by John Ellis
I’m rereading The Radical and the Republican: Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and the Triumph of Antislavery Politics by James Oakes. It was part of an assigned reading list for a class I took years ago. It’s an excellent book, and one that I’ve read several times since then, although I do believe that, at points, Oakes overstates Lincoln’s antislavery machinations. Something that has jumped out at me while reading it this time is how committed to the rule of law President Lincoln was.
On the surface, that claim might seem odd. Lincoln did, after all, suspend the writ of habeas corpus. And as any “good” Southerner knows, Abraham Lincoln is the face of Northern Aggression and political tyranny.
Except, whether you agree with his actions or not, and the racist Lost Cause mythology aside, with everything he did – the repudiation of Freemont’s emancipation decree in MO, his pushing through and signing of The Confiscation Act, suspending the writ of habeas corpus, Emancipation Proclamation, etc. – President Lincoln relied on Constitutional legal reasoning for his actions as well as his inactions.[1] In most cases, his speeches and letters in the months and even years leading up to decisions contained his lawyerly arguments for those coming actions. Lincoln knew the law, loved the law, and earnestly desired to act within the bounds of the rule of law. Contrast that with the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue’s attitude towards himself and the rule of law. President Trump believes and acts as if he is the law unto himself. He is subservient to nothing but his own desires.
Yesterday, I wryly joked to a friend, “Are you excited about our upcoming war with Western Europe?”
She groaned her response, “I don’t know what’s going on anymore.”
I mistook her answer as a confession that she hadn’t been following the news and jumped into recounting some of Trump’s recent actions. Quickly stopping me, my friend explained that what she meant is that while she knows what’s going on, very little of it makes sense anymore. I both agree and disagree. Nothing in the political realm in America makes much sense but, in turn, considering who/what Donald Trump is combined with the Republican Party’s near total and slavish devotion to him, it all makes perfect sense. The United States of America is currently being led by a man and a political party for whom truth and morality is solely determined by that one man’s near constant shifting, self-serving inclinations. Add that he’s a combination of narcissism and Dunning-Kruger effect, and our now non-sensical-yet-totally-sensical paradoxical reality is that the current President can legitimately be described as an easily distracted squirrel who believes he is the smartest, greatest squirrel in the history of squirrels and anyone who dares suggests otherwise gets shoved into the eyeline of a hawk. Oh, and if another squirrel has some nuts (or a female squirrel) he wants, he believes it’s rightfully his.
It’s been four months since I last wrote an installment in the Donald Trump Totalitarian Watch series. That’s not because there hasn’t been anything to write about; it’s because there’s been too much to write about. This time though, in this installment, I believe that the main issue at hand – Greenland – is so potentially impactful, obviously illegal/immoral, and within the definition of totalitarian that I’m hoping – probably against hope, sadly – that at least some of my Republican acquaintances, friends, and family members will finally come to realize that their beloved Emperor is incompetently waddling around the town completely and grossly naked. Before getting to Trump’s coveting of our neighbor and friend’s territory, two other recent events bear mentioning: the renaming of the Kennedy Center and his insulting dismissal of Exxon Mobile’s CEO Darren Woods.
MAGA can claim all they want that Trump didn’t bestow the honor of having his name added to the Kennedy Center himself, but no one really believes that. The dude is the self-appointed Chairman of the Board, a board he stacked with Trump sycophants. He may not have been in the room for the vote, and I don’t know if he was or wasn’t (I’m assuming not), but his fingerprints are all over the renaming (besides the fact that he’s been hinting at it for months). What is true is that his self-congratulatory beaming over it is further evidence of his narcissism.[2] Keep in mind, he’s also renamed the U.S. Institute of Peace after himself. I guess the one surprise of his second term is that he had enough restraint to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and not the Gulf of Trump.
