Skip to content

Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

The Method To His Madness

YT

Jonathan Chait with an elegant analysis of what Trump’s doing with his valoriztion of the insurrectionists:

“Joe Biden’s team has elevated the ‘threat to democracy’ posed by Trump and his movement to a place of prominence in its appeals to voters,” complained National Review’s Noah Rothman, who has written elsewhere that Trump is no more a threat to democracy than Biden. “Making the cause of the January 6 rioters into a central feature of Trump’s campaign plays directly into Biden’s hands.” This is the extent of the Republican concern: Trump is alienating swing voters who might be receptive to messages about high grocery prices but respond nervously to blood-soaked vows to redeem his martyrs and purify the fatherland.

But there is a perfectly cogent reason why Trump continues to press his most extreme demands, even at the cost of repulsing potential voters. He is no longer willing to accept the alliance of convenience with reluctant partners that held traditional Republicans like Mitch McConnellPaul Ryan, and Reince Priebus by his side during his first term. Trump has long demanded fealty from his party, which has made it harder to discern the acceleration and intensification of his work in the days since he effectively clinched the Republican nomination on Super Tuesday. Trump’s primary focus is not outward but inward, tightening his control over the GOP to almost unimaginable levels of personal loyalty.

Trump’s elevation of the insurrection to a matter of holy writ within the party is a matter of both conviction and strategy, consistent with his intention to stifle even the quietest forms of dissent. This is why Trump deposed Ronna McDaniel as head of the Republican National Committee in favor of election deniers Michael Whatley and Lara Trump. McDaniel had dutifully jettisoned her maiden name (Romney). She had strongly suggested the 2020 election was stolen, saying the vote tabulations had “problems” that were “concerning” and not “fair,” without quite stating as fact that Trump absolutely won. All her genuflections were not enough.

This is also why Trump is reportedly bringing back Paul Manafort, who served a prison sentence for bank and tax fraud, and witness tampering and obstruction of justice, and whose business partner, Konstantin Kilimnik, was assessed by the FBI to have ties to Russian intelligence. Manafort’s skills are hardly irreplaceable. The point of bringing him back, other than the familiar mob logic of rewarding an underling who took his pinch like a man and refused to rat out the boss, is to signal that loyalty to Trump matters more than any other possible consideration. Normal politicians would distance themselves from staffers who committed crimes, especially crimes on their behalf. Trump regards this as the highest qualification.

The day after his rally, Trump wrote about the apostate Republican Liz Cheney, “She should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee!,” using his term for the committee that investigated the January 6 uprising. These comments received little attention, perhaps because they were overshadowed by his remarks, made the next day, that “any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion.” But the former is more indicative of his intentions. Trump believes that the people who perpetrated the attack on the Capitol should be pardoned and the people who investigated it should be imprisoned.

While Trump touts his first term as a historic success, he and his closest allies view it as largely a failure. Trump, in this view, was manipulated by staffers loyal to the traditional party into letting figures like Robert Mueller and Anthony Fauci undermine him. Mike Pence’s refusal to cooperate in Trump’s plot to steal the election was the ultimate betrayal. Trump’s project is to ensure that a second term faces no sabotage.

An effective Trumpist government has difficulty functioning under the rule of law. If Trump’s staffers and allies believe that carrying out his orders, some of them plainly illegal, will lead to prison or other punishment, they will again hesitate to follow them. That belief is one he has to stamp out, especially as he faces multiple criminal charges for his attempts to steal the election in 2020.

Republican traditionalists complain that Trump is needlessly alienating potential allies on the right who could help him build a winning coalition. “This pursuit of a personal agenda and personal power is weakening the Republican Party at a time when it could have a historic victory and make historic progress in ‘making America great again,’” former attorney general William Barr told Bari Weiss in 2022. “I think the approach that Trump follows is weakening the Republican Party, not strengthening it.” This complaint is significantly undercut by the fact that Barr says he will likely support Trump anyway in 2024, as will oncereluctant allies like Mitch McConnell and New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu. Having ensured himself of their vote, he can demand total subservience, creating an atmosphere in which even muted expressions of discontent bring unbearable social sanction upon any who dare utter them.

