“It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” —Joe Biden, July 8, 2024
I expressed my concern in a 2023 essay The Continuing Campaign to Unperson Donald Trump that somebody would take it upon himself to (using the covert operational euphemism) terminate with extreme prejudice the former president Donald Trump. After all, progressives and pundits have aggressively pushed the narrative that the “MAGA extremists” represent a fascist movement, Trump is Hitler, and the former president’s second time as president will end democracy and his political opponents will be hunted down and imprisoned or worse. Therefore, under no circumstances, can Trump be allowed to be president again. That’s the vibe.
That’s been the vibe for quite a while now, and a big part of the vibe is cover for the authoritarianism of the Democratic Party. Over the last several years, ever since a Trump presidency became a firm likelihood, the Democratic Party has warned the public that Trump and MAGA represents everything the Democrats have been doing during those years—organizing chaos in the streets, a deep-state coup, high-production show trials, imprisoning hundreds of patriotic Americans, waging lawfare against Trump and associates (Giuliani, Bannon, Navarro, and many others), harassing, intimidating, even jailing citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.
More than this, several politicians and pundits have engaged in stochastic terrorism directly targeting the president. Stochastic terrorism refers to the use of public communication to incite random acts of violence by individuals without directly commanding them to do so. This form of terrorism relies on the idea that by spreading inflammatory rhetoric and provocative propaganda, a certain percentage of the audience will be influenced to commit acts of violence. The perpetrators so incited are typically “lone wolves” who act independently, making it difficult to predict or prevent specific attacks. The trick of stochastic terrorism is that the instigators get to claim plausible deniability, since they do not explicitly direct any particular attack. Instead, they create an environment of fear and hostility, increasing the likelihood of violent acts occurring randomly but with a shared ideological motivation.
Remember Representative Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.) apologizing in December 2023 for his “poor choice of words” when he said former President Trump must be “eliminated” to protect democracy. Goldman knows such words cannot be taken back. Goldman is hardly the only one to use this type of rhetoric when talking about Trump.
Joe Biden has been one of the main instigators. Recall Biden’s notorious September 2022 speech in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, cast against a blood-red fascistic backdrop. “America is at an inflection point,” Biden said, “one of those moments that determine the shape of everything that’s to come after. And now America must choose to move forward or to move backwards.” “MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.” Scary stuff, if it were true. But it’s not.
Biden personalized the threat to the nation in that speech, name-checking Trump three times with fist raised in the air in angry voice. Describing MAGA Republicans as embracing an “extreme ideology,” Biden said, “there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.” These words are telling the public in no uncertain terms that Donald Trump is public enemy number one, the archenemy of the state, a singular and unique danger to democracy and freedom. Not the millions of military age men flooding across the southern border. Not the country with thousands of nuclear weapons NATO antagonized. Trump.
At the time, NPR reached out to Democratic strategist Joel Payne to get his thoughts about the speech. Admitting that Biden “walks a thin line,” Payne rationalized: “I think it also helps juice the base with moral clarity on saving the democracy.” The operative phrase, “saving the democracy,” with Trump, the analog to Emmanuel Goldstein, the principal enemy of the Oceania in Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four, projected upon the screen to focus the hate.
“What we’re seeing now is either the beginning or the death knell of extreme MAGA philosophy,” Biden told Democrat donors in the Washington suburb of Rockville that same month, his remarks reported widely in the media. Calling out those he labeled as “extreme,” Biden said, “It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the—I’m going to say something, it’s like semi-fascism.” Later that same day at a rally, Biden told the crowd: “The MAGA Republicans don’t just threaten our personal rights and economic security. They’re a threat to our very democracy. They refuse to accept the will of the people. They embrace political violence. They don’t believe in democracy.” Biden said that “the survival of our planet is on the ballot.” If Republicans win control of Congress, “it won’t matter where you live: Women won’t have the right to choose anywhere. Anywhere.”
So, it was no surprise to me when, last night, a sniper attempted to take Trump’s life. “This evening, we had what we’re calling an assassination attempt on our former President Donald Trump,” FBI Special Agent Kevin Rojek, Pittsburgh field office, told reporters. “We do not currently have an identified motive,” he added. Rhetorical caution is characteristic of FBI public pronouncements, but the motive is clear enough. The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, twenty, from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, about 40 miles south of the Butler rally, donated to the Democrat activist group ActBlue on the day of Biden’s installation as president. He took an AR-15 to the rally, situated himself atop a single-story warehouse 150 yards from where the president stood, and squeezed off eight rounds. The first missed the president by centimeters. The second struct the president’s ear. Had the president not dropped to the ground, the third would have likely struck his temple. The shooter was finding his target, sweeping left to right. Then, with Trump on the ground, Crooks squeezed off five more rounds, striking several others in attendance.
