Connect the Dots!

FOREWORD

My career choice was education.  Along the pathway to earning my Bachelor’s degree, I was introduced to an item called “Bloom’s Taxonomy”.  A gentleman by the name of Benjamin Bloom introduced this theory in 1956 to aid instructors in developing lesson plans for their students.  The taxonomy divided the cognitive (the understanding of thought acquisition) domain into six strata, namely, knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  The taxonomy was revised in 2001, but essentially just renamed the different levels of thought acquisition.  Most importantly, the cognitive domain focuses on intellectual skills and the development of critical thinking and problem-solving abilities.  Maybe that is why I think the way I do.
 
I am often amazed at people who have voiced their opinion (and that is their right to do so), based on a lack of fundamental knowledge of what one may speak.  Maybe it is just the inability to “connect the dots”.  It could be a lack of understanding about potential outcomes of certain actions or lack thereof, or the inability to see the “big picture”.  Maybe some people are just to consumed with some other aspect of life to see the big picture.  Maybe, it is the lack of critical thinking skills and the ability to evaluate what one knows. 
 
I wanted to teach US Government and History.  I wanted to provide an opportunity for students to gain an appreciation for our country, not only for those who went before us and laid the foundations of our government and country, but also for those who committed the ultimate sacrifice of giving their life for the benefit of our nation and country. 
 
I’ve visited Washington DC, walked the halls of the Capitol and soaked it all in.  l have been to Fort McHenry and witnessed one of the most emotional events of my life…the playing of the National Anthem after watching a documentary regarding the shelling of Fort McHenry and the writing of Francis Scott Key.  I’ve been to Philadelphia and visited Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell.  I’ve looked at the Declaration of Independence.  I’ve been to Gettysburg over a dozen times and each time I come away knowing those who fell, for either side, were committed to make life better for those who came after.  I’ve been to Antietam, walked the battlefield and crossed the Burnside Bridge over the creek that ran red from the blood of those fighting at Antietam.  I’ve been to Harper’s Ferry.  I have been to Pearl Harbor and the USS Arizona Memorial.  All of this was so compelling and I soaked up as much as I could to bring back to the classroom.
  
In the classroom, I attempted to provide for the student information from my personal experiences to make US History and Government more relevant, more interesting, more meaningful.  But nothing compares to the following:
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…
 
Or this:
 
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
 
And the most powerful statement of all by Lincoln in his last sentence of his Gettysburg Address…
 
“…under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
 
This quote of Lincoln, defines the core principles of democracy and remains a cornerstone of American political thought, asserting that the government's legitimacy and purpose derive from its citizenry.
 
I certainly believe that is a quality in which most Americans believe.  During government class, I conveyed to the students the value of the individual, not only in a personal manner, but in a political manner, particularly in voting.  I spoke about the power of the vote, as well as what a two-party system means for the United States.  I taught, inevitably, after an election, there is a party in control of the government (the majority) as well as a party not in control (the minority).  In doing so, I conveyed the importance of the concept of “Loyal Opposition”…the purpose being for the minority party to promote the viewpoint of the citizens of the minority party to the majority party in control with the hope that compromise could be reached.  I also included in my instruction when one party controls Congress, and the other party controls the White House, good things for the country and nation take place, because compromise is a must for progress to be obtained.  Above all, even though members of the two parties may have differences, they are not enemies, they are Americans.  And Sometimes, just sometimes…the members of opposite parties may even go to dinner together.
 
Introduction
 
In my research to provide a sound, logical argument for my articles, I came across a term of which I wasn’t familiar.  That term is “noncompetitive democracy”.  As I researched this idea of “noncompetitive democracy”, I was stunned.  In class, I often referred to this as authoritarian rule.  In class, I taught each modern-day government had three branches of government; the executive, legislative, and judiciary.  The difference between our system of government and others was the thought that those who were politicians in our government were chosen freely in an “open” election, while those in a totalitarian or authoritarian government were chosen in a “closed” election.   What I didn’t realize was how easily “noncompetitive democracy” could come about in a democratic republic much like the United States, without the use of force.
 
So, with that being said, let me provide a little light into this concept of “noncompetitive democracy” and allow you to arrive at some sort of a conclusion.  But before I proceed, please allow me to remind the reader of the definition of democracy.  

From the New Oxford Dictionary:
 
democracy | dəˈmäkrəsē | noun (plural democracies) 

1. a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives; a Democratic Republic
2. a state governed by a democracy
3. control of an organization or group by the majority of its members 
4. the practice or principles of social equality

 
A noncompetitive democracy is a political system that holds regular elections, but where the ruling party or leader maintains power through methods that prevent or severely limit genuine political competition. This contrasts with a healthy, competitive democracy where the transfer of power is a legitimate possibility for all parties. While a noncompetitive democracy may appear democratic on the surface, it functions as a form of authoritarianism.  Scholars on this subject use other terms to describe this phenomenon, including "illiberal democracy," "electoral authoritarianism," and "dominant-party system". 
 