One quick thing: my own eye-rolling rejection of The Kennedy Center being renamed aside, I do find the Left’s pearl clutching over it to be part amusing and part annoying. Ignoring the illegality of it, it is somewhat fitting that two men who are known as serial adulterers have their names on the same building. The Left’s veneration of JFK is unwarranted.[3] I don’t care that JFK has been dishonored; I care that our current President’s narcissism is being further fed and his disdain for the rule of law is now plastered on the side of a building.[4]
Add to his continued narcissism, Trump’s Dunning-Kruger effect has been recently splashed across the news. During a meeting at the White House of top oil executives to discuss Venezuela Trump’s oil, President Oompa-Loompa was angered by Exxon-Mobile’s CEO Darren Woods’ pushback that the Venezuelan market is currently uninvestable. Trump later responded by threatening to freeze Exxon out of the market while accusing Woods of “playing too cute.”
Too cute? Far be it from me to come to the defense of any oil executive, but if I were seeking investment advice about oil, it would be from the CEO of Exxon-Mobile and not a man who, along with being a serial adulterer, is a serial bankrupter. Trump’s own poor business acumen aside, whatever business expertise he does have, it is not in oil markets (it’s also not in steaks, universities, online travel agencies, vodka, casinos, board games, bottled water, telecommunications, magazines, etc.). It’s not an epistemological leap to assume that Darren Woods knows far more about the subject than Donald J. Trump. But Trump believes he is always the smartest person in the room. And he HATES being told, “no.” Instead of doing the wise, humble thing and hearing Woods out, Trump immediately determined that he knew better and acted accordingly. That’s indefensible, especially considering the man is President of the United States of America and should know when to listen and take advice.
While the renaming of the Kennedy Center and Trump’s arrogantly Dunning-Kruger dismissal of Darren Woods will likely be reduced to mere footnotes in future historians’ arguments for why Trump is one of the three worst presidents in U.S. history,[5] they provide important context for a discussion about Greenland. Both his narcissism and Dunning-Kruger effect are on full display in his near temper-tantrum fixation on acquiring/stealing his precious.
I’ve never wanted time-travel to be real as much as I do at this current moment. For example, I’d love to travel back in time twenty-three years and tell current MAGA members that Donald Trump is good friends with a known sex-trafficker and pedophile. I would bet every dollar I have that the unanimous response would be along the lines of, “well, that makes perfect sense. Wait, are you sure that Trump isn’t the sex trafficker and pedophile?” Twenty-three years ago, while we may have been divided over many things, most notably Bush’s war in Iraq, one thing we all agreed on is the loathsome, immoral character of Donald Trump. But things change. Not Donald Trump, mind you. But the supposed integrity of those who have convinced themselves that Trump was naïve to Epstein’s proclivities and activities has changed.
With that out of my system, if I could travel back in time a mere five years and tell my past self that Trump would allow his lust for Greenland to upend NATO, terminate long-standing relationships with allies, and possibly move us closer to another – final? – world war, how would I respond? Well, for starters, I would say, “Dude! Put a face mask on; we’re in the middle of a pandemic!” I would then say, and forgive my bleeped-out language, “What the f**k?!?”
I don’t know, it’s hard for me to believe that this is possible, but I think that Trump may have out-Trumped himself this time.
The sick joke on Western Europe is that it turns out that Russia (Putin) may never have been their biggest threat; the United States (Trump) might very well be. I want to be clear, Putin is evil, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is wicked. But … Russia has a better historical claim for Ukraine than the U.S. does for Greenland. The only justification for the U.S. taking Greenland for herself, whether by physical force or via a bullying coercion, is the nearly non-sensical claim that the very large island is necessary for Trump’s country’s defense.
Oh, wait, there’s another possible justification: the vast mineral resources safely stored under Greenland’s topsoil. You know, like oil in another country who recently dominated the news cycle and now has a new acting president who happens to have the same last name as the U.S. president.
