He’s still trying to prove his manliness to himself

I was a barely grown lad when Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre occurred on October 20, 1973. Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was investigating the Watergate scandal. President Nixon ordered him fired. Attorney General Elliot Richardson (Cox’s boss) refused and resigned. Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned. Solicitor General Robert Bork carried out the firing and intended to resign, but Richardson and Ruckelshaus persuaded him to stay. That started the impeachment process against Nixon. Lisa Needdham of Daily Kos reports in comparison to what happened over the last few days in the DoJ that night in 1973 looks like “a quaint tea party.” I’ll summarize. Deputy AG Emil Bove ordered the criminal charges against NYC Mayor Eric Adams be dropped. The reason wasn’t the usual prosecutorial misconduct or insufficient evidence. Rather pending charges meant Adams couldn’t devote enough time to fighting illegal immigration. This would be an illegal quid pro quo arrangement. Yeah, this echoes the nasty guy’s own presidential immunity. Also strange, the charges were to be dismissed without prejudice – they could be refiled at any time, such as when Adams is declared to be insufficiently vicious to immigrants. Bove demanded a federal prosecutor sign the order. Seven refused and resigned. These were not Biden holdovers but included a Federalist Society member and former clerks for Justices Scalia and Kavanaugh. They all recognized when something was downright illegal and they had limits. Since Bove could have signed the order himself he was using it as a loyalty test and to see how far he could push them into acting unethically and illegally.

All of these acts are part and parcel of Trump consolidating power within the executive branch. Demanding federal employees engage in illegal or unethical acts is designed to weed out those who won’t go along with his plans. It’s terrifying that it took such a short time for those demands to be so over-the-top that even people otherwise ideologically aligned with Trump had to tap out. It’s equally terrifying that he’s seeking complete control over agencies that were previously independent. He’s warping the whole executive branch to be nothing but a place where amoral loyalists do his bidding. Now, unvarnished, unrestrained authoritarianism feels right around the corner.

Kai Ryssdal, host of the NPR show Marketplace, talked to Sarah Binder, professor of politics at George Washington University and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. The topic was the new executive order from the nasty guy saying he is taking over several agencies that Congress designated as independent from the president, even though the prez. nominates the head and the board. The order includes: the Federal Election Commission, the Federal Communications Commission (TV and radio), the Securities and Exchange Commission (stock markets), the Federal Trade Commission, and more. This does not (yet) include the Federal Reserve’s ability to set interest rates, though the Reserve does a great deal more to stabilize the economy and those are affected. Yes, this is illegal. But who in Congress will stop him? It will end up before the courts. Will he abide by their decision? These agencies were set up as independent to they would be insulated from politics and the whims of the president. Having them under the control of the nasty guy affects the ability to control inflation, regulate banks to keep them healthy, keep companies that sell stock honest, decide who does or doesn’t get a radio or TV license, and whether candidates for office play by the rules. What these executive orders are doing is allowing the nasty guy to usurp Congress’ ability to designate how money is spent. And Congress isn’t standing up for itself. Steve Inskeep of NPR took up the same topic, discussing it with Jane Manners, a legal historian at Temple University Beasley School of Law. The discussion was prompted by Russell Vought, author of parts of Project 2025 and now the head of the Office of Management and Budget, has declared the nasty guy administration is rejecting the notion of an independent agency within the Executive Branch. Everything under the nasty guy is under his power. Inskeep and Manners have four key points. First, independent agencies go back to 1887 with the regulation of railroads, which were becoming quite critical to commerce. Because of the importance Congress wanted the agency to be insulated from politics. Second, independent agencies need to be accountable to someone. If not the president, who? But they can’t function properly under presidential pressure. Third, the current system says an agency is responsible to its appointed board. They can be removed only for neglect of duty and malfeasance. That accountability seems ambiguous. Fourth, the Department of Justice is headed by one person, not a board. It’s independence is (again) to shield it from politics. Scott Detrow of NPR started a segment with:

New York Times opinion writer M Gessen lived through much of Russia's slide into autocracy and wrote a book about it. They argue that one of the ways that Vladimir Putin consolidated power was by making a series of arguments that seemed outrageous at the time, like the idea that the LGBT population was a threat to Russian sovereignty.

