, made a real difference.
Thanks for your comment Mel. The first hire at SIN will be a copy editor!
I have references!
This question is indirectly about democracy, I guess. Is there any polling showing how the public feels about the Supreme Court after all their partisan anti-Constitutional shawdow docket rulings?
Yes, the Supreme Court's "approval" is at or near an all-time low. In 2025, according to one poll, only 26% of Democrats* had a favorable opinion of the SCOTUS. Seventy-one percent of Republicans had a favorable opinion. The partisan divide shouldn't be a surprise. Roberts, et al. continue to rule in favor of Trump on the majority of issues and many of their decisions, made via the "shadow docket" (and without explanation) are truly bizarre, at best. For example, they have given Trump the go-ahead to purge people he doesn't like from entities whose statutes place severe limitations on any president's ability to fire personnel. Statutes that say, for example, the president may only remove personnel for neglect of office, malfeasance, and for no other cause were ignored and Trump has been allowed to get rid of people for no reason at all.
* I doubt the intelligence or awareness of those 26% if that is an accurate number. The SCOTUS has made one outrageous, even indefensible decision after another allowing Trump to continue his lawless and unconstitutional behavior. Historically, we have considered the SCOTUS to have the final say in what is what is not constitutional. However, their decisions are straying so far from the norm and rewriting a long history that I don't consider the six majority justices to have any credibility left at all. In my opinion, they are corrupt and simply fulfilling their own hyper-partisan wish list, not applying rational thinking to the question of constitutionality.
Of the 29% of Republicans who don't have a favorable opinion of the SCOTUS, I would assume many of those want the court to exercise even more extreme right wing partisanship. Any Republican who has a low opinion of the SCOTUS for sensible reasons probably doesn't support Trump anymore and that is not a large percentage, otherwise Trump's own approval ratings would be much lower. He is, amazingly, still hovering in the 40% positive approval range. Given his extraordinarily destructive 2025 record and the fact that he was even less popular after eight months of his first term, tells me that many millions of Americans are even worse now than they were in 2017. That is truly scary.
I think it's slightly more accurate (though less attention-grabbing as a title) to say the U.S. is "in transition to" a mixed/illiberal democracy. That's how I would interpret the "closer to" language, as well as the accompanying data.
Sorry to be a pedant. I cling to hope where I can find it.
Sam, clinging to hope is fine, when it is rational and supported by reality. Given the following:
1. Millions of Americans are extremely ignorant about history, economics, and politics, and are unlikely to do better...
2. Trump is acting not "like" a fascist, but as a fascist...
3. The SCOTUS continues to hand down one outrageous, indefensible decision after another, often via the "shadow docket" and without explanation...
4. Democratic leadership, principally Schumer and Jeffries, continues to fail this country and democracy...
5. The Republican Party is thoroughly corrupt and has repeatedly violated their oaths of office and offered no push-back at all to Trump... (and it's really much worse than that)...
I don't see much reason for hope. That doesn't mean giving up. On the contrary, it means working harder, but being realistic. Realistically, Trump's approval rating is unbelievably and indefensibly high given what he has done in the past eight months. Unless there is a major shift in the awareness and reliability of the American electorate in support of democracy I see no way democracy will survive in any meaningful sense. (Democracy is a catch-all term that includes free and fair elections, respect for the rule of law and due process, common decency, a just and equitable society, unlimited rejection of Trump's criminality and corrupt personal enrichment, demands that elected officials fulfill their constitutional duties, which include meaningful oversight of the executive and accountability, and more.)
I'm not going to live much longer and it sickens me to think what I will leave behind. I think too many Americans, even very good citizens and human beings, are not realistic. Right now, everyone on the left or who is opposed to Trump, is looking forward to the mid-terms as a sign that Trump has lost support. But even if he has, the electorate will be essentially the same one that elected Trump twice. Souring on Trump because he has failed to lower prices or because he's been brutal and cruel to immigrants is not the same as being well-informed and engaged. It doesn't mean understanding how and why things happen. That takes ongoing effort and it is effort I don't think is likely. If that is the case, then after rejecting Trump and Trumpism in one or two elections, voters will be just as poorly informed and as susceptable to being misled and believing empty promises as they were in November 2024. In that event, we will continue to elect Republican majorities when Democratic ones fail to deliver all that voters want. However, as long as voters elect enough obstructionist Republicans, Democrats won't be able to accomplish enough to satisfy selfish and fickle voters for whom the price of eggs trumps democracy.
When voters go to the polls, one of the considerations that should be critical is what kind of society do they want to live in. If the answer is one in which cheap eggs and gasoline are more important than democracy and a just society, then we are doomed. That was what happened in November 2024.
You write: "full voting and civil rights have been reserved for only a subset of the American people: only in 1920 did women gain the right to vote, for example; Black Americans got it in 1964, barely 60 years ago."
If the "it" for Black Americans refers to the same "right to vote" that women gained in 1920, then in 1920 it must have been only non-Black women who got the right to vote.
I suggest you rewrite your sentence.
You’re right, what I meant did not come across well. I’ve updated the piece. Thanks for engaging!
You mean kinda like China will sometimes call itself a “one party democracy?”