Some of the academicians who have written on this subject include:

• Ethan Scheiner: Scheiner, a professor at the University of California, Davis, wrote the book Democracy Without Competition. His work examines political systems where elections occur but are not truly competitive due to factors like clientelism, centralized financial structures, or long-term dominance by a single ruling party.
• Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way: These political scientists introduced the concept of competitive authoritarianism, which is a hybrid regime that uses democratic institutions like elections but manipulates them to give an unfair advantage to incumbents. In their book Competitive Authoritarianism, they argue that these regimes are distinct from both full-scale democracies and closed dictatorships.
• Rachel Beatty Riedl: As the Director of the Center on Global Democracy at Cornell University, Riedl studies the dynamics of democracy, including its erosion and variations. Her work, alongside other Cornell scholars, investigates democratic backsliding, a process where democratic norms and institutions are weakened.
• Philippe C. Schmitter and Terry Lynn Karl: In their influential 1991 essay "What Democracy Is... and Is Not," they explored what distinguishes democratic from non-democratic rulers. They explained that while democracies depend on rulers, it is the norms governing their rise to power and accountability that set them apart from non-democratic regimes.
• G. Hermet: As one of the authors of the 1978 book Elections Without Choice, Hermet's research addresses how regimes can hold elections without offering voters any meaningful choice, a core element of noncompetitive democracy.
• Albert W. Dzur: In his 2018 book, Democracy Inside: Participatory Innovation in Unlikely Places, Dzur focuses on localized, grassroots democratic action. His work highlights that true democratic engagement can happen outside traditional competitive elections, which may or may not be truly representative.
• Nicholas Murray Butler: Butler's 1907 book, True and False Democracy, provides a historical perspective on different forms of democracy. His work helps provide a backdrop for later, more modern discussions of noncompetitive systems

​
I became aware of these works while researching the topic.  One may ask if I have read these works.  The answer is no.  However, I trust the synopsis of each regarding noncompetitive democracy.  What I do find important is there are people who have written on the subject of  “noncompetitive democracy” as early as 1907; and all of these works point out how democracy as we know it is susceptible to change without the individual knowing it is taking place.

Again, one may ask, how does a democracy erode?  How does that happen?  

 
Chapter 1

Factors contributing to noncompetitive democracy
 
Political systems can become noncompetitive through a process of democratic backsliding, where a government gradually becomes more authoritarian over time.   How does that happen?  It may very well begin with a populist movement with ulterior motives.
 

• Populist leaders: This type of leader may appeal directly to voters with populist anger and a strong ideological agenda, then use their mandates to dismantle democratic institutions from within.  To understand what this may mean, one must know what is a populist leader.  
  • According to the New Oxford Dictionary, the definition of populist is:  a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups

So how does this play out?  A populist leader will focus on issues that evoke latent emotional responses.  The issues grab the attention of the citizenry and cause the citizenry to become disenfranchised with the status quo…or in the government.  Drain the Swamp and Make America Great Again have been the slogans in recent history that have emotionally charged the voters of America.
  
It goes without saying, the American voter’s confidence in the ability of the national government (the Swamp) has waned over the last 25 years.  The blame has been laid at the feet of Congress and previous Presidents.  In his first campaign for the Presidency, President Trump used the slogan, “Drain the Swamp”, meaning, get rid of the then present-day legislators that created this lack of confidence in the government.  I can’t say I disagree with this.  Recently, there has been a great deal of support for term limits for the House and the Senate from the voters.  In fact, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has openly supported term limits for Congress and has advocated for a constitutional amendment to establish them.  DeSantis has called on other state legislatures to pass resolutions calling for a constitutional convention to draft such an amendment.  So far, no grass roots efforts regarding term limits has begun.  No Congressional action required to begin the amendment process of the Constitution has begun, and apparently will not.  The answer to the question, “Why not?” is simple.  Why would those in the Congress cut their own throat with term limits? Ironically, as of the year 2000, 15 states have imposed term limits on their respective state legislatures.  So much for draining the swamp…

In addition to the claim of inefficient government resulting in a backsliding of government, the size of the federal government,wasteful spending (which I don’t doubt), and bad programs for the United States, implemented by the Democratic Party when the Democrats were in control of the government, caused taxes to be high.  Along with this comes the assumption the federal government workforce has grown exponentially.  However, the federal government work force has grown by only 200000 civilian workers from 1975 to 2024.  That is a result of programs instituted by both the Democrats and Republicans, and quite possibly, because the population of the United States has grown from approximately 216 million in 1975 to about 340 million at the present time, an increase of about 124 million people.
​
During both of the previous campaigns for the Presidency, Trump also used the slogan, “Make America Great Again”.  This struck a chord with his supporters.  Trump pointed out that America’s demise was because of foreign aid policies, trade policies, and a lack of respect from around the world.  As for the MAGA concept, the proposal that America isn’t great, and, must be returned to its rightful place in the world is something that disenfranchised voters believe should happen.  But few Americans have asked, “When wasn’t America Great?”  Or, better yet, “Name a time when the United States wasn’t great.”

Ironically, the proof may very well be in the undocumented citizens that have entered into America to escape their station in life in their country of origin, in search for something better.  The proof may very well lie in that the number of foreign students studying in the United States.  An all-time high for international student enrollment in the U.S. was realized  in the 2023-2024 academic year.  Could these statistics be a fair indication that America is still a great nation and people come to the U.S. to better their life?

Immediately after the Presidential election in November of 2024, Trump declared, “America has given us an unprecedented and powerful mandate.”  Later, on March 26, 2025, Trump again said, “The American people have given us a mandate, a mandatelike few people thought possible.  We won in a big mandate. We won every swing state. We won by millions of votes.”  In reality, Trump’s popular vote victory was about 2.3 million votes out of approximately 150 million votes.

• Political polarization: High levels of political polarization can lead voters to prioritize partisanship and ideology over democratic principles. This can create an environment where authoritarian figures find it easier to gain and maintain power.

This has been a problem in the federal government for years.  The two political parties have differences and try to persuade voters to the cause of their respective party.  However, at this time in modern U.S. History, the political rhetoric coming from the White House has been caustic and inflammatory at the very least.  President Trump’s  remarks frequently portray Democrats as a threat to the nation and responsible for political violence and government dysfunction. Trump has gone as far as to label the Democratic Party the “enemy from within” and “The party of hate, evil, and Satan.”  Not only is this dialogue divisive in nature, it causes the Democrats to respond with similar rhetoric, helping to divide the nation even more so and create a great polarized divide.   There is a preponderance of attitude of “if you are not with us, you are against us.”  And with this political divide and attitude, the concept of “loyal opposition” is disposed of, never to be seen or heard of again.  The concept of “loyal opposition” is paramount for a democracy to exist.  Truthfully, the concept of "loyal opposition" promotes respect and harmony; it does not promote a continental divide such as is seen now in Washington DC.
 
