"Once is a mistake. Twice is jazz."
- Miles Davis
The Self-Defeating Both-Sidesism of the US Press
Greg Sargent writing for The New Republic:
There’s no clean way to hive off terms like fascism or authoritarianism from Trump’s policies. Even if you disagree that the words apply, their use is backed up by a genuine attempt at intellectual justification for it. The use of these terms just is deeply linked to assessments of Trump’s actual policies, from the lawless renditions to foreign gulags to the unleashing of heavily armed militias in American cities to the naked intimidation of large swaths of civil society.
By contrast, when Trump and MAGA media figures call Democrats “Communists” or “antifa,” all of that is entirely disconnected from any policy realities. Many press figures would like it if there were an Archimedean midpoint between the two parties on all these matters. But there isn’t. At the most basic level, one party continues to function as an actor in a liberal democracy, whereas Trump and much of his movement, with the eager participation of many Republicans, simply do not. Dispensing with harsh but accurate descriptions of his real goals would whitewash them.
See also Republican Extremism and the Myth of “Both Sides” in American Politics.
How Trump is moving to control U.S. elections, one state at a time
The Daily Docket – A newsletter by Reuters and Westlaw: “Reuters uncovered a broader‑than‑previously known Trump administration effort to gain federal control over elections, historically run locally, in at least eight states – using investigations, raids and demands for access to balloting systems and voter ID.
- What happened In January, a DHSagent sought unredacted voter records and voter‑registration information from Franklin County, Ohio, without explaining the basis for the request. Reuters found similar federal requests for voter data, access to voting machines or revived fraud investigations in at least eight states, including Nevada, Colorado, Michiganand Missouri, often tied to claims previously rejected by courts.
- Why it matters Elections are constitutionally administered by states, and officials across party lines say the growing federal push tests that boundary. The Trump administration’s efforts raise concerns about voter‑data privacy, federal overreach, intimidation of election officials and the potential use of disputed fraud claims in close races. Many administrators report increased legal costs, security fears and staff strain.
- What’s next States are bracing for more federal scrutiny ahead of November, drafting response plans for subpoenas and data demands. Ongoing litigation between states and the federal government could shape how far federal election enforcement can go — and redefine the balance of power over U.S. elections…”
The Second Front: The Escalating Right-Wing Legal Threats Beyond the White House
“A new report from Democracy Forward, The Second Front: The Escalating Right-Wing Legal Threats Beyond the White House, reveals the perilous threats to American democracy represented by the far-right legal movement.
The report, part of Democracy Forward’s work to track the far-right legal movement, focuses attention on ways that extremists continue to deprive Americans of their rights in an attempt to concentrate power in the hands of a privileged few people and corporations. “The pro-democracy community is fighting extreme, authoritarian forces on at least two fronts,” reads the report.
“The first front consists of the president’s often unlawful use of executive power, which continues to throw communities across America into crisis and garner significant national attention.
On a second, less visible front, a coordinated right-wing legal movement, operating both alongside and independent of the administration, is advancing an ideological agenda while dismantling pro-democracy protections at the federal, state, and local levels.” The Second Front breaks down the far-right legal movement’s key lines of attack into four categories:
- eliminating access to reproductive rights,
- misusing freedom of speech and religion to restrict healthcare and bodily autonomy,
- targeting protections for transgender students,
- and gutting government protections for workers and consumers.
The report explains each line of attack, describes illustrative cases, and analyzes the impact each case could have if the right-wing legal movement wins in the courts.”