Among the true-believing Trumpists, there’s no confusion about what Trump’s relentless demands of cultlike submission are trying to accomplish. “The Judas Iscariots of the American Right need to understand that their betrayal comes at a cost,” rails a recent column in American Greatness, one of the new pseudointellectual organs that have sprung up in the Trump era to meet conservative audience demand for sycophantic content. “Excommunication is not enough. Their treachery deserves relentless psychic pain.” It adds that Mike Pence, the New York Times columnist David French, and others “should never be allowed back into respectable conservative company under any circumstances.”

As Chait later points out, this may be a mistake in traditional political terms but in Trumpian terms it makes perfect sense. He’s much more concerned with loyalty and sending the message that anyone who commits violence in his name can act with impunity. He’s ready to blow the whole country up whether he wins or loses.

I Hear You

Trump gets another break:

A New York appeals court agreed to slash millions off of the bond Donald Trump must post to cover a $454 million civil fraud verdict while he appeals it, reducing it to $175 million after the real estate mogul claimed he’d have to sell properties at a loss to raise cash.

The ruling Monday comes on the day Trump faced a deadline to either pay the fine or post a bond for 120% of the judgment to put it on hold while he appeals. That would have amounted to nearly $545 million dollars. He has 10 days to post the bond, the court ruled.

The decision means Trump may be able to push ahead with his appeal without the risk of his assets being seized by New York Attorney General Letitia James for lack of payment. The appeals court did not offer any explanation behind their decision.

Read the order. There’s more. This is a huge win for Trump.

They don’t call him Teflon Don for nothing.

Four Years Ago Today

Never forget


This was a common refrain:

How about this nonsense?

You can’t make this stuff up:

The idea of ​​a joint declaration by the seven important industrialized countries on the corona crisis is on the brink , according to information from European diplomatic circles . The reason is a dispute over what the pandemic should be called.

Accordingly, the State Department insists on the name “Wuhan virus”. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo represents the line of his president. Donald Trump speaks mostly of the “Chinese virus” at press conferences and on Twitter.

The other G7 members reject a label that suggests the pandemic is a Chinese problem.

They propose the term “Covid-19” also used by the World Health Organization (WHO). No agreement could be reached in the negotiations of the political directors of the G7 foreign ministries.

This is ridiculous.

I don’t know if Pompeo has a larger agenda. They do seem to be looking for a confrontation with China out of this whole thing but it’s unclear exactly what they think they’ll get out of it. But first and foremost, this is being done to appease Little Lord Fauntleroy in the White House who constantly needs to be reassured that his juvenile, re-election “branding” is being carried out at the highest levels of government.

I guess it doesn’t matter if they can issue a joint statement. But you would think that international cooperation would be a top priority during a global pandemic. Apparently not.

This response was catastrophic. It divided the nation even more than it already was and resulted in a massive number of unnecessary deaths and ongoing trauma which he is making worse each day by refusing to go the fuck away.

Take 2024 Seriously

No ordinary election, a plebiscite

Sunday is not one of our heaviest traffic days at ye olde blog. For any readers who missed Digby’s repost of Brynn Tannehill’s long Twitter thread (sorry/not-sorry, Elon) about what another Trump presidency would mean, take a gulp of strong coffee and go read it. Take the warning seriously.

Seen in one place, the detailed string of changes Trump, his MAGA followers, his oligarch backers, and Christian nationalist organizations behind Project 2025 mean to enact to remake this republic into something more resembling Hungary, if not Russia, shook me up.

It’s like a murder of a country or a democracy: we see that they have the motive (Christian Nationalist vision for the US requires that democracy die), the means (replacing everyone + Insurrection Act + ignoring the courts), & the opportunity (amoral Trump as President) 

We have intent, and boy howdy have they telegraphed this one. Between Project 2025, Claremont, and Trump’s statements about how he will use the DoJ and DoD clearly show that he’s comfortable using these tools to achieve his goal of creating an effective dictatorship.  