When Democrats compare Trump to Hitler and tell us his re-election is the end of democracy, they’re projecting. Not that their president can be compared to Hitler; as Sheldon Wolin told us in Democracy, Inc., “inverted totalitarianism” needs no dictator—indeed, that’s part of its angle, namely, to dissimulate power. Unlike traditional totalitarianism, which relies on a charismatic leader and overt control, inverted totalitarianism emerges from within a facially democratic system and operates through the normalization of corporate influence and the erosion of democratic institutions. It involves the convergence of corporate and state power, leading to the prioritization of corporate interests over the public good.
Under these arrangements, the political system driven by economic imperatives, with the government acting as a facilitator of corporate power than as a representative of the people’s will. Media and public discourse are manipulated to create a passive, disengaged citizenry, distracted by consumerism and spectacle. This form of governance maintains the appearance of democratic processes and freedoms while hollowing out their substance, resulting in a society where the mechanisms of control are more diffuse and harder to detect but no less effective. Putting this bluntly, Democrats are not defending democracy against fascism but the other way around, with the new fascism working under the cover of managed democracy.
Managed democracy refers to a system where democratic processes and institutions exist but are manipulated to ensure outcomes that favor those in power. It’s characterized by control over elections, where the corporate state controls the media, restricts opposition activities, and manipulates electoral laws to ensure a predictable outcome. The media is controlled or heavily influenced by ruling elites, limiting free and open debate and promoting the corporate agenda. Opposition parties and movements are allowed to exist but preferably as controlled opposition, in any case facing significant obstacles such as legal restrictions, harassment, and limited access to resources and media. The judiciary and other key institutions are controlled or manipulated to serve the interests of the ruling power rather than acting independently. The state invests in propaganda and public relations campaigns to shape public perception and maintain a veneer of legitimacy and democratic normalcy. Managed democracy maintains the facade of democracy—such as holding regular elections and having democratic institutions—but the substance and genuine democratic participation are negated or significantly undermined.
At the core of the Democrat Party’s notion of democracy, is the corporate state, which rules via technocracy, a system of governance where decision-making is dominated by elite-selected professionals, scientists, and technical experts rather than elected representatives. In this system, the emphasis is on efficiency, expertise, predictability, uniformity, and other features of bureaucratic control systems at the expense of democratic accountability and participation. Technocrats prioritize technical solutions to societal problems, ostensibly relying on data and specialized knowledge to guide their decisions. This governance style estranges the public, as decisions are made by experts who may not be responsive to the needs and values of ordinary citizens, excluding the voice of those who are affected by the decisions technocrats make.
Whereas democratic republicanism defines the government in terms of the people’s will with protections for individuals and minority groups, that is, the people own the government, technocrats see democratic republicanism and classical liberal values as obstacles to overcome to deliver on ruling class interests. The result is a system that appears to be efficient and knowledgeable on the surface but lacks the democratic legitimacy and inclusiveness of a more participatory form of government.
This is the new fascism—inverted totalitarianism, managed democracy, and technocratic control—and we must address it as a matter of republican duty. We must call out the inversion of reality that makes republicans out to be fascists and fascists out to be democrats. But we have to do this in way that doesn’t risk political violence. To be sure, the fact of having the truth on our side means that identifying those engaged in the big lie is righteous. At the same time, the propaganda machine, as powerful as it is, will portray the accurate identification of authoritarians as an instance of calling the kettle black, since elites have deeply embedded the false assumption in the prevailing social logic. Democrats smear Trump and his followers as fascists as a routine matter and the characterization is taken as given, which is why so many people secretly support Trump. To be sure, the reverse is true, but we need to tell this truth in a way that makes it difficult for Democrats to accuse liberals and republicans of endangering Democratic politicians and pundits. It is clearly by design that Democrats project their fascistic desires onto republicans as a way of having their cake and eating it too. We have to short-circuit their bamboozle.
The best way of going about tis to address the structural problems and politics of authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism by understanding these ideologies and relations as systemic issues rather than merely personal attributes of individual actors. Biden is not a fascist in the sense Democrats falsely portray Trump. Today’s fascism is not yesterday’s fascism; and, in any case, fascism and national socialism were never reducible to Mussolini or Hitler. By pursuing structural analysis, one examines how institutions, policies, and societal norms contribute to or resist authoritarian tendencies. This approach identifies and critiques patterns of power, oppression, and erosion of democratic values without reducing complex political ideologies to individual personalities.
