Trump derangement syndrome is driving America towards a socialist state

Trump is no prize, but Harris is a dangerous person to elect President

Donald Trump makes Democrats shiver in their sleep, terrified he might regain the White House and put an end to their dreams of installing themselves as permanently in power and able to turn America into a socialist state. I used to use the term “authoritarian socialism” but decided the “authoritarian” adjective was redundant - socialism can only exist as an authoritarian system since by definition it is state ownership or control of the means of production and distribution, and state control is necessarily “authoritarian” or it cannot be “control”.

About 40 or 50 years ago, the term “liberal” when used to describe a political party meant a movement dedicated to free speech, individual freedom, free market enterprise, and a social structure grounded in a progressive tax code that protected the weakest in society and provided for health care, education, transportation infrastructure all subject to the rule of law. In Canada, the repatriation of the Constitution which was an escape from British rule under the British North America Act gave Canadians a charter of rights and intended a clear definition of power between Provinces and the federal government.

Great leaders like Mike Pearson led the Liberal party in those days, and Pearson was a great leader, respected on the world stage, and capable of managing Canada with a balanced budget while enacting major progress in health care with universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, and the unification of Canada’s armed forces with the development of a uniquely Canadian flag to distance Canada from the Union Jack which evidences British rule.

Canada thrived and for most of my adult life I voted liberal. The sands shifted as I grew older and what was once “liberal” became in fact “socialist” and the once right wing conservative party became a party whose policies and platform echoed those of the once “liberal” liberal party, despite being called “conservative”. That shift to the center-left had the conservatives for a time called “Progressive Conservatives”. Then the term progressive became a watchword for leftist socialism and was dropped, since it became part of the now far left Liberal Party of Canada.

A similar road was travelled in the United States, but in an odd sequence. The Democrats were once the party of slavery and the Republicans the party of emancipation of the slaves, and that divide saw a civil war where more Americans were killed by other Americans than the cumulative total of Americans killed by enemy in any war ever since.

Brands die hard and it was easy for the socialist movement to brand themselves “Democrats” after the McCarthy era made “Communist” a bad word. By infiltrating and ultimately taking over the Democrat party, America’s two party system became a contest between socialists and free market capitalists, with both parties embracing progressive income taxes, state owned highways and road, and a system of social security which became known as “entitlements”. American continued to thrive despite the party divide protected by the brilliance of the U.S. Constitution which created three co-equal branches of government - the Administration, Congress (both houses) and the Supreme Court with enough checks and balance that neither party could change much unless there was widespread agreement among the electorate at large and the states who made up the Republic.

That strength of structure frustrated both sides of the aisle. Socialists couldn’t enact state ownership of the means of production and their attempts to achieve the same outcomes through regulation ran into the Constitution and frequently saw their legislative efforts squashed by the Supreme Court. As time went by, the frustration caused by the stalemate (which is what the founders wanted) saw the country hopelessly divided and the electorate forced to choose between two terrible candidates to lead the administration, resulting in more than one terrible presidencies.

George W. Bush let his bureaucrats fabricate a “weapons of mass destruction” excuse to declare war on Iraq. His father’s loose approach to policy led to the global financial crisis. Lyndon Johnson, a predecessor rising to office after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, went to war in Vietnam pretending that “communism” would spread worldwide if not stopped in its tracks. Bill Clinton’s anti-labor stance caused economic stagnation and set back labor relations for decades. Barack Obama, despite his popularity, was a foreign relations failure and his signature Obamacare legislation just made health care less affordable and less accessible.

When Trump, a despicable character on many metrics, was elected in 2016 his policies fueled rapid economic growth, low unemployment, a narrower gap in income between rich and poor, and struck enough fear in European allies and Canada that they began to pay for their own defense and began to meet their obligations to NATA. Trump started to gut the civil service, deregulate industry, expand market freedoms, and to bridle unelected regulators attempts to advance control over industry without legislative authority to do so. Trump was easy to dislike by most and hated by the left, but he was a strong President primarily because (as a billionaire) he answered to no one and feared no one).

Sadly, Trump’s regime was stalled by the global pandemic and his initial response was easily criticized, but his “operation warp-speed” effort to streamline the creation of a vaccine likely saved millions of lives, although the inadequately tested mRNA technology seems to have created problems of its own. Trump was tilted off his horse by Joe Biden in 2020 despite winning more votes than any president in history (other than Biden in 2020) and complained about voting irregularities which no doubt existed but were not of a magnitude to change the outcome, and Biden won whether Trump admits it or not.

The January 6 protests in D.C. gave the Democrats an opportunity to encourage a rampage and blame Trump. In a recent LinkedIn exchange with Clay Horner (who I admire greatly based on work he did for my company in the 1980’s) it was clear Horner detests Trump. He has that in common with many Americans and Canadians, but in my opinion is misguided by that negative emotion. The exchange dealt with the January 6th protest and Horner lays the blame squarely on Trump and rejects the thought that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted the protest to become a rampage and did not order the Sergeant at Arms, who reports to Pelosi, to call in the National Guard when alerted of the prospect of violence. Horner disputes that the Sergeant at Arms reports to Pelosi. He is wrong.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser sought National Guard support on January 6 but was turned down by the Department of Defense.

A man named Ray Epps played a key role in agitating the January 6 crowd, but unlike others received a light sentence of twelve months probation and a $500 fine. Other protesters received sentences from three to twenty two years in prison. Epps has been labeled as an FBI plant working to create havoc to make the January 6 protest more valuable to criticize Trump, but little evidence exists to support such a conclusion other than the relatively light sentence for his major role in inciting the crowd. Epps role in fomenting the January 6 riots cannot be challenged, but questions remain unanswered regarding his light sentence.

Trump addressed the protesters and is charged with inciting violence. His actual words to the protesters included the sentence: “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Other remarks he made to the crowd can be reasonably said to encourage a strong protest but none can be interpreted as a call to violence.

Comedian Bill Maher routinely claims Trump would not concede defeat and a smooth transition of power. But the Washington Post, by no means a Trump ally, reported:

Trump is no doubt a controversial figure. But the deep hatred for him from people who have never met him or taken time to understand the wisdom of his policies is not only unwarranted but also dangerous. For all his many faults, Trump was a good president and, if elected, will be a good president again.

The disdain for Trump is often called “Trump derangement syndrome” and I think that is an apt description. He is no saint, has many faults, but is a better candidate for the Oval Office than Harris will ever be, and the real threat to democracy is socialism, not Trump.