History teaches us that even the Founding Fathers didn’t agree on political philosophy, but they worked “to create a more perfect union”.  Adams and Jefferson are a great example of this.  Even though both had served the new nation in many capacities, they had different viewpoints on the identity of the national government.  As it was, because of the voting procedures during their times, Adams was chosen President and was a Federalist, while Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist and chosen Vice President.  Because of their political differences, the two men didn’t speak to each other for a lengthy period of time, but over time eventually reconciled their differences. However, their differences did not spill over to “close the government”.  Ironically, both died on July 4th, 1826.  Supposedly, Adam’s last words were “Thomas Jefferson survives.”  What Adams didn’t know was Jefferson had died a few hours prior.

There have been many times, the government has shut down because the two parties could not, or would not, compromise due to political ideology.  (The nation is experiencing that now with an historic government shutdown.) There are times when neither political party has trusted the other party.  And when the government is dysfunctional due to gridlock, the executive takes the reins of the government and expands what power is given to the executive office by the Constitution.  The executive office will seize the moment and by executive order, legislate his agenda.

• Crisis exploitation: During a crisis, leaders may impose autocratic rules that are either disproportionate to the situation or remain in place long after the crisis has passed

A crisis, either manufactured or real, can create an opportunity for the executive branch to once again establish rules and regulations which may become part of a legal scheme or political agenda.  There will be no sunset clause on these rules and regulations unless stipulated, or until the executive branch declares the crisis or emergency over.  What crises have taken place in the last year?  Are these crises real or manufactured?

First and foremost, the mass deportation of undocumented citizens has taken the attention of the country by storm.  In performing this act, the legality has been questioned.  But, during President Clinton’s administration, a law was signed into existence, the “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.  This law significantly expanded deportation powers and provided expedited removal procedures for a certain class of immigrants.  I would suggest if President Trump had indicated he was using a law put into existence by a Democratic President, the attitude of Americans may not have been so turbulent.  But he didn’t, and a national crisis evolved.  The strongarm action of the Department of Homeland Security and Secretary Noem, as well as the White House border czar, Tom Homan, have not allowed a peaceful enforcement of the law to exist.  It also doesn’t help the situation when the President uses the National Guard in support of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce his order to deport undocumented citizens. 
 
To exacerbate this situation, there have been legal challenges in the judicial system alleging the use of the National Guard is contrary to the Posse Comitatus Law, which prevents military personnel being used as law enforcement in a civil setting.  Some lower-level federal courts have provided judgments against the President, but, those judgments do not seem to mean much to the President and there is no way for the court to enforce their judgments.  In his defense, the President is splitting the proverbial hair, by insisting deployed military personnel are to protect federal buildings, and are only to support ICE and local law officials in enforcing and maintaining law, in particular the detainment of undocumented citizens. 
 
The President has also made wild claims about cities being a “hellhole” rampant with crime.  The President has suggested he would invoke the Insurrection Act and place military personnel in cities to enforce law, all of which is very legal.  However, two questions arise from this scenario: 1) Who determines what is an insurrection, and 2) If the President now considers what is taking place in Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, New York City as an insurrection movement…then what was the January 6th attack on the Capitol building by over 1600 people?
  
Another crisis, that in my view is far greater than illegal immigration, is the destruction of boats on the open seas by the US military.  Without offering any shred of evidence, the President has ordered the military to destroy seagoing boats which he declared are ferrying drugs and gang members to the United States.  As of today, October 24th, 2025, Department of War, Secretary Hegseth said the military had destroyed yet another drug running boat, the 10th such strike which killed six people.  Since these strikes have begun, at least 43 people have died.  Recently Secretary Hegseth ordered the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford and its strike group to deploy to the US Southern Command region to “bolster U.S. capacity to detect, monitor, and disrupt illicit actors and activities that compromise the safety and prosperity of the United States.”

At the best the President has said the United States is conducting covert operations in Venezuela, and that appears to be where the information regarding the drug boats and gang members is originating.  To make this crisis even bigger, the President has indicated he is considering a land operation in Venezuela, or other countries in Latin America to suppress the drug supply to the United States.  In either case, whether on land or sea, the actions of the President are an act of war, which requires Congressional approval.  Without it, the President could be considered a murderer and war criminal under international law.

Is stopping the flow of drugs and gang members the motivation or is there a bigger fish Trump wishes to catch.  China?

Just what do these very public crises do?  They take away the attention of the voters from what is really happening to their republic democracy…a subtle movement towards noncompetitive democracy.

 
Chapter 2


How can a competitive democracy can become noncompetitive


A competitive democracy can gradually backslide into a noncompetitive one through a process known as "competitive authoritarianism". This occurs when an elected leader, using legal and institutional levers, systematically weakens democratic institutions to favor the ruling party. The appearance of democracy remains, but its integrity is corroded, making true competition impossible.

Populism contributes to systematically eroding the institutions and norms that are paramount in a competitive democracy.  While populist leaders often rise to power through legitimate democratic processes, they use their positions to dismantle checks and balances, suppress opposition, and centralize power. 

First and foremost, the aim of the executive branch of the government is to undermine the checks and balances as established by the organizing document, the Constitution.  
 