I immediately called a neighbor who excels in door-to-door canvassing to ask about his recent experiences with voters. He was in international development before retirement and finds engaging with new people not at all intimidating. Granted, this city is pretty blue. Yours may be less so. Overwhelmingly great response from prospective voters ahead of the primary. The state just yesterday posted data from March 5 for us to chew on before hitting the streets again in April to build momentum. Go, and do likewise.

Democrats here win our local races. We’re good at this. Winning the down-ballot races is important. But it’s not enough this year.

I’ve preached plenty about increasing turnout among less-engaged unaffiliated voters, voters under 45, and especially under 30. Their votes will save the fucking republic this year. In North Carolina, their votes — every single one — will keep “fanatikers” like Mark Robinson (yes, he believes the New World Order conspiracy, and that George Soros was behind the 2014 Boko Haram kidnapping of Nigerian schoolgirls) out of the governor’s mansion, and keep confirmed QAnon conspiracy theorist and Satan hunter Michele Morrow from dismantling the public schools. There are others like them running for office where you are. Every additional vote counts.

When Robinson says, “The Christian patriots of this nation will own this nation and rule this nation,” believe him the first time. That’s why Project 2025 exists at the national level. They’re eyeing you and your freedoms as their next hot lunch.

November 5 is no ordinary election. We have to make it a plebiscite.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Should She Stay Or Should She Go?

Murkowski eyes the exit door

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R). Photo by Arctic Circle (2017) via Flickr (CC BY 2.0 DEED).

The Cook Political Report rates three Democrat-held Senate seats in the 2024 toss-up category: Arizona, Montana, and Ohio. Republican-held seats rate solid-R or likely-R. Lose any one of its races and Democrats lose control of the Senate. Maybe.

What will Lisa do? (CNN):

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, aghast at Donald Trump’s candidacy and the direction of her party, won’t rule out bolting from the GOP.

The veteran Alaska Republican, one of seven Republicans who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial amid the aftermath of January 6, 2021, is done with the former president and said she “absolutely” would not vote for him.

“I wish that as Republicans, we had … a nominee that I could get behind,” Murkowski told CNN. “I certainly can’t get behind Donald Trump.”

The party’s shift toward Trump has caused Murkowski to consider her future within the GOP. In the interview, she would not say if she would remain a Republican.

Asked if she would become an independent, Murkowski said: “Oh, I think I’m very independent minded.” And she added: “I just regret that our party is seemingly becoming a party of Donald Trump.”

Pressed on if that meant she might become an independent, Murkowski said: “I am navigating my way through some very interesting political times. Let’s just leave it at that.”

Murkowski called for Trump to resign after the Jan. 6 insurrection, telling the Anchorage Daily News, “[I]f the Republican Party has become nothing more than the party of Trump, I sincerely question whether this is the party for me.” Three years later, she’s still a Republican.

But Murkowski will not vote for Trump in the fall, she made clear on Sunday. That proclamation and her impeachment vote make her a MAGA heretic in the first degree. And her Supreme Court confirmation votes against Brett Kavanaugh (2018) and for Ketanji Brown Jackson (2022).

In the 2024 cycle, Murkowski – along with Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine – offered a late endorsement of former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, just days before she dropped out of the race.

Murkowski told The Hill almost a year ago that her party’s populist lurch put it out of step with mainstream America:

“We should be concerned about this as Republicans. I’m having more ‘rational Republicans’ coming up to me and saying, ‘I just don’t know how long I can stay in this party,’” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “Now our party is becoming known as a group of kind of extremist, populist over-the-top [people] where no one is taking us seriously anymore. 

This election season is going to be a wild ride. Keep an eye on Murkowski.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

For The Win, 5th Edition is ready for download. Request a copy of my free countywide GOTV planning guide at ForTheWin.us.

Nuisance Suit

ACCORDING TO THOSE who’ve spoken to him lately, former President Donald Trump doesn’t seem to think he’s actually going to win his defamation lawsuit against ABC News and its star host George Stephanopoulos — but that’s not the point.

