Historical Warnings About Trump and Project 2025's Centralization of Power

 One of the Trump-Project 2025’s primary goals is centralization of power under the executive (president). The alleged purpose is to streamline decision-making, reduce inefficiencies, and ensure Trump can implement his extremist agenda more effectively. However, the concentration of power in the Oval Office will likely pave the way for authoritarian rule, where Trump and his sycophants are allowed to operate without accountability or oversight.

We’ve been here before, but we may not have learned our lesson. There are historical parallels with a Trumpian authoritarian regime and consolidation of power:

1. In Nazi Germany, Hitler rose to power through systematic dismantling of democratic institutions and centralization of power in an authoritarian ruler. After being appointed Chancellor in 1933, Hitler quickly moved to consolidate his power. The Reichstag Fire in February 1933 allowed him to push the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties and allowed for the arrest of political opponents. The Enabling Act, passed in March 1933, gave Hitler the authority to enact laws without the Reichstag, effectively giving him dictatorial powers. As a result, Hitler dismantled the democratic Weimar Republic, established a totalitarian regime, banned opposition parties, and purged political opponents through events such as the Night of the Long Knives.

2. Italy’s Benito Mussolini was appointed Prime Minister in 1922. He gradually eroded democratic institutions by using violence and intimidation against political opponents and consolidating his power through the Acerbo Law (1923), which guaranteed a two-thirds majority to the largest party, and the establishment of a dictatorship by 1925. Mussolini abolished the parliamentary system, suppressed free press, and established a one-party state under his Fascist Party.

3. In the Soviet Union, Stalin centralized power in the Communist party and eliminated political opposition, through purges, show trials, and suppression of dissent.

4. China’s Mao Zedong centralized power and eliminated his political rivals through control of the Chinese Communist party. The resulting cultural revolution further consolidated his power and led to significant political and social upheaval.

5. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela used his centralized power to undermine democratic institutions and reduce the independence of the judiciary and legislature.

6. Russia’s Vladimir Putin has maintained control over Russia since 2000, alternating between President and Prime Minister. He has centralized power by amending the constitution to extend presidential terms, eliminating regional elections, and asserting control over the media and judiciary. Under Putin, political opposition has been marginalized, and there have been numerous instances of electoral manipulation, suppression of protests, and the persecution of political adversaries.

https://www.wsj.com/video/series/wonder-land-henninger/wsj-opinion-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-and-the-1938-munich-agreement

/ED747AFE-8DE4-4CE9-BC8D-7D4551BECC2B

7. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, initially as Prime Minister and later as President, has increasingly consolidated power. Key moments include the 2017 constitutional referendum, which transformed Turkey from a parliamentary to a presidential system, significantly enhancing the powers of the presidency. Erdoğan's government has been accused of undermining judicial independence, suppressing media freedom, and conducting purges of military, judicial, and educational institutions, especially following the 2016 failed coup attempt.

8. Viktor Orban of Hungary has been working to centralize power in the executive branch, undermining the independence of the judiciary and effectiveness of the parliament in providing oversight.

9. Venezuela’s current leader, Nicolás Maduro, has maintained control through controversial elections and has centralized power by creating the Constituent Assembly in 2017, which bypassed the opposition-controlled National Assembly. His government has been criticized for undermining democratic institutions, eroding judicial independence, restricting press freedoms, and using security forces to suppress political dissent.

These and other historical examples illustrate a common pattern where leaders erode democratic norms by centralizing executive power, undermining the judiciary and legislature, suppressing dissent, and manipulating legal frameworks to maintain control. Project 2025 and Trump 47 advocate these and many other threats to our nation.

Civil War?

