1. The virulence of the attack against the independent media on the part of Trump and his acolytes in the past week is of an different order of magnitude than anything that I can think of in my lifetime.

But to explain this ratcheting up of their assault, I would suggest that it is only in part explained by the general desire of Trump and Bannon to turn the media into the obsequious servant or, at least, a silent observer of their larger retrograde and thoroughly undemocratic political vision.

4. It is a mistake to understand Trumpism as neoliberalism in hyper drive. It embraces, no doubt, many neoliberal policies, but at the same time, it doesn’t comfortably fit that ideological and political pedigree. It’s far more eclectic and contradictory in its construction.

5. I’m wondering if we should retire the terms social democracy and social democrats. Unlike Europe, they never easily fit our political reality and over time they have acquired multiple meanings. As a consequence, when applied to today’s circumstances, they can easily fail to capture the texture and dynamics of present day movements and struggles. In short, they can confuse as much as clarify. And who needs that?

1. The old slogan, “All for One and One for All,” seems like a good response to Trump’s declaration on immigration, plus public actions everywhere – big city and small town.

2. In his Atlantic article, David Frum writes,

“Those citizens who fantasize about defying tyranny from within fortified compounds have never understood how liberty is actually threatened in a modern bureaucratic state: not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralizing process of corruption and deceit. And the way that liberty must be defended is not with amateur firearms, but with an unwearying insistence upon the honesty, integrity, and professionalism of American institutions and those who lead them.” (David Frum’s Atlantic article, “Constructing Autocracy.”)

This strikes me as a pretty astute observation. Trump’s style of governance surely has other features, including and especially repressive ones, as demonstrated in yesterday’s announcement of his draconian immigration policy (if you can call something that shouldn’t be part of our discourse, not to mention the government’s practice, a policy). But just as surely we can expect him to use the power, purse strings, and prestige of the state to win and reward friends and buy off, divide, and silence opponents.

Corruption can take many forms ranging from small concessions and favors to big handouts and payoffs. In a modern state, the granting of political advantage on one or another thing can bring enormous financial as well as political rewards. Of course, it doesn’t come out of a generous spirit of the giver. The expectation is that the recipients will reciprocate with their support or, at least, temper their criticism.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. Nor is it peculiar to right wing governments. But the Trump administration will raise corruption to an altogether new level and scale. It, along with fake news, vilification of the press and other opponents, islamophobia and immigrant bashing, unapologetic racism and sexism, white nationalism, truth and science denial, and more, will be alpha and omega of its mode of rule.

3. We are in a defensive posture at this moment. So here’s my question: does the RESISTANCE to Trump’s rhetoric and actions give enough lift to an alternative program and vision of a society that accents community, economic security, equality, sustainability, and peace? From my experience, which is limited, I would say NO.

I realize that it is easier said than done, given the relentless authoritarianism of this administration. Every day (or hour), it seems, something new is coming from Trump’s mouth or his acolytes. But, if I am right, its difficulty cannot be reason to sidestep this conundrum. On its solution rests to no small degree our ability to cut into the legion of Trump supporters – not to mention expand the resistance to people sympathetic to our message, but still inactive.

4.  Some people ask if we should retire the term “progressive wing” of the Democratic Party. Not in my opinion. It captures the breadth of the reforming/transforming/renovating impulse in today’s Democratic Party better than either the social justice left or the Sander’s movement that also operate within the Party’s elastic orbit.

That said. I’m not stuck on any one word (and even if I were, it wouldn’t matter much anyway). The larger issue in my view is to do nothing to narrow down the scope of people and organizations that favor a non-sectarian turn of the Democratic Party in a progressive direction and a sustained focus on its organizational renewal, especially in the Midwest.

5. The analytical efforts to scale down the impact of hateful ideologies in the political calculus of white workers in the name of working class partisanship and a very dubious understanding of marxism are misguided. This defense obscures, and even worse, conceals an overarching political challenge – to turn the politics of equality, justice, solidarity, mutuality, and human decency into the common sense of white workers at a moment when someone occupies the White House who uniquely and proudly spews ideologies of hate, division, violence, and oppression.