• Controlling the judiciary: Those politicians (all of them) in control appoint loyalist judges, weaken courts, or pack high courts to ensure favorable rulings and neutralize constitutional challenges

What we have witnessed in the United States in recent years is an attempt to control the Supreme Court by the Trump 1st Administration.  The Court has an abundance of conservative justices, many appointed by Trump during his 1st term in office, and have undone decades-old previous judicial decisions, with Roe v. Wade being the most controversial.  The Court has also ruled the President, when acting in an official capacity, has immunity from prosecution for his actions.  The caveat here is the phrase, “official capacity”.  Without the checks and balances the judiciary has on the executive branch of the government, the judiciary is terribly weakened.  The question that needs to be answered is, “Who decides what the definition of official capacity happens to be?”  With all of this being said, it is no wonder the President disregards rulings of lower courts, doesn’t adhere to precedent and protocol as established by previous Presidents, Congress, Judicial rulings, or the Constitution.  Why should he…he has immunity.

• Weakening the legislature: The President may bypass the legislature by using executive orders or manipulate parliamentary rules to consolidate power. If the President’s party holds a large majority in the legislature, they can pass laws that benefit their party.

Since January of 2025, President Trump has signed over 220 Executive Orders.  The areas covered by the executive orders range from the mundane to the ludicrous, such as the renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.  Congress may not have been weakened by Executive action, but the government shutdown doesn’t allow for the Congress to perform it’s charged duties. 
 
At the moment there is a deep abyss between the Democratic and Republican parties over a “clean resolution” to fund the government.  The resolution has cut money from programs, namely health insurance subsidies, which the Democrats say is sorely needed by citizens throughout the country.  Without the subsidies, many of those who are enrolled in the Affordable Care Act, will see their insurance premiums skyrocket, causing many to go without health insurance.  Republicans counter with undocumented citizens receive benefits from Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIPS.  A dive into resource materials would indicate law prevents undocumented citizens from receiving those benefits.

To add more insult to injury, a duly elected representative from Arizona CD7 has yet to be sworn into office by the Speaker because as the Speaker states, he will do so when the government re-opens.  The representative, Adelita Grijalva was the winner of a special election that took place on September 23 of this year.  As of today, that was one month ago.  CD 7 in Arizona has been without representation in Congress since the middle of March, due to the death of Grijalva’s father, Raul Grijalva.  The Democrats point to the swearing in of two Republican representatives from Florida, Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine was sworn in on April 1, 2025, within 24 hours after winning special elections in their respective congressional districts.

And the lack of government goes on until…?

• Eliminating independent agencies: They attack regulatory bodies and other independent state agencies, replacing neutral experts with political loyalists.

The current administration has certainly weakened regulatory agencies in the federal government.  The President has appointed loyalists to posts throughout his administration.  The most important in my view is the appointment of Robert F Kennedy, Jr. as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.  This position controls the Center for Disease Control (CDC) among other important agencies.  Kennedy, Jr. does not have any formal training in medicine or science.  Kennedy attended Harvard University, studying American history and literature; he graduated in 1976. After Harvard, Kennedy then studied at the London School of Economics. He then went to the University of Virginia Law School, graduating in 1981. In 1987, he received a master’s degree in environmental law from Pace University Law School in New York.
 
What makes this appointment so interesting to me is Kennedy was a Republican candidate for President during the 2024 Presidential campaign.  Kennedy announced he was withdrawing from the presidential campaign in Phoenix where Trump was holding a campaign rally.  Essentially, Kennedy was really a 3rd party candidate who was polling at about 3 per cent, which amounted to about 4.5 million popular votes, in the election won by Trump with about a 2.5 million popular vote difference.
 
As we know, Kennedy has caused many top flight experts at the CDC to leave their posts.  The complaint was Kennedy doesn’t follow or believe the science implemented by the CDC.  His stance about vaccines is contrary to the CDC.  (In my view, if an individual decided not to become vaccinated, so be it.)  But, if any argument can be made about the inefficiency of vaccines, one need not look any further than Jonas Salk and his vaccine for polio.  The U.S. military still requires troops to receive vaccinations, especially when deploying overseas, to protect against infectious diseases they may encounter. 

And let us not overlook the newly re-named War Department.  Pete Hegseth is now the Secretary of the War Department, formerly known as the Secretary of Defense.  According a published report, Hegseth is an author, former television personality, and former  Minnesota Army National Guard officer who has served since 2025 as the 29th  United States Secretary of War.  Hegseth is not a graduate of West Point, The Naval Academy, The Air Force Academy, The Coast Guard Academy, or The United States Merchant Marine Academy, but, rather Princeton where he studied politics.

In November 2024, President-elect Trump named Hegseth as his nominee for secretary of defense. During confirmation hearings, Hegseth faced allegations of sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement, and alcohol issues. Hegseth was confirmed by theSenate that month, with Vice President Vance casting a tie-breaking vote. It was only the second time in US history that a Cabinet nominee's confirmation was decided by a vice president.

During Hegseth’s short tenure, he has fired many top-level military officers.  He has questioned the physical conditioning of the military, while at the same time touting the ability of the American armed forces using his now famous acronym, “FAFO”.  Hegseth has required the Pentagon Press Corp to sign onto an agreement indicating no press releases could be done without prior authorization from the Pentagon.  Almost the entire Pentagon Press Corp left their posts, citing that type of order violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
 
Currently, our military is destroying “narco-terrorist” boats on the open sea and destroying them.  That may be an admiral thing to do to protect American citizens from the poison of fentanyl and cocaine, but to do so without offering evidence the boats belonged to narco-terrorists leads people to question the legality of the action.  The President has said it is legal…but it violates international law.

Secondly, populist rhetoric thrives on creating a division between "the people" and "the elite," which leads to the delegitimization of political opponents. 
 