Grab an adult beverage, or whatever, then read and think for a moment about the following:

“Is America getting ready to engage in another civil war? The question must be taken seriously. Roughly half of all Americans (as of 2023) think a civil war is likely. And a growing number of social scientists agree that the U.S. now fits the checklist profile of a country at risk. Trust in the national government is in steep decline. Check. Respect for democratic institutions is weakening. Check. A heavily armed population has polarized into two evenly divided partisan factions. Check. Each faction embodies a distinctive ethnic, cultural, and urban-vs-rural identity. Each wants its country to become something the other detests. And each fears the prospect of the other taking power. Check, check, and check.

“Most Americans, as we have seen, agree their country is becoming “less democratic” over time. Nearly all scholars agree with that assessment….Global research centers that track and analyze political indicators by country now categorize the U.S. as something less than a full democracy and anocracy [somewhere between democracy and autocracy].

“Less democracy, it turns out, could be an indicator that civil war is on the way….High trus democracies don’t often experience civil wars. Nor do low-trus tyrannies. It’s the middle ground that worries analysts….[According to Barbara F. Walter, a political scientist at UC San Diego:] ‘We are a factionalized anocracy that is quickly approaching the open insurgency stage, which means we are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.’…Yet, until it happens, few people ever think it would be possible in their own country. After interviewing people who lived through civil wars, Walter reports that none saw it coming. ‘They’re all surprised.’”

Excerpt from Neil Howe, “The Fourth Turning is Here: What the seasons of history tell us about how and when the crisis will end.” Simon & Schuster, 2023

The photo above was created by OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4o at my request. It illustrates the divided nation, the polarization, and the decline of democratic institutions as described in the excerpt.

Authoritarian Path to the Presidency

Having read many works on past authoritarian leaders, such as Hitler and Mussolini, and working with ChatGPT 4o, I wanted to construct the components of a plan to achieve the presidency and ultimately overthrow the existing political framework, using parallels to the past.

I requested that the AI use all resources available to ChatGPT 4o to detail an outline of a plan that might be used by a hypothetical authoritarian who aspires to achieve the U.S. presidency, and then eliminate the constitutional republic and replace it with a supreme dictator. I specifically asked the AI to provide any historic parallels to Hitler and Mussolini. We used “hypothetical authoritarian” instead of using a current identity, but the reader should be able to make a valid assumption as to who it might be.

Here are the results:

The following plan highlights the methods a hypothetical authoritarian might use to seize and maintain power in the United States, drawing clear parallels to the historical precedents set by Hitler and Mussolini.

1. Building a Base of Support

   a. Exploiting Economic Hardships:

     - Hitler capitalized on the economic turmoil of the Weimar Republic.

     - Mussolini took advantage of post-World War I economic instability in Italy.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could leverage economic crises to appeal to those disillusioned with the status quo, promising stability and prosperity.

   b. Cultivating Nationalism and Populism:

     - Hitler promoted Aryan supremacy and national revival.

     - Mussolini emphasized Italian nationalism and the restoration of Roman glory.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could emphasize American exceptionalism, stoking fear of external and internal threats to national identity.

2. Undermining Democratic Institutions

   a. Discrediting the Media:

     - Hitler controlled the press through propaganda and censorship.

     - Mussolini used state-controlled media to spread Fascist propaganda.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could attack and undermine the credibility of independent media, labeling them as enemies of the state and spreading misinformation through controlled channels.

   b. Weakening Judicial Independence:

     - Hitler purged the judiciary of non-compliant judges and replaced them with loyalists.

     - Mussolini established special courts to deal with political offenses.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could appoint loyalists to key judicial positions, ensuring court decisions favor the executive branch’s agenda.

3. Manipulating the Political System

   a. Leveraging Political Polarization:

     - Hitler exploited divisions within the Weimar Republic to weaken political opposition.

     - Mussolini capitalized on political fragmentation and the fear of communism.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could deepen political divides, positioning oneself as the only viable solution to a dysfunctional system.

   b. Controlling Electoral Processes:

     - Hitler used the Reichstag Fire Decree to suppress opposition and gain emergency powers.