Over the weekend, Stephanopoulos asserted that Trump had been “found liable for rape and defaming” the victim, writer E. Jean Carroll, by judges and two juries. As a factual matter, a jury found Trump defamed and sexually abused Carroll — and he was ordered to pay $83 million for defaming her again. Trump’s lawsuit claims Stephanopoulos’ comments were “false, intentional, malicious and designed to cause harm.” 

Behind closed doors, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee has told confidants and lawyers that a primary purpose of the suit is to make an example of Stephanopoulos, two people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone. In recent days, Trump has privately said that “everyone” in the media should think twice about calling him a “rapist” on TV and in print, and that “tak[ing] them to court” — win or lose — is a good way to remind them of that, one of the people says.

“‘It’s not about the money,’ was the impression that I got,” says the other source, who discussed the situation with the ex-president. “This is about not fucking around with Donald Trump.”

Nobody is happier than that attention-seeking twit Nancy Mace who was being interviewed by Stephanopoulos and claimed that he was trying to shame her as a rape victim by asking her how she could support an adjudicated rapist. She’s almost as bad as Trump.

Trump, the sources recount, grew absolutely livid when he saw the Stephanopoulos interview, and began calling up advisers and demanding a suit from his vast gallery of personal attorneys. 

Some had advised the ex-president that a lawsuit could risk drawing more attention — including from voters in a crucial election year — to Carroll’s sexual-assault allegations, or possibly invite expensive sanctions from a court, the sources add. Trump, in conversations with close associates and MAGA-aligned lawyers, emphatically did not seem to care.

If he wants to make the argument that he’s not a rapist because he only forcibly assaulted her by jamming his fingers inside of her instead of his penis, then have at it. I can guarantee that there are very few women who will be impressed by the distinction. Sure, let’s talk about. A lot.

“This lunatic Trump suit is purely performative and substantially less meritorious than even his typical performative lawsuits,” says Ken White, a First Amendment litigator and former federal prosecutor, describing the lawsuit as “complete bullshit.” The attorney adds, “it’s more attention-grabbing, more swinging fists at the media, another opportunity to get more political donations.” 

After a federal jury found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll, Trump’s attorneys sought a new trial on damages in the case because, they argued, the sexual abuse for which the jury found him liable “could have included groping of [Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.”

Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over the trial, found the argument “entirely unpersuasive.”

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote, denying the motion for a new trial. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

White argues the Trump defamation lawsuit is “very obviously wrong on its face, if you know anything about the cases.” He says, “Judge Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll cases already rejected this same claim by Trump, who tried to bring a counter-claim against Carroll, claiming that she defamed him by saying the jury found that he was liable for ‘rape’ … Trump has had a run of really bad lawsuits. This one is unusually, vulgarly, obviously bad. This one doesn’t even pass the plausible claim test.”

Does Trump really hate being seen as a rapist? I doubt it. After all, he’s the man caught on tape bragging that he forcibly kisses and grabs women by the pussy. He knows what he is and he’s proud of it. It means he’s a star.

“The Founder Of Isis”

That’s making the rounds all over right wing social media. I’m not kidding.

With the news that ISIS is taking responsibility for the terrorist attack in Moscow (and the US intelligence agencies have confirmed it) the right is experiencing some serious confusion. This is because Trump has said repeatedly that he defeated ISIS and recently has been saying that he did it in four weeks. The truth is that the US did manage to kill al-Baghdadi and ISIS was forced to give up territory in Iraq and Syria but Trump didn’t really have much to do with that. ISIS is still operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan ad has been active against Russia for a while.

Nonetheless, Trump’s lie is his one big claim to war leader fame and he’s milked it enough that his cult followers believed that he’s defeated them with his bare hands of something. They’re bewildered and creaked out so this is what they’ve come up with to soothe their damaged their psyches.

