Because I have the time and because I’m nosy about what people are thinking on social media, I periodically scroll through one or two of the social media sites on which I’m registered. Except X of course, for reasons previously explained.
Most of these sites, again save for X, have pretty diverse opinions on a wide variety of topics: will we survive Trump 47; whether Taylor Swift should win the Nobel Peace Prize; the best recipes for holiday dinners; and a raging debate over how obscene the amount of money Juan Soto is to “earn” playing a kid’s game.
While there’s something for everyone, a lot of what’s published on these sites are posts from people who are trying to work through the trauma of November 5. One of these posts caught my eye:
“Can somebody, anybody try to make me love this country again. I sadly do not and I need to try and gain back the love and respect I once had for it.”
While I don’t agree with this person’s underlying premise, I understand their point. In fact, I don’t think they agree with their underlying premise. By asking this question, to me it’s self-evident that this person is expressing their love of country by mourning its alleged demise.
However, I get it. Like many others, this person is upset that the America they thought they knew is apparently no more. I understand people’s despair over a sense of loss.
It is shocking that voters elected, not once but twice, the least qualified – both intellectually and personally – man ever elected to the presidency. In 2024, voters forgot why they kicked this guy to the curb only four years earlier.
We live in an age in which we value promises over performance, we reward bluster and profanity over reasoned discussion, we allow ourselves to be seduced by the false promises of autocracy over the sometimes messy chaos of democracy.
We live in an age in which we elect a man who treats democratic norms and the rule of law the way a baby treats a diaper.
We live in an age where supporters of a man who is antithetical to advancing the promises of our country consider themselves to be “patriots.”
This is all a far cry from the America that many of us grew up in. And I’ll be frank, it hurts like hell.
To make sense of all this, I consulted many philosophical writings until I came upon one that succinctly summed up our current condition. It comes from the stoic philosophy of William Belichick formerly of Foxborough (Massachusetts, not England).
In words worthy of Marcus Aurelius, who once wrote “the Obstacle is the Way,” Belichick wrote:
“It is what it is”
Who says stoicism is dead?
Instead of whining about the results of the November 5 election, we should look at the reforms that must be made to prevent future political atrocities. For make no mistake, if this election proved one thing it’s that we’ve become a nation of the oligarchs, by the oligarchs, and for the oligarchs. The “people” are just pawns in their game.
To be clear, let’s define oligarchy. Merrium-Webster defines it as, “a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.” That sounds about right and applicable to Trump’s government.
We’ve always had the rich and infamous meddling in our government. Some have held cabinet positions over the years. In 2017, the wealth of Trump’s first cabinet totaled $2.3 billion with Betsy DeVos accounting for nearly one-half of that amount. The rest were mere multi-millionaires.
Compare that with Obama’s and Bush 43’s first cabinets, $67.2 million and $351.5 million, respectively. Still, I wouldn’t mind living off the bank accounts that members of Obama’s and Bush’s first cabinet members had.
However, these guys are poor relations compared to Trump’s 2025 government. While not a government official, Elon Musk alone exponentially dwarfs the combined incomes of the above referenced cabinets. And can anyone, anyone, point to someone who has more influence in Trump’s transition than Musk?
And let’s be clear. Musk will be able to wield enormous influence as “co-chair” of the (non)Department of Government Efficiency. He and his sidekick, fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy (roughly 1/300th to 1/400th of Musk’s wealth), are already targeting the elimination of $1 billion in “wasteful” and “unnecessary” programs in the Department of Education.
These (literal) gold dust twins are looking at “entitlement” programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. SNAP benefits are said to be in the crosshairs. Wild allegations of waste, fraud, and abuse abound without nary a citation.
They’ll be digging into the contracting procedures that Musk, along with others like Jeff Bezos, have especially benefited from. I’m sure DOGE will find that the administration of those contracts to be immaculate examples of probity.
Ramaswamy and Musk didn’t get their unofficial “jobs” because they are renowned experts in organizational or governmental efficiencies. Nor did they get these “jobs” because of their extensive experience in the government.
Ramaswamy, a defeated primary opponent, got this unofficial, unpaid, unsanctioned, position because when Trump got the nomination, Vivek bent the knee, kissed the ring, and actively campaigned for Trump.
Elon got his “job” the old-fashioned way: he bought it. Musk indirectly contributed at least $250 million to Trump’s campaign. Of course, as we’ve seen in recent weeks, $250 million buys a bit more than an unofficial unpaid “job.” It also buys influence with the most dangerous weak minded, immoral, spineless man in the world.
Some of the people who could wind up with real jobs in the Trump administration are also billionaires. For example, Linda McMahon, nominated to lead the Small Business Administration, is worth approximately $2.6 billion.
Howard Lutnick, nominated to be Secretary of Commerce, has a net worth of about $1.5 billion.
North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, nominated to be the next Secretary of Interior, has a net worth of $1.1 billion.
Jack Isaacman, nominated to be the next NASA administrator has a net worth of approximately $1.7 billion.
