CONFRONTING FASCISM

It did not take long. Soon after the new Trump administration moved in and began its implementation of significant components of the "Project 2025" blueprint, the accusations of "Fascist" and "Fascism" surfaced everywhere. Governmental institutions that had survived for generations suddenly ended up on the endangered species list. Civil servants, whose lifetime employment had been considered permanent, were suddenly asked to resign or face termination. Many faced replacement by functionaries whose dominant "expertise" included their willingness to pledge loyalty to the new president. With a stroke of the pen, all references to D.E.I. (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) were erased. Related programs and their administrators were eliminated. Everything considered negative, including the January 29 mid-air collision over the Potomac, were blamed on its programs. Thousands of immigrants, mostly undocumented, even some legally in the country, now feared internment and deportation. Members of the administration's authoritarian core began haphazardly deciding who belonged to the in-group and whose careers should be eliminated. And the administration's apparent master plan continued to unfold day after day. Fascism is essentially an ideological catch-all term which refers to a broad set of aspirations and influences that emerged during the early 20th century. It became identified by the European dictators Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Francisco Franco. The movement included elements of nationalism, enforcement of social hierarchy, hatred toward social minority groups, opposition to liberalism, a cult of personality, racism and the love of militaristic symbols. An ABC News poll, conducted in October 2024, found that 49% of American registered voters considered President Trump to be a Fascist. This could simply be a gut-level response. However, multiple academics have contributed to the attempt to fit President Trump into their definition of the ideology. Yale historian Timothy Snyder, whose fairly recent manuscript "On Tyranny" received significant traction, in his article: "What does it mean that Donald Trump is a Fascist?" (The New Yorker, Nov. 8, 2024), defined the concept as "a political extremist who seeks to act as a dictator, disregards individual rights, and threatens to use force against political opponents." Jason Stanley, professor of philosophy at Yale, in his book: "How Fascism Works - the politics of us and them," elaborates on this definition. He talks about the "cult of a leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists, minorities and immigrants who are presumably a threat to the character and the history of a nation." The leader proposes that only he can solve it, and he considers all of his political opponents enemies or traitors. As the expression goes: "If the shoe fits..." Historian Ian Kershaw wrote that "trying to define "Fascism" is like trying to nail jelly to the wall." However, the allegations of Fascism don't just emerge from the president's political opponents. Trump's former Chief of Staff, retired Marine General John Kelly maintains that Trump "fits the definition of Fascist." Former United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, after the president suggested that Milley "should just shoot the protestors. Just shoot them in the legs or something," called Trump "Fascist to the core." Political Scientist Robert Paxton, who specializes in the study of Fascism, previously denied that Trump should be labeled a Fascist. However, he changed his views after the January 6 attack. Paxton saw the attack on the Capitol as similar to Mussolini's 1922 march on Rome. Just as Mussolini pardoned the black-shirts who helped him ascend to power, Trump pardoned his supporters convicted of taking part in the attempted insurrection. Princeton philosopher Jan Werner Muller is still not convinced that "Trumpism" is a species of Fascism. He prefers to call it far-right populism. However, he concedes that " it would be foolish to start reflecting on Fascism only when it is fully fledged." Regrettably, aside from some of the attributes identified in the opening paragraph, the list of qualifications is rapidly expanding: - The Department of Education is scheduled to be eliminated; - The Federal government has been instructed to insure that the K-12 education curriculum across the country is converted from "radical indoctrination" to "patriotic education."; - The administration has withdrawn from the USAID - the Agency for International Development. The 10,000 staff of experts has been reduced to a skeleton contingent of 300. - Mr. Trump plans to terminate multiple individuals from the Board of the Kennedy Center and install himself as its chair, with the intent to change its vision to that of a "golden age of arts and culture. - The president made a point of his intention to use the Insurrection Act of 1807, and deploy the military in Democratic cities and states against perceived opponents. (Between 2022 and October 2024 he has made more than 100 threats to investigate, prosecute, imprison or otherwise punish his perceived opponents.). - He made a point of supporting the activities of Elon Musk, his unelected "special government employee" who managed to exhibit his Fascist inclinations by twice enthusiastically offering a stiff-armed Nazi salute during the inauguration ceremonies, and by telling a crowd of 4,500 Neo-Nazi "Alternative For Germany" attendees of Germany's second largest political party - during Holocaust Remembrance Day, and during the 80 year anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, to not be ashamed of what happened during the execution of the Nazi's "final solution" during World War 2. So, is President Trump really a Fascist? Probably! But the more important question is whether the electorate cares, and whether enlightened patriots will continue to let him get away with it. Theo Wierdsma