Slowly At First Then All At Once

Brynn Tannehill, author of , “American Fascism: How the GOP is Subverting Democracy” wrote this twitter thread which I think is a nice succinct recitation of what awaits in a second Trump term:

Someone sent me this yesterday:

The basic premise is that the guardrails of US democracy are so strong that Trump couldn’t turn the US into a dictatorship even if he had 2 more terms.

This is hopelessly naïve. Let’s break it down.

First, a history lesson. The Weimar Republic lasted precisely 51 days between moustache-guy being named Chancellor and the Enabling Acts. Masha Gessen warned in 2016 in “Rules for Surviving Autocracy” “Your institutions will not save you.”

“The system is too strong” is silly. The Philippine constitution was a near exact copy of the US constitution after WWII. Dictator Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law in 1972 using many of the same rationales used by MAGA (leftist plots, need for an autocrat)  

The article blows off several crucial elements in the danger. First (and already discussed briefly) is the vulnerability of the system to subversion. Trump / MAGA / Heritage plan to replace most senior Federal employees with True Believers(tm) via schedule F.  

President Trump has the constitutional right to replace any military leadership he wants with Mike Flynn and Jerry Boykin clones: Christian Nationalists who would happily purify the nation with fire, believing they are the sword of Jesus. 

Trump would also have the absolute right to invoke the Insurrection Act, which most legal scholars say isn’t challengeable at SCOTUS. Combine that with replacement of all the senior leaders (civil and military) at the DoD with True Believers… Yeah, you’re catching on.  

As has been noted, mass round ups of immigrants will require mass mobilization of the military, and invocation of the Insurrection Act. There’s also a high probability Trump will use the military to put down protests against his administration.

I also haven’t even touched on the DoJ, FBI, and other agencies being weaponized against his political enemies and the public. Which he absolutely intends to do, and will likely succeed at using regular appointments and Schedule F.  washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/…

Next, you have intent. This article presumes that the Trump administration would try to do everything 100% legally.

Oh my sweet summer child. This is the man claiming that the President can literally use SEAL Team 6 to kill his enemies as long as the Senate doesn’t convict. 

The Christian Nationalist organizations behind Project 2025 have been broadcasting for years that their plan is to seize power for generations and remake the country. They believe abortion is worse than the Holocaust and slavery combined, and that this is their last chance. 

They think that because the US is secularizing, particularly Gen Z, they must seize power quickly and totally. They are terrified of losing everything in 2028. Trump wants to die in office to avoid legal repercussions and to enrich his family.  

Thus, both are highly motivated to move quickly and definitively to end American democracy by any means necessary in order to ensure that they, or their guys, stay in power permanently. And this means moving quickly and decisively to break the system, not work within it. 

This POLITICO article suggests a number of institutions that will save us: Media, The Judiciary, and local authorities such as Cities, Mayors, Governors.

In reality, none of those is a major impediment in the eyes of a Trump administration.  

First, I’ll lead with the obvious: with true believer military leaders and the Insurrection Act, you can basically take anyone into custody to sideline them. Which includes the Media, the Judiciary, and Local Authorities.

The belief that the media will save us is laughable. The one that has consistently sugar coated what Trump is doing? That figured out that printing genocidal rhetoric about immigrants and trans people is profitable, so they do? The media that is actively dying? 

And, assuming that they don’t kiss the ring, and that Trump doesn’t cow them by using the DoJ to harass organizations or sue them out of existence or shut them down with the Insurrection Act, let’s assume that the media survives and publishes anti-Trump stuff. What then?  

It only affects Trump if he’s voted out of office or removed via popular revolution. And, this being a coup by fascists, they already have a plan for. There is ZERO intent to have free and fair elections after 2024. 

And if protests spread, they can always simply ride them out like Lukashenko did in Belarus. Or, if they’re serious enough to threaten the regime, they’ll already have the military leadership in place to shoot or arrest them all, Tiananmen-style

Stalin is quoted as saying “The Pope? How many divisions as he got?” implying that the Pope had no means to enforce anything. So too with SCOTUS.  