Regardless, Greenland ain’t the U.S.’s and never has been. It’s blatantly and obviously immoral/unethical for Trump to demand that it become the U.S.’s. Even if you, or anyone, can convince me that the Greenland is vital to the U.S.’s national security, that doesn’t alter the fact that Greenland ain’t ours.[6] I mean, if my neighbors down the street whose homes flood every time a hurricane crosses Central Florida were to turn covetous eyes to the homes of those of us who were smart enough to purchase a house not in a flood zone and say, “Hey, we need those houses for our family’s security and we’re going to get them by any means necessary,” I’m pretty sure you, MAGA member, would take my side and not theirs. Right? You wouldn’t defend the water-soaked neighbors attempts to steal my house, would you?
I realize that I’m somewhat stretching similarities in the above scenario, but the central ethic remains. Another country is not justified in seizing the territory of another country just because the leaders believe they need it. This is similar to one of the quandaries faced by Lincoln and Union officers during the Civil War.
It’s nearly universally accepted that rules of war allow armies to seize supplies and objects that are necessary for the prosecution of the war. But once the war is over, the private property of citizens is to be returned. General Benjamin Butler faced a dilemma when escaped slaves made their way into his army’s camp in May of 1861. Once the legal argument was established that returning formerly enslaved people to their enslavers would prove detrimental to the Union’s war effort, the Confiscation Act was the next natural, legal step. That still left the question of what would happen to formerly enslaved people once the war, presumably in the Union’s favor, was over. It was a question Lincoln wrestled with. He personally hated slavery and had wanted it abolished since he was a child. But he was also a firm believer in the rule of law. The evolution in his legal reasoning regarding the question is interesting, and I encourage you to read Oakes’ book.
However, while I respect Lincoln’s veneration of the rule of law, I agree with Frederick Douglass that there is a transcendent morality involved in the freeing of slaves.[7] There is not, however, any overriding transcendent morality involved in the United States seizing Greenland. Not to mention, we are not at war.
Whether via force or a bullying coercion, if Greenland ends up in Trump’s possession, it will be an immoral act, and it will be an act of unprovoked war. This means that invading Greenland, like Venezuela (and like his tariffs), will be unconstitutional. The U.S. Constitution does not empower the executive branch to start wars. Trump does not care. Trump cares about Trump, and something I believe is that Trump views building an empire as part of his Trumpian birthright.
Trump is a big fan of President William McKinley and the Gilded Age. The Gilded Age, specifically during McKinley’s administration, was when the United States of America was the most committed to the business of empire building.[8] Here’s a story that rarely, if ever, makes it into our children’s history textbooks now that wokeness has been defeated: As the Spanish-American War came to its conclusion, “[Philippine Commander] Aguinaldo’s forces had liberated major cities and were laying siege to Manila. Aguinaldo understood all this to be part of the independence war of the Philippines, and in fact had already issued a declaration of independence, raised a flag, and played the Philippine national anthem.” Philippine self-determination was not to be, though, for historian Daniel Immerwahr continues the story, “Yet, as in Cuba, Spain surrendered to the United States, not the local rebels. When the U.S. and Spanish forces brokered their secret agreement to stage a mock battle over Manila, it was on the condition that the Spaniards relinquish the city to U.S. troops and that Filipinos not be allowed. … Filipinos who had besieged Manila for two and a half months, at the cost of thousand of lives, thus watched in astonishment as their allies entered the city unopposed, locked Filipino soldiers out, and fraternized with the enemy. One minute after the Spanish flag came down over Manila, an enormous U.S. flag climbed the flagpole in its place. The band struck up ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’”[9]
While I’m no fan of our 25th president, his competency and morality[10] were light years ahead of our 45/47th president. I condemn McKinley’s empire building in no uncertain terms. However, the thought of Trump engaging in empire building scares me. I’ve long said that his combination of narcissism and Dunning-Kruger effect could prove fatal to this country. If the reporting is correct and the EU is finally fed up with him and tells him to f-off, Trump’s instincts will implore him to invade Greenland (there’s also reporting that he’s starting to talk more about Canada). Shamefully, the Republican Party has exhibited zero inclination to stand up to him. They will not only stand back and watch him continue to piss all over this country’s ruling document they claim to revere, but they will bend over backwards to come up with convoluted legal reasonings for why Trump can do whatever he likes.[11] That’s one of the many distinctions between Lincoln and Trump: Lincoln developed legal reasons for his actions prior to those actions. Trump? Well, Trump just does whatever he wants and leaves it to his lackeys to justify it (although I doubt he’s overly concerned about justifications).