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP UNDER ATTACK

Throughout his campaign, President Trump maintained that he never read and had nothing to do with "Project 2025," the handbook for a new conservative government, published by the Heritage Foundation as "The Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise." He adamantly insisted: "I haven't read it. I don't want to read it purposely. I'm not going to read it." Nevertheless, after getting elected, he appears to have changed his mind. A CNN analysis concluded that of the 53 executive orders and actions from his first week in office, more than two-thirds - thirty-six - evoked proposals outlined in Project 2025's 922 page detailed blueprint for the next Republican president. Few are more controversial than Mr. Trump's objective to eliminate Birthright Citizenship. In his executive order titled: "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship" the president stipulates that beginning 30 days from the date of his order - January 21 - children born in the United States will no longer automatically acquire citizenship. The president declared: "It is ridiculous." He mistakenly claimed that: "We are the only country in the world that does this with the birthright as you know, and it is absolutely ridiculous." In reality, more than 30 countries across the world offer citizenship as a birthright, although some have attached some conditions. Mr. Trump's obsession with birthright citizenship was not unexpected. He targeted the issue as well during his first term in office. Almost immediately upon his announcement, 22 states sued to stop the order from taking effect. Judge John C. Coughenour, a senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted a temporary restraining order, blocking the the executive order from taking effect. He summarized his decision by stating: "I've been on the bench for four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." Legal minds agree that the termination of birthright citizenship constitutes a clear constitutional violation and is the most legally precarious of all executive orders the president has issued thus far. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution, passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified by the states on July 9, 1868, clearly states that: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The validity of the Amendment was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of "United States v. Kim Ark" in 1898. This case established that "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to everyone who is not a diplomat or a soldier in an invading army. The 14th Amendment was designed to protect the civil liberties of people who recently had been freed from slavery. The "birthright clause" was based on a principle in English law in the early 17th century by a ruling that anyone born in a place subject to the King of England was a "natural-born" subject of England. Birthright citizenship has nothing to do with one's parents. Congress could decide tomorrow to stop granting citizenship to those born to an American parent abroad, but it does not regulate citizenship of those born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship - birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the form of law. Citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Taking away birthright citizenship from children born on U.S. soil would not be simple. Doing so would only be possible through the passage of a new constitutional amendment, requiring a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, as well as ratification by three-quarters of the states. Alternatively, the U.S. Supreme Court could adopt a more restrictive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. This would require the Court to radically deviate from the well-established precedent that cements the fact that children born in the country are lawful citizens regardless of their parents' immigration status. Gerald Neuman - professor of International, Foreign and Comparative Law at Harvard Law School joins virtually all legal scholars in the country by bluntly stating: "The president of the United States has no authority to change citizenship rules at all." President Trump's Executive Orders may comply with guidelines outlined in the blueprint published by Project 2025. However, they must be based on existing statutory powers granted to him by the Constitution to be legally enforceable. Theo Wierdsma