If leaders at the DoJ, FBI, DoD, etc… are loyal to Trump and the MAGA movement first, SCOTUS basically loses their ability to enforce ANYTHING. Which is why the top priority of Project 2025 is to find loyalist replacements for the top 54,000 people in government. 

This doesn’t explore the interesting hardball ways Trump can get courts to issue rulings he likes even without packing them (eg targeting justices or their kids with DoJ and IRS investigations. Or targeting their kids and grandkids. Or taking them into protective custody) 

When you sum it all up, Trump has at least three or four completely viable ways to sideline the judiciary that basically cannot be countered. (military arrest, ignoring their rulings, using the government against them and their families). 

The POLITICO article might argue back that the GOP wouldn’t DARE! This goes too far. To which I reply: this movement is led by religious fanatics who believe they are on a divine mission, and that anything they do is excused by saving all those souls and babies. 

You might as well expect the Iranian Mullahs or the Taliban in Afghanistan to suddenly decide that democracy and human rights have an intrinsic value greater than their vision for a Godly country. Democracy has no value, and the ends justify the means. 

Which brings me to the Governors, Cities, and Mayors argument. Again, none of these are insurmountable. Indeed, they’re relatively easy to circumvent if you think like a dictator who has the entire might of the government behind them, no morals, and are on a mission from God  

If state and local officials refuse to comply, simply declare them to be in rebellion or secession, scoop ’em up with law enforcement or the military, and replace them with loyalists who will run things “until the Insurrection is over”. 

What about protests and resistance in cities? It is my contention that Trump, and the people behind him, believe they can kill or imprison their way out of popular unrest. They’re planning on building internment camps capable of processing 11 million immigrants.  

There’s going to be plenty of room for political opponents, should they need it. But they believe they won’t because most of the time, protests fizzle out and come to nothing if ignored long enough. How much did the protests of 2020 actually achieve? 

Most protests can safely be ignored because they are ultimately powerless to replace the leaders backed by the military and law enforcement. It is only when those two turn on dictators that the regime falls (Ceaușescu in Romania). 

This is why the top priority of Project 2025 is to fill every significant position in government with fanatiker. So that when they are executing orders to crush opposition, everyone says, yes. 

So, if the protests in cities (by some miracle) don’t fizzle out, and do become a real threat to the regime, when the order to liquidate them Tiananmen-style comes everyone with a gun working for the government says “yes”. This is what Trump is preparing for. 

I have even argued that his depraved little heart wants this outcome in order to show the world he’s boss, he’s a tough guy, and must be taken seriously. He’s a bully and a thug at heart, and he threatens his way out of everything. 

In the end, the POLITICO article is wrong for a lot of reasons. The institutional and traditional guardrails can be easily circumvented using multiple means. The GOP already has plans to facilitate all the guardrails, and the intent is clearly there. 

The specific guardrails described in the article are not special: each can be bypassed very quickly and easily by a movement that has no use for democracy, religious goals that require ending democracy, and a non-negotiable goal to seize power permanently. 

It’s like a murder of a country or a democracy: we see that they have the motive (Christian Nationalist vision for the US requires that democracy die), the means (replacing everyone + Insurrection Act + ignoring the courts), & the opportunity (amoral Trump as President) 

We have intent, and boy howdy have they telegraphed this one. Between Project 2025, Claremont, and Trump’s statements about how he will use the DoJ and DoD clearly show that he’s comfortable using these tools to achieve his goal of creating an effective dictatorship.  

Last, we have the belief that they will get away with it. Competitive Autocracies rarely, if ever, fall. They are extremely stable. History tells us that if they seize power, it is unlikely anything can take it away. 

They believe the left is pacifistic enough that rebellion won’t be likely. They also know that the left values democratic processes enough that they can be convinced to keep participating in rigged / unfair elections they cannot win. (see: Hungary) 

This is why I tell you again: should Trump win, everything I have at hand tells me that the US’s plunge into Russian or Hungarian-style despotism will be more rapid than you can possibly image, because Heritage and the right already have planned it all out. 