Stephen Feinberg, nominee for Deputy Defense Secretary, has a net worth of $3.3 billion. No definite word as to Pete Hegseth’s worth, net or otherwise.
The nominees to be ambassadors to France and Great Britain have a combined net worth of $6.2 billion.
The rest of Trump’s announced nominees must struggle through life as multimillionaires, many with net worths of nine figures.
Look, there is nothing wrong per se with making money. And there’s nothing wrong per se with making lots of money as long as it’s made legally.
What is wrong is using your money for no other reason than to massage your ego, gird your fragile self-esteem, buy your way into power, or further line your pockets at the public’s expense.
Exhibit A is Elon Musk. There is no rational explanation for spending $250+million and not expecting a Return on Investment. Make no mistake, the wealthy don’t donate large sums of money into the political process, they invest dollars expecting a return.
Musk received one healthy Return on his Investment when he increased his net worth by an additional $170-$200 billion as a result of Trump’s victory. Call me a cynic but I’d bet that investors didn’t suddenly discover the lure of space exploration or develop a yearning to drive electric vehicles. And do not overlook Musk’s (and Trump’s) funny money cryptocurrency businesses.
Nope, Musk got his big return being at the side of the president-elect. We know he has participated in the selection of many of Trump’s nominees. He has evidently had conversions on Trump’s behalf with foreign leaders. He even flew to Paris, following his new BFF to the opening of the Notre Dame Cathedral.
Like Trump, Musk does nothing out of selfless motive or public interest. There is no evidence of those motives at any point in his life. He is all about the transaction. Quid pro quo should be tattooed on his chest.
And let’s not overlook the second (or has he slipped to third?) richest man in the world, Jeff Bezos. Owner of Blue Origin, Bezos has $3.4 billion reasons to make nice with Trump. Those billions are from a 2023 contract awarded by NASA to develop a lunar lander by 2029.
Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, quashed an editorial ready for publication that would have endorsed Kamala Harris for president. In addition, he contributed $1 million to Trump’s Inauguration Committee.
Musk, Bezos, and their ilk are the types of people who William Greider in Who Will Tell The People and Kevin Phillips in American Theocracy warned us about decades ago. Greider concluded that “the people” factored less and less into the decisions made by the political elites. Phillips warned that the economic elites would use their political power that benefited them at the expense of the public.
Phillips also warned about the rise of a virulent Christian Nationalism, so he nailed that, too.
So, to the unidentified social media poster, this is not the America I knew in my youth and have watched being diminished over the last three decades. And it sickens me.
But no matter how sad, depressed, anxious, sickened, or angry we get, if we want to take our country back to realize its promise of Justice, equality, fairness, and democracy we must embrace our present reality.
There are a lot of reforms that could be implemented to prevent this oligarchic influence from occurring in the future. My pet reform is to, at minimum, mandate transparency in our politics by revealing the identity of all donors and the amount donated directly to candidates, their campaigns, their political parties, political action committees, along with those public issue oriented “charities” that are stalking horses for one or another group of candidates.
In 1980, I ran in a democratic primary for Congress and warned about the influx of poorly regulated and unregulated money that began trickling into the political process. What I warned about in 1980 was a trickle of money compared to the eventual tsunami of cash flooding the process today.
But that’s a wish list for another day. The question is what we are going to do over the next two years to begin to claw back our democracy? In 2026, all members of the House of Representatives stand for election. In the Senate, one-third or 33 Senate seats are up for election.
What we can do after our pity parties is to be engaged in the process. The first step is to be informed. There are lots of federal, state, and local issues that impact each of us. Know what they are.
Talk with your neighbors and friends. Even talk to members of your family, not confrontationally but conversationally. The other person may have a different view than you, they may even know something you don’t. Part of every conversation is listening. If you want to challenge their assumptions, you have to be open to having yours challenged.
In communicating, find common ground. You may not solve the cosmic issues of our time, but you can find areas of agreement that serve as building blocks for future conversations. Change and progress are incremental.
Collaborate with others in the next election. Join a political organization, work for a candidate, articulate and publish your thoughts and opinions, try to persuade others of your opinions, even stand for public office! No matter what you do, not matter how big or small the effort is, your efforts will make an impact.
Finally, and this may be the most important thing you do, recognize and validate others’ humanity. We live in a time where we’re more isolated than ever before. If you want others to respect your humanity, you’ll need to reciprocate. Each of us has something in common: we love our families, we want a good home, we want to care for children, we want safe communities, and and we want economic security.
One of my favorite Robert Kennedy quotes is: “Government belongs wherever evil needs an adversary and there are people in distress.” Whether that evil is poverty, violence, poor education policies, lack of available quality health care, or the diminution of the rule of law and democratic ideals, we expect government to act on our behalf.
But government is not some independent political actor, it is whatever we make of it. By becoming more involved in the affairs of our communities, we can affect the composition and direction of our government.
In the last analysis, it really comes down to a less stoic, more hopeful quote; our present situation may be “it is what it is,” but our future can and will be “it will be what we make it.”
Comments