Conversely, smearing individuals as fascists or authoritarians oversimplifies and personalizes complex political debates, and potentially leads to polarization and the undermining of meaningful dialogue. While Democrats rarely worry about alienating voters in the heartland (recall Clinton’s characterization of Trump supporters as “deplorables”), Republicans need the big tent to counter progressive control over American institutions. Moreover, personalizing politics risks exposing individuals to harm by those who see the world in the good and bad of personalities rather than in system terms. It’s crucial to condemn authoritarianism and fascism as ideologies that threaten freedom and human rights while avoiding the personalization of these critiques—unless of course their actions clearly warrant such scrutiny, but then never in a way that advocates violence.
As I have argued in several essays on Freedom and Reason, the antidote to the corporate statism is the reclamation of democratic-republic rules of governance and reestablishing the classical liberal values outlines in our great Bill of Rights. It is obvious that the democratic-republican rules of governance, as outlined in the US Constitution—the separation of powers, federalism, the rule of law, and checks and balances—have under decades of progressive influence and Democratic Party rule the founding scheme been thrown out of whack. The solution? Throw Democrats out of power at the ballot box and deconstruct the administrative state.
The classical liberal values outlined in the amendments to the United States Bill of Rights emphasize individual freedoms and protections—freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition; the right to keep and bear arms; protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause; guarantees of due process of law, protection against self-incrimination, and safeguards against double jeopardy and property seizure without just compensation; prohibition against excessive bail and fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. I remind the readers of these amendments because they collectively promote individual liberty, personal security, and fairness in the justice system. This is what we seek.
Democratic participation, through organizing and voting, embodies the virtues of republicanism and the ethic of nonviolent resolution of conflicts. When citizens organize, they build community, raise awareness, and advocate for change through collaboration and constructive dialogue, fostering empowerment and shared purpose. Voting, a cornerstone of democratic systems, allows individuals to express preferences and hold leaders accountable, ensuring that the will of the people is manifest in policies that improve the lives of the common man.
Political violence undermines all this and the stability of national life, perpetuating vicious circles of fear and retaliation. Democratic participation offers a constructive and non-violent means to address grievances and achieve progress. By embracing the ballot box and grassroots organizing, and rejecting political violence, societies nurture a culture of mutual understanding, respect, and tolerance, strengthening the foundations of democracy.
One party is the party of violence. It is not the Republican Party, however must progressives share images and video of January 6 (what was in reality a police riot and the work of agent provocateurs). During the summer of 2020, the United States experienced rampant political violence amid widespread protests and civil unrest that conservatives and liberals alike opposed. The violence, egged on by the Democratic Party and the corporate media, ostensibly sought to address systemic racism and police brutality, both mythic constructs peddled by progressives across the sense making institutions. In truth, it was a cover for extreme violence to disrupt the 2020 presidential campaign—a color revolution. Arson, looting, property damage, and confrontations between rioters and law enforcement in several cities, as well as between rioters and civilians, resulted in scores of injuries and the deaths of more than two dozen people. All this allowed Democrats to mask their authoritarian ambitions behind a facade of social justice. They did the same thing with the pandemic. They rigged 2020. They installed a leader through subterfuge, disorder, and violence.
Readers must remember that, throughout American history, the Democratic Party has been the party of slavocracy, Jim Crow segregation, and corporate statism. During the nineteenth century, Southern Democrats strongly supported and defended the institution of slavery, viewing it as essential to their economic and social structure. The Republican Party was instituted to end slavery and save the republic from dissolution at the hands of Democrats. Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, Democratic-led Southern states enacted segregationist laws and policies that enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These policies persisted well into the twentieth century, perpetuating systemic racism and inequality across the United States. Today, the Democrats are the party of identitarian politics, yet another method of governance designed to divided the working class.
Trump and the populist movement represent a potential end to the highjacking of the American Republic by authoritarians and technocrats—the inverted totalitarianism of the status quo. This is why there was an attempt on the man’s life yesterday, an attempt encouraged by the defenders of that status quo. We have to educate people about the true history of power in the United States. They control the sense-making institutions, so it won’t be easy. But then democracy and freedom never have been easy.
freedom and reason 
Bravo! Another banger!