REMEMBERING JIMMY CARTER

America lost a giant on December 29, when our 39th president, Jimmy Carter, passed away at the age of 100. After his wife of 77 years, former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, died a year ago, President Carter decided to stop his treatment for diagnosed metastatic skin cancer. He, instead, chose to enter hospice at his home in Plains, Georgia. They will be rejoined and be buried side by side at the family compound. Jimmy Carter, who has been referred to as the "humblest president in our history" was much more highly regarded for all the humanitarian work he took on after he lost his bid for reelection to Ronald Reagan in 1980 than for his record in office. Carter took office just thirty months after Richard Nixon had left the entire federal government in shambles and became president by narrowly defeating Gerald Ford. He faced multiple epic challenges during his four years in office: the energy crisis, Soviet aggression, Iran, and a deep, post Watergate, mistrust of leadership by his citizens. Critical observers described him as hard working and conscientious, but sometimes out of place. His stubborn independence, a great asset while running for office, became his downfall while climbing to the presidency. Carter's idealism came through in his inaugural address. Some of its salient points are worth repeating. They are still appropriate in the current political climate: - "For myself and for our nation, I want to thank my predecessor for all he has done to heal our land." - "Let us create together a new national spirit of unity and trust." - "We reject the prospect of failure or mediocrity or an inferior quality of life for any person. Our government must at the same time be both competent and compassionate." - "We know that the best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation." - "We will be vigilant and never vulnerable, and we will fight our wars against poverty, ignorance, and injustice - for those are the enemies against which our forces can be honorably marshalled." While most ex-presidents pursued financially rewarding activities after leaving office, President Carter pointedly rejected that path, intimating his disinterest in getting rich. Shortly after his presidency, in 1982, the president established the Carter Center, designed to promote and expand human rights, and which earned him a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. The former president traveled extensively to conduct peace negotiations, monitor elections, and to further the eradication of infectious diseases. Many of us admired him for personally and physically participating in the works of Habitat for Humanity until he was well into his nineties. Few, if any, former presidents have earned the gratitude and admiration President Carter has after leaving the presidency. He really was a giant among many who provided us with a model for what it takes to be a decent human being. He deserves a prominent place in our history. Thank you Mr. President! You set an example to be emulated. Theo Wierdsma

REVIEWING NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTIONS

Many of us, be it overtly, surreptitiously, or perhaps even unwittingly, partake in the annual tradition of developing at least some resolutions for the new year. Some are already struggling to follow through on the promise they made to themselves to start doing something good or stop doing something bad on the first day of the year. Others have begun the process of adjusting their stated objectives to align results with the promise of success. The tradition of setting new goals at the beginning of the year is believed to have originated with the ancient Babylonians some four thousand years ago. Members of this prominent, historically important civilization made promises to their gods during new year's celebrations, which involved a massive, twelve day, religious festival, known as Akitu. They vowed to change their behavior in order to earn favor of the gods and start the new year on the right foot. Pledges reportedly included paying off debts and returning borrowed farm equipment. A similar practice developed in ancient Rome after Julius Caesar established January 1 as the beginning of the new year. January was named after Janus, the god of beginnings, endings and transitions. He was also known as a two-faced god, who was believed to symbolically look backwards into the previous year and ahead into the future. Over the centuries multiple superstitions developed indicating which activities promised good luck or Divine favors in the new year. In Spain people eat a dozen grapes, one for each strike of the clock at midnight. In Denmark revelers smash plates on their neighbors' doorsteps on New Year's Day - the more pieces that break apart, the better the fortune. Citizens of Greece smash a pomegranate on New Year's Day to bring life and luck. Others feature fireworks. We drop a ball in New York's Times Square. And according to Chinese lore - you should not clean your house or wash your hair on New Year's Day, so as not to wash away any good luck. Most of us who subscribe to some of the traditions that have been passed along over time still surrender to the tradition of setting resolutions in one form or another when ringing in the new year. Entire books have been written to help shape our efforts to do just that. Publications like "A Year To Live," by Stephen Levine, or "The Pivot Year," from Brianna Wiest, can help formulating these endeavors. Other works like "It Always Seems Impossible Until It's Done," by Kathryn and Ross Petras, might actually help stimulate our attempts at following through. Their book lists inspirational messages uttered by well-known orators. Random samples include: "Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have a habit of making excuses." - George Washington Carver; "You miss a hundred percent of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky; "The most effective way to do it, is to do it." -Amelia Earhart; "The best way to make your dreams come true is to wake up." - Muhammad Ali; "To avoid criticism, do nothing, be nothing." - Elbert Hubbard. The sad thing is that an estimated 88% will fail. Many of us already have. However, the calendar provides a silver lining, or a chance to reset. January 29 begins the Lunar New Year, often confused with Chinese New Year, which is celebrated by numerous cultures. The Lunar New Year occurs on the new moon of the first lunar month - a month measured between successive new moons. It features 12 Chinese Zodiac Signs. Each sign is named after an animal and each animal has its own unique characteristics. This upcoming year features the "wood snake," a rare and meaningful combination which only appears once every 60 years. According to legend, this coming year promises to bring wisdom, adaptability and a sense of transformation. We can only hope. Be it as it may, those of us who are in danger of losing the battle to fulfill our New Year's resolutions might grasp this opportunity and accept a life line. You can still fulfill the promises you made to yourself. As Babe Ruth told us years ago: "It's hard to beat a person who never gives up." Theo Wierdsma