• Demonizing the opposition: Populist leaders frame opponents not as political rivals but as "enemies of the people," part of a corrupt establishment that works against the nation's will.

There is a difference between insult politics and attack politics.  A big difference.  Insult politics isn’t new to the American political arena…but politicians generally stay away from attack politics.  Attack politics go after the person rather than discuss policy.  It is an ad hominem attack on the any challenger or opponent of the person in charge.  This just hasn’t happened during the present term of this administration.  In 2016, during the Republican debates, then candidate Trump said some things that caused members of his party to state they would not support Trump if he were to win the nomination.
  
From the European Journal of American Studies…

“In August 2016, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced she would not support the Republican Party’s nominee for president, the former reality TV celebrity Donald Trump, because of his insulting rhetoric. Three months earlier, Rosario Marin, a longtime Republican who served as Treasurer of the United States in the George W. Bush administration, had said she could not support the nominee. Marin cited the nominee’s insulting rhetoric as the straw that broke the camel’s back. “He’s insulted me, the people I love, the community I represent,” Marin, the former Mayor of Huntington Park and Mexican immigrant, stated.  Collins and Marin were not the only Republicans to break ranks and refuse to support the controversial nominee. In fact, the list of prominent Republicans within the party openly refusing to endorse the nominee was considerable and included such party leaders as Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, and John McCain. While the breaking point for them differed, many explicitly cited the insulting or mocking rhetoric and politics of Donald Trump. “Donald Trump is beginning to cross a lot of red lines of the unforgivable in politics,” Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois) said in August 2016.  The insult politics of Donald Trump, however, was inseparable from his candidacy for president from the beginning. Going into the first primary debate, approximately two months after he announced his candidacy with an inflammatory speech in which he labeled Mexicans criminals, the New York businessman had already insulted the party’s 2008 presidential candidate, John McCain, going so far as to state that he “likes people who weren’t captured.”

“Mitt Romney had his chance to beat a failed president but he choked like a dog,” the Republican nominee of 2016 wrote on Twitter about his predecessor. “Lightweight Marco Rubio was working hard last night. The problem is, he is a choker, and once a choker, always a choker! Mr. Meltdown,” he wrote about his primary challenger Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida). “Truly weird Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky reminds me of a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain,” he wrote after the first debate about another of his primary challengers.
​
Since that time, it has been observed how the now President Trump has used his inflammatory rhetoric towards the Democratic party as well as those whom he deems to be a challenger to his credibility.  As I have written, Trump has gone as far as to label the Democratic Party the “enemy from within” and “The party of hate, evil, and Satan.”  The New Yorker’s David Remnick points out, routinely Trump describes Democrats as “scum,” “vermin,” “animals” and “enemies of the people.”
  
These attack politics are not limited to the President.  After the assassination attempt of President Trump in Pennsylvania, Then Senator J.D Vance, issued this statement:  
“Today is not just some isolated incident,” the Ohio senator tweeted. “The central premise of the Biden campaign is that President Donald Trump is an authoritarian fascist who must be stopped at all costs. That rhetoric led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

Trump has gone as far as to say "I was saved by God to make America great again"  during his second inaugural address.  My guess, Trump believes he was “chosen to rule” by God, which makes him a Divine Right ruler.
  
Speaker Johnson holds Democrats responsible for the shutdown.  He argues the Democrats are the ones who have voted to keep the government closed.  The Speaker has said the Democrats are causing “pain and suffering” for the American public as they demand things like taxpayer-funded benefits for undocumented immigrants and spending on overseas programs, yet, it is a fact that undocumented citizens cannot receive federal benefits of Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, or ChiPs.  The Speaker has also criticized Democrats for "assaulting law enforcement officers," "embracing communists and socialists," voting to raise taxes on Americans at the "worst possible time," and voting against reducing government fraud and waste.

My point is none of this speaks to policy.  The attack politics drives a wedge between the political parties, between neighbors and friends.  It divides us.  What has happened is the vitriol has caused family members, friends, and neighbors not to speak of politics or policy because that subject is now emotionally charged.  Without conversation and the exchange of ideas among the public, as well as elected officials, can real progress be made if every move causes an attack on the person(s)  instead of policy?  I believe the answer to that is No!  What does happen is the leader of the party in control expands the power of the party in control, ignores the concept of “loyal opposition”, and because all of the chaos created by ad hominem attacks, the party in control, expressly the President, expands his powers while few if any notice.  If a person such as Rand Paul speaks out, his character is attacked. 
 

• Using legal and state machinery against rivals: They can leverage control over state institutions to harass, intimidate, or prosecute opposition figures, weakening their ability to compete.

The current administration is using the Department of Justice to attack the President’s opponents, people the President considers “bad people”.  I would like to revisit what I included in a previous article for this blog.

"In September of this year, the Peace President sent a message to his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, on his Truth Social account.  Unfortunately for the Peace President and the Attorney General, the text message was made public.  Oops!
  
The post pressured Bondi to prosecute his political rivals, including former Trump appointee FBI Director James Comey, Senator Adam Schiff, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.  The message included the following:

• "We can't delay any longer, it's killing our reputation and credibility".
• "nothing is being done" against Comey, Schiff, and James, who he called "guilty as hell".
• The Peace President cited his past impeachments and indictments, claiming they were "OVER NOTHING".
• The post ended with a demand for immediate action: "JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!". "

 
As things played out, the U.S. attorney in Virginia, Erik Siebert resigned his position after receiving pressure from the Peace President to charge the President’s political opponents, because in Siebert’s words, there wasn’t enough evidence to gain a conviction.  Upon Seibert’s resignation, Bondi installed Trump's former defense attorney, Lindsey Halligan, an insurance attorney, as an U.S. attorney in Virginia to advance the cases.  Comey and James have since been indicted and both have plead not guilty to the alleged crimes. 