That book is The Future Is History: How Totalitarianism Reclaimed Russia. Gessen didn’t take that argument seriously, though a couple years later had to flee the country. In the same way the nasty guy has put out a “barrage of unthinkable ideas.” They don’t seem connected, but Gessen says they are. People who are the targets of an autocrat see it as terrifying. But for most people living under autocracy is just dumb. The US buying Greenland? Clearing Gaza? Dumb ideas. But they undermine the idea that people have obligations to one another and that there is a law-based world order. Gessen said:

I think that Americans voted for Donald Trump because there are some really major problems with the system of government as it's constituted. And I think that, basically, the Democratic Party, for at least three election cycles, has now insisted that things are fine just the way they are, that we just have to live in some sort of imaginary normal, really refusing to hear that the normal - whatever that is - isn't working for a lot of people, that they are anxious and miserable. And they would rather throw a grenade at the way things are in the form of Donald Trump than continue living the way they've been living. And the reason it's important to think about that now is that it's still the same sort of dynamic where Trump is taking a sledgehammer to the world as we've known it, and the Democrats are saying, well, you can't do that. That's not how the rules are written. Americans have said that the way that the rules are written and the way that the system functions doesn't work for them. So there has to be a bigger idea. The rules were written for a reason. They were there to perform certain functions. They were there to make sure that our obligations to one another are, in fact, fulfilled, and they haven't been.

I read that and think of the biggest issue Democrats didn’t touch – inequality and curbing the power of the extremely wealthy. Yeah, there have been voices – Sens. Warren and Sanders – but no action by a party supposedly for the worker yet paid off by those wealthy people. People were expecting the nasty guy’s second term to be similar to his first. And it isn’t. Now people may act to give the authoritarian more power over them.

I think that, rationally, people are settling in for the long haul and making decisions about their organizations that will benefit them or at least keep them safer in the short term. And that's really the problem with this kind of abeyance is that it is reasonable, it is well thought through and it is sometimes even values based. People are thinking, I'm protecting my employees. I'm protecting my organization. The problem is that when everyone does that, that is exactly how autocracy is built. It cannot be built without people's cooperation.

As part of a series Explaining the Right on Kos Oliver Willis titled his article, “Why conservatives are obsessed with phony masculinity.” As in at least one other article in the series the question isn’t answered, though several examples of phony masculinity are described. One is Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth at the NATO summit. His performance was seen to be quite an embarrassment. There is the nasty guy who posted his criminal mug shot outside the Oval Office. Bush II in his flight suit declaring “Mission Accomplished” when it wasn’t. Then the discussion turned to research that show diversity really does lead to a better armed forces.

But figures like Hegseth and Trump are locked into the worldview that only people who look like them are legitimate, and everyone else must fall to the wayside. That has historically been the path that leads to unwinnable quagmires, claiming the lives of millions of innocent people. History tells us that this time won’t be any different.

I did find an answer to the posed question in the comments. Mystic Michael wrote:

I’m not going to accept any lectures from the likes of Pete Hegseth — and certainly not from the likes of Donald Trump — about what it means to be a man. A real man doesn’t abuse women — as Hegseth does. A real man doesn’t pick on the weak, the underprivileged, the marginalized — as Trump does. A real man doesn’t feel the need to prove his manliness...because it’s obvious. Any man who’s obsessed with demonstrating his masculinity only succeeds in showing how insecure he really is...because he’s still trying to prove it to himself. Not exactly the most manly quality in the world. Spare me from these macho creeps. No wonder so many women are so on guard against their type. They give men a bad name.