EXHALE AND RELAX

Many of us, perhaps close to 50% of those who were invested in the election a month or so ago, have gone into withdrawal, hibernation, or we are simply doing whatever we can to escape difficult political conversations. Personally, I am looking at the decision I made 57 years ago to "legally" immigrate into this country, a decision I never regretted, even though 1968 happened to be the year that changed everything as soon as I arrived, and 2025 could become another such anniversary. But, then again, our world has become a vastly different and dangerous place for many of us. As a 23 year old back in 1968 I was naive. President Reagan had not yet reiterated the words of John Winthrop's 1630 sermon identifying our country as a shining city on a hill during his farewell address to the nation in 1989. However, I was convinced early on that, regardless of our troubled history, this was the place to be. Now that I am getting close to becoming an octogenarian, and after having felt the urge to defend my political viewpoints, being better informed and more sophisticated, although currently just as ineffective, I am resigned to exhale and relax. A friend of mine put it succinctly: "The sun came up this morning, we will be all right." Hence, I am submitting the "Ten commandments for seniors" a friend recently sent me. Enjoy: 1. Talk to yourself. There are times when you need expert advise. 2. "In style" are the clothes that still fit. 3. You don't need anger management. You need people to stop irritating you. 4. Your people skills are just fine. It is your tolerance for idiots that need work. 5. The biggest lie you tell yourself is: "I don't need to write that down. I will remember it." 6. "On time" is when you get there. 7. You have noticed that people your age are much older than you. 8. Aging has slowed you down, but it hasn't shut you up. 9. You still haven't learned to act your age and I hope you never will. 10. "One for the road" means peeing before you leave the house. Happy Holidays! Theo Wierdsma

WITH THE CONTINENT IN DISARRAY, EUROPE'S POPULISTS EMBRACE TRUMP

Following the U.S. election, many celebrated a significant electoral victory. Many simply exhaled. Others are showing signs of frustration and despair. A significant segment of devastated voters is beginning to reflect on what just happened, and many, if not most, anxiously wait for the next shoe to drop. Our European allies exhibit a mixture of many of these same emotions. They have been here before. Most of its leaders experienced Donald Trump's leadership style during his previous presidency. However, few expect that that experience somehow fully prepares them for what is to come. The conditions in Europe have changed and the political balance of power in many countries have shifted and now favors the U.S. President Elect. Europe has been mired in economic stagnation, rattled by war on its eastern doorstep. It has fallen victim to the same political forces that helped Mr. Trump gain popularity among conservatives and swing voters: a backlash against rapid consumer price increases; an anxiety and anger over increased immigration; and a rapid erosion of public trust in political elites. Traditionally, the disarray demanded renewed and forceful leadership from the continent's two largest economies, France and Germany. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz scuttled his governing coalition recently by firing his finance minister Christian Lindler. He will now likely face voters during early elections in March, which is projected to oust him in favor of the far-right "Alternative for Germany" party which has doubled its appeal in recent polling. President Emmanuel Macron of France lost power in the aftermath of a recent, ill-advised, snap election he called. He is clinging to support from a shaky coalition against the far-right and left. He is essentially termed out since he won't be able to run again in 2027. Uncertainty from Paris to Berlin has created a power vacuum on the continent, which could embolden Russia in the war in Ukraine. It further muddles the difficult political task of ratcheting up military spending, which analysts agree will take on new urgency amid anticipated threats by Trump to pull out of NATO, pull back security guarantees, or severely reduce or eliminate support for Ukraine. Analysts agree that the most natural fit to lead a more muscular independent Europe would need to come from Germany and France - the very countries most troubled, their political power curtailed. The longstanding effort to keep extremist forces out of government in Europe is officially over. For decades, political parties of all kinds joined forces to keep the hard-right from the levers of power. Today, this strategy, known in France as a "Cordon Sanitaire" or "firewall," is falling apart as populist and nationalist parties have grown in strength across the continent. Mainstream political parties have lost support. Populists and nationalists, including once fringe parties on the far-right, have surged. Right-wing or far-right nationalist movements now encompass the biggest parties in Switzerland, Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, The Czech Republic and The Netherlands. In all these countries the insurgent parties have joined government coalitions. In Austria, the "Freedom Party," founded by Nazis, just gained dominance. Sweden's "Sweden Democrats" play a significant role in support of its government. It is the second largest political force in the country. And Marine Le Pen, perennial far-right opposition leader in France, is currently polling at 30% support, well ahead of President Macron. Most of these political forces express support for Mr. Trump. They tend to see a key ally across the pond, someone who shares their mix of authoritarianism, populism and extreme hostility to immigration. The Trump organization has been diligently building strong ties with its allies among Europe's ultra nationalist and populist forces which now hope to capitalize on his success. Much to analyze and much to worry about. It is difficult to escape the thought that much of Europe is beginning to come full circle since the deterioration of the Weimar Republic during the early days of the 1930s. President Elect Trump's insertion into Europe's disarray is unlikely to become a stabilizing force. Theo Wierdsma