6. Bravo for the New England Patriot players who declared that they said they will not visit the White House for the traditional meeting that championship teams have with the president. It takes courage, especially when the team owner, coach, and quarterback are such avid supporters of the new president. We should all draw inspiration from their example of defiance as we continue to oppose the megalomaniac who sits in White House.

Certainly, if Trump fits anywhere on the political spectrum, it is squarely with the alt-right crowd. Many of its hallmarks are at the core of his political outlook. He embraces its white christian-nationalism and exhibits its paranoia. Invented resentments and slights roil him, as they do the alt-right. Anti-intellectualism and science denial are part of his mental makeup too. Mirroring his alt right friends, he is ready to prosecute an all out war against Muslims in defense of “Western Civilization.”

And, in line with his extremist friends on the fringe, he favors a governing style that is defined by disruption, vengeance, and, above all, a frightening disdain for democratic norms, a free press, and a vibrant civil society. Going over to more authoritarian, strongman forms of rule would be as easy for Trump as it would for his leading strategist and alt-righter Steven Bannon.

At the same time, Trump’s alt right political disposition hasn’t caused him to declare war on the traditional right-wing elites that have dominated the Republican Party for four decades, nor they on him. In fact, on a range of issues and methods of governance the two are on the same page. He, like them, is ready to radically restructure the role and functions of government to the overwhelming advantage of the 1 percent and secure Republican rule, albeit by undemocratic means, for the half century ahead.

This doesn’t make Trump a poster boy for Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell or Paul Ryan, McConnell’s counterpart in the House, nor the two GOP leaders White House favorites. And yet, up until now, this marriage of the traditional right and the alt-right seemed sturdy enough. There has been some grumbling by Republicans in Congress about Trump, but it has been muted, limited to a few voices, and not at a level to cause a rupture in their common front. No one on either side was talking about a divorce, acrimonious or otherwise.

However, with what is transpiring in Washington this week and how it plays out in subsequent days and weeks, things could change. Whether a break between Congressional Republicans and Trump happens will depend on many factors, some of which we have little control over. Among them are the leaking of more egregious wrongdoing by Trump and his advisors, the media stepping up its investigatory role, the courts’ readiness to dispute Trump/Bannon’s executive orders, deepening divisions in elite circles, a further cratering of Trump’s already low public approval, a willingness of some Republicans to put country, Constitution, and democracy over party, the fighting spirit of the Democratic Party Congressional leadership, and, not least, Trump’s reaction to all this.

Taken together, they could create unbridgeable strains between Congressional Republicans and Trump and trigger a full congressional investigation of the misdeeds and crimes of this erratic and volatile pretender in the White House.

No doubt, Trump will counterattack. He will bully. He will fume. He will threaten independent-minded politicians, journalists, judges, whistle blowers, state agencies, and demonstrators with harsh penalties.

He will also lean hard on Congressional Republicans to act as a firewall, protecting him from any Congressional inquiry into his actions. But whether he will be successful or not is another matter. If  more incriminatory evidence comes out against him and public disapproval of his presidency grows,  Republicans in Congress, if not for noble reasons, then out of pure instincts of self preservation, could easily decide to put some distance between themselves and Trump, even joining their adversaries on the Democratic side to look into Trump’s misdeeds and crimes.

If that were to occur, Trump could find himself on very shaky ground. Impeachment and criminal charges could follow, which would likely call into question the integrity of the election process and could lead to a succession crisis.

Even if Pence were to escape ensnarement in this sordid affair and become the next president, the uniquely dangerous cancer of Trump, Bannon, and the alt-right at the head of the state would be removed. Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that the Republican Party would be weakened, while the Democrats and the broader democratic movement would emerge with new confidence and vigor.