And, another foe of the Peace President, former Trump appointment for National Security Advisor John Bolton has also been indicted.  The indictment accuses Bolton of illegally transmitting National Defense Information by using personal email and messaging application accounts to send sensitive documents classified as high as Top Secret.

Personally, I don’t believe the President is done prosecuting his critics.  I believe, if the President could have it happen, Liz Cheney, Senator Adam Schiff, and Adam Kinzinger would be next in line to have the DOJ investigate and bring charges against them.  That would be interesting…

These actions exemplifies using the legal system to intimidate or prosecute political opponents or critics.  In doing so, others will not step forward to serve in government because of the threat of prosecution. This weakens the strength of the democratic democracy we have learned to love.  This type of action suppresses dissent.  This type of action promotes “you’re with us or against us” behavior.  More importantly, the rhetoric of demonization and action of harassment discourages opposition and reduces the space for legitimate political disagreement.  
 

Chapter 3


Lastly, while elections may continue, populists work to corrupt the process to maintain power. 
 

• Casting doubt on electoral integrity: Populist rhetoric often claims elections are rigged or rife with fraud, even without evidence. This erodes public trust in the electoral process itself and primes supporters to reject unfavorable results.

 
Our nation has already seen this play out.  After the election of 2020, the President claimed he lost because the election was rigged and fraudulent.  Time and again the President said the election was stolen from him by the Democrats and “Sleepy Joe Biden”.  Over 60 lawsuits regarding voter fraud were filed in various jurisdictions and none saw the light of day.  Almost all were dismissed because of a lack of evidence.  

The President had his own “electors” in Arizona.  In April 2024, an Arizona grand jury indicted 18 people for their involvement in efforts to fraudulently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election after Democrat Joe Biden won the state by around 10,000 votes.  That case has been handed back to the Arizona Attorney General by an Appeals Court.  Michigan, Nevada, and Georgia all had similar cases.
 
Some GOP held states petitioned to have voting machines audited because the claim was either faulty equipment, which had been certified to properly operate, or, software that was designed to give Biden votes instead of Trump in the 2020 election.  Those audits proved little, if anything.  However, President Trump announced plans to sign an executive order ahead of the 2026 midterm elections to eliminate mail-in ballots and electronic voting machines, claiming they are corrupt.  Legal experts have stated this is outside the power of the Executive branch.
 
There have been allegations by some Republican talking heads that as many as 2.7 million undocumented citizens voted during the 2020 election.  No real evidence has been provided or found.  As one may be aware, only citizens of the United States can vote in federal elections.  At the moment, a voter must prove citizenship for a federal election by affirming their U.S. citizenship under the penalty of perjury.  State laws may require other specific documents. However, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which has survived the House, proposes to require documentary proof of citizenship nationwide for all federal elections.  At this time, the Republican held Senate has not acted favorably to this proposal.  The proposal would require voters to provide any of the following documents to prove citizenship.
 

• A valid US passport
• A certified US birth certificate with a valid government issued photo ID
• A REAL ID compliant driver’s license that indicates the applicant is a citizen
• A military ID card, along with service records indicating the applicant was born in the US
• Naturalization or citizenship certificates

 
The SAVE Act cannot be viewed as corruption of the election process.  It is well within the federal government’s privilege to require this type of proof of citizenship for federal elections, but it is the state’s responsibility to facilitate election(s).  
 
However, the damage has been done.  There is a public lack of trust in the voting process now.  The President wants paper ballots and the results the day after the election.  Let me remind the reader approximately 150 million votes were cast in the 2024 election and the PROJECTED results were reported during the evening of the election and early morning of the next day.  As one may imagine, hand counting 150 million votes cannot be completed in less than a 24-hour period.  The Arizona official results were not certified until November 25 of 2024.  The 2024 presidential election formally ended when Congress officially canvassed each state’s electoral votes on January 6th, 2025.  And that date, January 6th, 2025 shall go down in history as a very dark day for the United States.
 
Interestingly enough, the GOP didn’t claim voter fraud at the conclusion of the most recent presidential election.
 

• Manipulating electoral laws: They can change voting rules, engage in gerrymandering, or weaken electoral commissions to tilt the playing field in their favor.

In a word, gerrymandering Congressional Districts (CD) is used to benefit a candidate or party.  It is not illegal as determined by the Supreme Court.

From PBS News…

The Supreme Court, in a 2019 case originating from North Carolina, ruled that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly.”

And so, what the US in now experiencing is a re-drawing of CDs in the state of Texas to garner five more Republican seats in the House.  This comes at the direction of President Trump.  In response to this action, California, has taken up the task to re-district to benefit the Democrats (5 seats) and Virginia are also re-districting for the benefit of Democrats as well (2 to 3 seats).  Missouri and North Carolina have re-districted to provide one Republican seat from each state.  There are numerous other states waiting to take up arms to do the same...Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Illinois, New York and Maryland to be precise.

One may ask why all of this is taking place in the middle of a decade, when redistricting normally takes place after the national census at the end of a decade.  The answer is really an attempt by the President to keep the MAGA party in control of the government.  In the foreword of this article, I mentioned our country has lost the concept of “loyal opposition” in our political structure.  By gaining an undeniable advantage in the House of Representatives, the MAGA Republicans would virtually eliminate a dissenting view point, and with that, quite possibly eliminate any political adversaries.

If that should happen, our democracy as we know it would turn into a noncompetitive democracy with a controlling party free to do what it wishes.

Listed below are some well-known models of “noncompetitive democracy”.
 