It’s all there. People can choose to believe that the orange clown won’t do anything crazy and that the people that have managed to turn the Republican Party into a cult and pack the courts with extremists and toadies won’t actually manage to accomplish what they openly say they are going to do. That would be a mistake.

Four Years Ago Today

It was sooo bad

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols has a book called The Death Of Expertise which he’s updated with a new chapter on the pandemic. He’s interviewed in the magazine:

Isabel: You argue that one mistake scientists made was to take on the role of elected officials. Can you talk me through that shift?

Tom: If you look back at those White House press briefings, where you had people such as Dr. Deborah Birx and Dr. Anthony Fauci standing there uncomfortably while Donald Trump ranted about bleach and lights, you can see where they and other experts felt the need to clarify useful policies in a way that ordinary people could follow, especially because elected leaders—and not just Trump—were making a mess of things. Early in the pandemic, for example, I was impressed by then–New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who seemed like a steady and capable hand on the tiller. But Cuomo—as we now know and as I discuss in the book—was desperately trying to cover up his own lethal mistakes.

The scientists, people we’d mostly never heard of at the state and federal levels, stepped forward to issue guidance. But that’s not their job, and, frankly, talking to the public isn’t their main skill set. People, understandably, don’t want to take orders from appointed officials. When it came time to close public places—and, even more important, to reopen them, including schools—scientists got dragged into a huge fight that was more about politics than science. They got tagged as political figures rather than dispassionate experts.

You can blame a lot of that on Trump and the GOP making pandemic measures into political issues. But the way medical professionals supported the George Floyd protests was a big mistake and a completely self-inflicted wound on the cause of expertise.

Isabel: How so?

Tom: As I say in the Atlantic excerpt, a vocal part of the medical community said: These protests are so important that they should be allowed to happen despite all of our advice warning against such gatherings.

To say this while people couldn’t go to church, get married, or bury their dead inflamed a lot of people, including me. (My brother died in a VA long-term-care facility at the start of the pandemic that was later at the center of a scandal about the mishandling of COVID measures, and we couldn’t lay him to rest for weeks.) Many doctors, who had argued that their advice was apolitical, made a nakedly political decision. Fauci, wisely, tried to stay neutral, but by late summer, the damage was done.

I don’t think we can say definitively whether the protests increased COVID cases, but the bigger problem is that the argument is a no-win trap for experts: If the doctors were concerned that the protests could spread the disease, then they shouldn’t have signed on to the protests. But if the protests were acceptable with the appropriate precautions, then the doctors and the public-health officials should have allowed gatherings for everyone willing to use the same measures.

Isabel: I was really struck by the quote you include from a member of the COVID Crisis Group: “Trump was a comorbidity.” Is there a world in which COVID didn’t get quite so politicized?

Tom: I think, given decades of narcissism, political polarization, and general distrust in government, a pandemic was always going to be politicized. But in my view, Trump’s personal influence and his mobilization of an entire political party around the demonization of expertise cost lives. It’s still a remarkable thing, and it astounds me that anyone would think of putting him back in any position of responsibility anywhere.

Isabel: Why is listening to experts the task of a responsible American citizen?

Tom: It’s not our task to obey experts without question, but, yes, listening is a requirement of being a citizen in a democracy. In the end, political leaders should, and do, have the last word and make the call on most things, including war and peace. But we are not a rabble. We don’t just all shout in the public square and then demand that the loudest voices carry the day. Experts give all of us, including our elected leaders, information we need to make decisions.

We can choose to ignore that advice. Experts can tell us about risks, and we can choose to take those risks. But if we simply block our ears and insist that we know better than everyone else because our gut, or some TV personality, or some politician, told us that we’re smarter than the experts, that’s on us.

I too winced at at the doctors and scientists on TV making that clearly political commentary about the protests at the time, not because I was especially terrified of the spread of the virus through that means but because it was obvious it was a political not a scientific decision and would, therefore, further politicize all the scientific advice going forward. It was dissonant and weird but then everything was during that period.

But nobody politicized the scientific community that Trump and his henchmen. I don’t know if the professions will ever fully recover from it.