Could the stakes be any higher? Can we afford to sit on the sidelines? Shouldn’t our voices, insistent and persuasive, be heard in red and blue state alike?

New York Times columnist Charles Blow presciently writes:

“Every day there is a fresh outrage emerging from the murky bog of the Donald Trump administration … Every day there is a new round of questions and a new set of concerns that raise anxieties and lower trust … Every day it becomes ever more clear that it is right and just to doubt the legitimacy of this regime and all that flows from it.”

It takes courage for New England Patriot players not to visit the White House, when team owner, coach, and quarterback are such avid supporters of the new president.

And yet at least six members of the Super Bowl-winning New England Patriots have said they will not visit the White House for the traditional meeting that championship teams have with the president.

Running back LeGarrette Blount, defensive end Chris Long and defensive tackle Alan Branch on Thursday became the latest to announce that they would skip the visit.

A day earlier, the Pro Bowl linebacker Dont’a Hightower bowed out when he told ESPN, “Been there, done that,” having visited with a championship Alabama team.

Tight end Martellus Bennett told reporters after the Super Bowl that he would not go: “It is what it is,” he said. “People know how I feel about it. Just follow me on Twitter.”

The Pro Bowl safety Devin McCourty, a team captain, told Time magazine: “Basic reason for me is I don’t feel accepted in the White House. With the president having so many strong opinions and prejudices, I believe certain people might feel accepted there while others won’t.”

We should all draw inspiration from their example of defiance, as we continue our opposition to the megalomanic that sits in the White House.

Below are some brief observations from the tumult of last three weeks. SW

1. What is surprising three weeks into Trump? Not his reckless and erratic behavior. Not his narcissism, ignorance, and crudeness. Nor his demagogic appeals to the resentments of his core faithful/ Not his cabinet of corporate, political, and mainly male and white cronies. Not his xenophobia, Islamophobia, and racism. Not his contempt for democracy. Not his cluelessness on economic matters. Not the ingratiating and slovenly attitude of Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan toward Trump. Not the willingness of his core supporters to stick with him for now.

2. In earlier economic crises – Great Depression in the 1930s and stagflation in mid-1970s – a new economic regime – Keynesianism in the first case, neoliberalism in the second – with their unique set of institutions, rules, rationalizing ideas and common sense, alignment of class and social forces, etc. replaced the preceding regime that triggered the system-wide crisis.

Moreover, in each case, the midwife was not only the open aggravation of and sharp turns in class and democratic struggles, but also the ceaseless molecular movement of capital, hidden deep within the structures and operation of present-day global capitalism.

In contrast to earlier crises however, the neoliberal, financialist, globalist regime that wreaked system-wide havoc in 2008 wasn’t replaced by a new economic regime that set the economy on a new trajectory of growth and capital accumulation. As it turned out, even though the legitimacy of the neoliberalism took a major hit, the effective forces didn’t exist to replace it with a popular democratic alternative at the time or since then.

5. Stephen Walt, an international relations theorist, writes that he hoped that Trump would pursue, what he calls a “realist” policy, in his dealings with the rest of the world in contrast to the traditional policy of liberal hegemony of previous administrations. But he is not so sure now, if that is in the cards.

Just as likely, he goes on to say, “is that the Bannon-Trump approach to politics is in fact driven by a paranoid view of the modern world that sees the global economy in strictly zero-sum terms (thereby ignoring a couple of centuries of economic knowledge) and thinks the white, Judeo-Christian West is now under siege from an implacable and powerful tide of dark-skinned people, and especially Muslims.”

Bannon is of this mind for sure; what remains unclear in my opinion is whether Trump is completely sold on this approach and, even if he is, the degree to which he can be coaxed or compelled to bend to the pressures from the traditional foreign policy establishment.

4. Speaker bans and deplatforming speakers are in most instances problematic forms of protest. Even if successful, they can turn into a hollow victories, if their organizers end up appearing intolerant of free speech to the broader public.