• Mexico under the PRI: The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) controlled Mexico from 1929 to 2000. Despite holding regular elections with other parties, the PRI maintained power through clientelism and control of key institutions.


• Hungary under Fidesz: Observers have pointed to Hungary's long-governing Fidesz party and its leader, Viktor Orbán, as an example of competitive authoritarianism.
  • https://ecfr.eu/publication/the-orbanisation-of-america-hungarys-lessons-for-donald-trump/
    • For those interested the above publication is a great read provided by the European Council on Foreign Relations.  It truly provides insight into “noncompetitive democracy”, aka, authoritarian rule
    
    
    
• Russia under Vladimir Putin: Russia has been described as having a "managed democracy" where, even if elections are held, the outcome is controlled by the Communist party.  In my view, this is classic totalitarian government.  

 


Chapter 4


By dividing society into "us versus them," populism increases political polarization and erodes the societal norms necessary for a functioning democracy. 
 
I believe all of the following to be true:
 

• Undermining democratic norms: Populist rhetoric often disregards democratic norms like compromise, tolerance for opposition, and respect for minority rights. This raises the stakes of political competition, as opponents are seen as moral enemies rather than legitimate rivals.
• Fueling social divisions: Populist leaders can stoke existing ethnic, racial, or religious cleavages to create a unified base of support, often at the expense of marginalized groups.
• Weakening civil society: Populist governments frequently try to control or suppress civil society organizations, such as non-governmental organizations and universities, that might otherwise serve as a check on their power.

What is abundantly true:
 

• Starting in President Trump’s first term, his appointments to the Supreme Court virtually allowed him to “influence” the entire judiciary system.  As a result of this, The Supreme Court has given the President “immunity” in any action he performs in an official capacity.  In other words, the President has free reign and can ignore the Constitution.  Because of this, the checks and balances written into the Constitution to keep the three branches of government separate but equal no longer exist. President Trump has shown a disdain for the protocol and accepted procedures established by the Constitution.  In an interview with Kristen Welker, Trump was asked if he would support the Constitution, his response was “I don’t know.  I have lawyers to do that”.
• President Trump has categorically weakened the Legislative Branch. 
  • The use of tariffs to regulate commerce is the enumerated power of Congress as stated in the Constitution.  Yet, the President is placing high tariffs on some countries, while placing smaller tariffs on other countries.  The President has recently stopped trade discussions with Canada.  This falls under the charged duty of Congress.  
  • The President has given the military permission to destroy alleged “drug runner boats” on the open sea.  This amounts to a declaration of war on the country of origin for those destroyed boats.  The destruction of these alleged boats have resulted in the death of approximately 40 people.  At best, the President could be considered a “war criminal” and as Senator Gallego from Arizona said, “It’s murder”.  The President has also floated the idea of a ground strike in Venezuela…which would require a declaration of war from Congress.  
  • At the direction of the President, certain appropriations by Congress have been withheld.  This is contrary to the Impoundment Act of 1974.
  • The President has accepted a $400 Million-Dollar 747 jet from the country of Qatar, without asking for permission to do so from Congress, as required by the Constitution.  The Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officials from accepting "emoluments"…gifts (money, office, or other benefits) from foreign governments or the U.S. and state governments without congressional consent.
• The President has weakened regulatory agencies of the government.
  • The President has stacked his cabinet with somewhat unqualified people.  I dare say, when RFK, Jr. is the Secretary of Health and Human Services and has no background of study in medicine or science, that is a problem.  Early in his second term, the President called his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, a “liar” when she gave an intelligence report on Iranian capabilities to produce weaponized uranium.  The Secretary of Homeland Defense, Kristi Noem, has spent more money on tv commercials, (over $200 Million Dollars) trying to convince undocumented citizens to peacefully leave the country.  Not that it is a requirement of the office, but Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, did not attend any military academy to study the art of war.  He served in the Minnesota National Guard and was a tv personality.
• The President has demonized his political opponents and critics.
  • This began with the Republican Presidential debates during the 2016 campaign and continued after Trump won the nomination.  “Lock her up”, referring to his opponent, Hillary Clinton and her alleged crimes, became a rally cry of the Trump campaign.  Since then, as it has been written in this document, Trump has continued to demonize his Republican colleagues, the Democratic party in general, and the leadership of the Democratic party.  Some have called it the “blame game”, as the President has taken little to no responsibilities for his failures.  An example could be the failed Summit Meeting with Putin in Alaska.  It produced nothing.
• The President has weaponized the DOJ against his opponents and critics.
  • The President’s text message to Attorney General Pam Bondi as mentioned in this document is more than enough evidence to support this statement.  The President has sued the New York Times for $15 Billion Dollars for defamation.  The suit was tossed out of court, but Trump refiled an amended lawsuit for the same amount. 
• The President has cast doubt on the integrity of elections.
  • It is well known that the President filed over 60 lawsuits regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election.  The President said the election was rigged, that he was cheated out of being re-elected.  Many states audited their election processes as well as election equipment.  Nothing was found.  But, the fear of a rigged election now permeates every election.  What I find interesting about the claimed fraud in the 2020 election is the scope of the conspiracy needed for the 2020 election to be rigged.  As Rod Serling would say…”Imagine if you will...”
• The President is trying to manipulate electoral laws.
  • At the urging of the President, Republican states, in particular Texas, has redrawn the boundaries for Congressional Districts to seemingly acquire five seats in the House of Representatives that could produce five more Republicans to serve in the House.  Democratic held states are now redrawing their Congressional Districts to countermand what the President wants.  All of this amounts to nothing more than gerrymandering and voter suppression.
• The President is a transactional leader.
  • In other words, he speaks of “the deal” instead of using “agreement” or “compromise”.  The idea of the deal gives the impression of “What’s in it for me (or America?)?   The President has recently made an offer to several universities to have expedited access to funding if they supported his political agenda.  At this time, I am aware of no university that has accepted his offer.   A transformational leader makes everyone around him become a better asset to the government.  A transformational leader listens to his advisors; the transformational leader trusts his advisors.  A transformational leader lends itself to creating a harmonious work environment, something sorely needed at the federal level.  This is quite the opposite of a transactional leader.
• The crises our country is experiencing at the moment are both natural and manufactured.
  • The mass deportation of undocumented citizens has caused bigotry and hatred to rise in the nation.  For many years the US has fought to end bigotry, to expand civil rights.  The mass deportation of undocumented citizens is totally legal, but, if transparency had been offered as to why it is legal, I am of the opinion this “crisis” resulting in the mobilization of the National Guard may have been averted.  Had the President told the nation he was using a law signed into existence by Democratic President Clinton to expedite the deportation process, I believe the nation would have been more agreeable.  Many would not like the deportation order, but I believe many would have understood the order.
  • The President has used the term “woke” to demonize groups he doesn’t like.  What I find interesting is the definition of “woke”.  According to Webster’s Dictionary, the term simply “means aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues especially racial and social justice.”  I suspect many are not fully aware of this
  • The tariff war being waged by the President will eventually hurt our economy, unless some agreements (not deals) are reached with our trade partners.  As we know, the President has changed his tariff policy with some countries time and again.  And for what reason?  The recent cutting off trade discussions with Canada because the President didn’t like a commercial produced by Ottawa, Canada using President Reagan’s words to bring doubt to President Trump’s tariffs is nothing more than giving Canada the middle finger salute.
  • The open sea destruction of alleged “drug runner boats” resulting in the killing of individuals without offering evidence of the claims levied by the President leads to uncertainty.  The idea of striking Venezuela to prevent drugs from coming into the United States is an act of war, and the President has said he may have to go to Congress to get approval.  My question is, “What is the difference between destroying Venezuelan boats on the open sea and striking the homeland of Venezuela?”  I am confident there may be more to this than drugs.  China?
• Finally, many elements of Project 2025 are subtly being implemented by this administration.    
  •  As the public takes issue with the aforementioned crises, few if any notice the “backdoor” application of Project 2025 to our nation’s government.  Many of the authors and contributors of Project 2025 are members of the cabinet, and select advisors to the President.  THE major purpose of Project 2025 is to expand and consolidate power in the executive branch of government, which is a major component of “noncompetitive democracy”, or authoritarianism.  In doing so, Project 2025 wishes to use the power of the executive branch of government to implement right-wing policies. Project 2025 calls for installing people into the federal government who are loyalists to the President, instead of people of merit and expertise.  Project 2025 calls for the elimination of DEI practices; it calls for a rejection of green energy policy and a return to fossil fuels.  Project 2025 calls for a reduction of taxes on corporations.  Project 2025 recommends the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants and deploying the military for domestic law enforcement. The plan also proposes enacting laws supported by the Christian right such as criminalizing the sending and receiving of abortion and birth control medications