His dictatorial actions towards Greenland (actions that he has repeatedly threatened) will further the growing global alienation of the U.S. and serve to continue Trump’s undermining our economy and stability. Russia, China, and India will only need to sit back and laughingly wait as Donald Trump stupidly and unnecessarily destroys the Western – American – global hegemony built in the aftermath of WWII. Those three countries, especially Russia and China, will happily pick up the pieces and reshape the world in their image. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that neither Russia nor China pose as serious a threat to the United States of America as great as the threat Donald Trump poses to this country.
Sadly, though, like all my “Donald Trump Totalitarian Watch” articles, I fear I am largely spitting into the wind. Trump’s anecdote about shooting someone on 5th Avenue and not losing any support is used way too much because it’s proven 100% accurate. Those reading this who, like their Republican congressperson or senator, insists that Trump will not invade Greenland will immediately pivot to unqualified support for that invasion if/when Trump does invade Greenland. Like always, his unethical, disqualifying actions will not only be excused but praised. This is a story that as far back as winter of 2016 I was warning would be written. I have since watched as those who adamantly agreed with me back then have traded integrity for self-serving interests and access to power.[12] I’m not sure they’ve counted the cost, though. Because the irony is that people sporting “Don’t Tread on Me” sweaters and claiming their love for freedom/liberty are marching lockstep into totalitarianism. But they’ll loudly deny that’s true up until the moment the guillotine liberates their head from their body.
[1] To the extreme frustration of Douglass.
[2] Likewise, the fact that he would accept Machado’s Nobel Peace Prize medal is astoundingly narcissistic. Will anyone be surprised that in the very near future, Donald Trump’s official biography will include the claim that he is a real-life, actual winner of the Nobel Peace Prize? No, of course not; none of us will be surprised. Although some of you reading this will lie through your teeth and claim that he did, in fact, win it. But, but, but, John, we’ve always been at war with Eurasia.
[3] The same friend I mentioned earlier pointed out last night that she believes that if JFK had lived to finish out his term, he would not be remembered nearly as fondly as he is. I think she’s right.
[4] But not the website, thanks to the forward thinking of South Park writer Toby Morton who purchased the domain name this past August. I wouldn’t be opposed to the next President awarding Morton a Kennedy Center Honors for his masterful troll … assuming there is a next President and me and Morton aren’t roommates in a Gulag somewhere in North Dakota.
[5] He may go down as the worst. At this date, though, I am not ready to see James Buchanan dethroned from that dishonor.
[6] If Russia or China were willing to risk starting WWIII by invading Greenland while it’s under NATO (American) protection, it being part of the U.S. would not be a deterrent. Whether controlled by Denmark, self-governed (which it should be), or in Trump’s dictatorial hands, the island is and will be protected by U.S. forces. This is all very obvious. How does Trump think NATO works?
[7] With historical hindsight, though, it’s fairly apparent that Lincoln’s measured and seemingly slow moves to end slavery was the best, albeit pragmatic, approach.
[8] This sets aside, which I don’t like doing, that the USA has always been in the business of empire building via the forced take over, whether by violence or economic/political coercion, of Indian nations’ lands.
[9] Daniel Immerwahr, How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States (New York: Picador, 2019), 71-72.
[10] His wife Ida suffered severe physical and mental disabilities. McKinley admirably and devotedly cared for her until the day he was assassinated.
[11] See SCOTUS’s majority opinion in 2024’s Trump v. United States in which the conservative justices invented the concept of presidential immunity. For all their blustering about originalism, they sure do not seem to care that the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution deliberately left out anything about immunity for the executive branch because they were afraid it would lead to the president becoming a king.
[12] Not to mention those who embrace things like the racist replacement theory who have found in Donald Trump a path into mainstream acceptance for their hate and racism.
Practically Known Theology 