FINGERS CROSSED - THE END IS NEAR

Not since the 1860 election featuring Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, which tore the nation apart and which precipitated the Civil War, have we experienced an as intense and potentially consequential election in our national history. The impassioned personal campaign of the past 90 days focused predominantly on the top of the tickets. However, it would be a mistake to ignore the down-ballot contests that could affect control of the Senate and House during upcoming legislative sessions. In the battle for the Senate, 34 seats are up for election. The outcome will probably be decided by 8 of the most competitive races. Democrats and those who caucus with them currently occupy 7 of the most competitive seats. Republicans could maintain control of the House of Representatives by just winning 12 of the 26 seats currently rates as toss-ups, assuming they also secure the seats rated "likely" or "lean Republican." The party has incumbents in place in 15 of those toss-up seats. Be it as it may, most of us are anxiously laser focused on the presidential component of this election. This is not only true for the domestic audience. Next Tuesday politicians, analysts and general observers among many allies and adversaries alike, are holding their collective breath in anxious anticipation of the end result of our quadrennial contest. Most of Europe, NATO, Ukraine, the Middle East, and yes, even Russia and China claim to have a stake in this process. For us the choice has been binary. We either vote for past President Donald Trump, or we choose to elect Vice President Kamala Harris - presumably on the basis of party affiliation or policy preference. Mr. Trump advocates increasing oil production to lower energy prices, grow the economy, and pay for a myriad of funding shortfalls like Medicare and Social Security. He proposes a highly controversial aggressive tariff structure on imports to improve domestic manufacturing prowess. His team flaunts plans to round up millions of undocumented immigrants, and detain them in camps before deporting them en masse. Among other policy ideas he vows to roll back every "Biden attack on the Second Amendment;" expand the the use of the death penalty; rescind every one of Biden's climate initiatives; and leave the question of reproductive freedom up to the states. Ms. Harris plans to use tax increases on billionaires and corporations to make resources available for Social Security and Medicare. She broadly supports Biden's environmental policies; advocates to restore and protect reproductive freedom in every state; favors universal background checks for gun purchases; opposes the death penalty; and supports the bi-partisan proposal on immigration which was scuttled by Congress on advise of Mr. Trump. The devil is in the details. As Donald Trump and Kamala Harris race toward the finish, pro democracy advocates and elected officials are preparing for a volatile period in the aftermath of Election Day, as legal challenges are filed, bad actors spread misinformation and voters wait for Congress to affirm the result. Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, remarked that "One of the unusual characteristics of this election is that so much of the potential danger and so many of the attacks on the elective system are focused on the post-election period." Reminiscent of the controversies surrounding the outcome of the 2020 election, Vice President Harris has committed to accept the result of the upcoming plebiscite. Former President Trump has refused to accept the outcome unless he wins. He has also not dismissed the possibility of political violence if he loses. Our long held tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power is again at stake. We need to keep our fingers crossed a little longer. The end may be near, but there could be more to come before we and the rest of the world can exhale. Theo Wierdsma