 

• Including those appointments previously mentioned in this article, the people who either authored or contributed to Project 2025 and have been included in President Trump’s leadership team are:

 

•  Russ Vought: Co-author of the "Mandate for Leadership" and now leads the Office of Management and Budget.  Vought wrote a chapter in Project 2025 outlining plans to overhaul the executive branch and refocus federal agencies to serve the president’s agenda.
• Christopher Miller: Wrote the chapter in Project 2025 on the Department of Defense.  He was Trump’s Secretary of Defense during the last months of Trump’s first administration.  Miller is a contributor to Project 2025 and has said that a national service requirement should be "strongly considered" to create a sense of "shared sacrifice" among young Americans. Other Republicans have also endorsed mandatory service
• Adam Candeub: Wrote a chapter scrutinizing the Federal Trade Commission.  Candeub is Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, performing the delegated duties of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information. 
• Stephen Miller: Senior advisor for Project 2025 and a key figure in drafting the Project 2025 playbook.  Among other things, Miller is currently the Homeland security advisor.
• Tom Homan: Was a contributor to the immigration policy laid out in Project 2025.  Homan was appointed border czar in the new administration.  
• John Ratcliffe: Was a contributor to Project2025 and was appointed Director of the CIA.
• Brendan Carr: Contributor who Carr's main contributions to Project 2025 include authoring the FCC chapter of Project 2025, and implementing its agenda as FCC Chair, focusing on issues like investigating media bias, reforming tech regulations, and promoting national security and economic growth.  Carr leads the Federal Communications Commission. He has taken action to launch investigations into broadcast networks for political bias and to roll back regulations on broadband companies. 
• ·Ben Carson: Contributor credited with recommendations for Housing and Urban Development.
• Paul Atkins: Was a contributor to 2025 and is a member of Donald Trump's team, serving as the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

The title of this article is Checking the Boxes…and there is a reason for that title.  I am asking those of you who have read this epic installment of simmyblog.com, to think about what has been written…it is factual in nature, and “check the boxes” to determine if you, the reader, believes there is more than a subtle movement to shift from our democratic republic form of government into a noncompetitive democracy.  One, where a dominant party will rule because of the factors that have been defined and examples thereof.

With all due respect to former Northern Arizona University professor Dr. William Strauss, “the supposition being”, should the executive branch become the most powerful branch of government, and the party of the President controls both the judiciary and legislative branches of the government, to produce legislation to favor the party in control, will that not move the United States into a “noncompetitive democracy”?  This doesn’t reflect well on the eloquence of Lincoln’s phrase …” and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
 
The final question that needs to be answered is, “What would Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Kennedy say about the current trend in American politics?”