     - Mussolini used electoral fraud and violence to secure Fascist majorities.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could implement policies that suppress voter turnout among opposition groups, gerrymandering districts to favor the ruling party, and potentially invoking emergency powers to delay or manipulate elections.

4. Consolidating Power

   a. Establishing a Cult of Personality:

     - Hitler portrayed himself as the savior of Germany, demanding absolute loyalty.

     - Mussolini created a larger-than-life image, positioning himself as Il Duce.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could cultivate a strong, charismatic image, demanding personal loyalty and suppressing dissent within the ranks.

   b. Militarizing Society and Government:

     - Hitler militarized the SS and other paramilitary groups to enforce his rule.

     - Mussolini used the Blackshirts to intimidate and eliminate opposition.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could increase funding and powers for domestic security agencies, encouraging loyalty to the leader rather than the constitution.

5. Neutralizing Opposition

   a. Eliminating Political Rivals:

     - Hitler conducted the Night of the Long Knives to purge SA leaders and other potential rivals.

     - Mussolini used political violence and legal measures to eliminate opposition.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could use legal, political, and extrajudicial measures to neutralize political opponents, ensuring no significant challenge to power remains.

   b. Repressing Civil Liberties:

     - Hitler suspended civil liberties through the Enabling Act and other decrees.

     - Mussolini imposed strict censorship and curtailed political freedoms.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could implement laws that limit free speech, assembly, and other civil liberties under the guise of national security.

6. Transforming the Government Structure

   a. Centralizing Authority:

     - Hitler abolished the federal structure of Germany, consolidating power in Berlin.

     - Mussolini centralized control under Fascist rule.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could gradually erode states’ rights, concentrating power in the federal executive branch.

   b. Creating Parallel Institutions:

     - Hitler established organizations like the Gestapo to bypass traditional law enforcement.

     - Mussolini created Fascist party organizations to control various aspects of society.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could establish parallel institutions loyal to the regime, capable of overriding traditional bureaucratic processes.

7. Maintaining Control

   a. Perpetuating Ideological Indoctrination:

     - Hitler used education and youth organizations to indoctrinate future generations.

     - Mussolini emphasized Fascist ideology in schools and youth groups.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could infuse educational curricula with nationalist propaganda, ensuring future generations remain loyal to the regime.

   b. Suppressing Dissent and Resistance:

     - Hitler utilized a network of informers and repressive measures to silence dissent.

     - Mussolini crushed opposition through intimidation and force.

     - Hypothetical Authoritarian could maintain an extensive surveillance state, using modern technology to monitor and suppress opposition activities.

Draw your own conclusions.

Dean of Students or Assistant Principal?

A public school district near and dear to my heart is trying to decide whether to eliminate the Dean of Students positions at all levels and replace them with Assistant Principals. This is not the case of making a simple title change due to the differences in minimal credentials required. In addition, the district has employed a dedicated, loyal individual as the secondary Dean of Students who has steadfastly remained responsible for discipline and attendance the past three decades. He has also taken on a larger district-wide role regarding attendance as well as safety and security. His responsibilities are by no means “narrow” as some might think, and he would like to remain employed with the district at least two more years before retiring on his own initiative.

The current Dean is well-liked by students, staff, and parents. Former students have claimed publicly that his ability to administer discipline, all while caring about them as individuals, was helpful to them and one of the main reasons they successfully got through school. At a recent regular board meeting where this issue was suddenly sprung on the community, so many people showed up to voice support for him that the meeting had to be moved to a larger venue.

The district is median-sized (1800 students) situated in a one-square-mile, working-class community consisting of a majority Hispanic and English-language-learner population. In the past eight years, the high school has had three different principals and the district has had four different superintendents, one of which served two stints as interim superintendent while the school board worked to fill the vacant position. Prior to that time, I had the pleasure of serving six years as secondary principal followed by nine years as superintendent before retiring.

As in most decisions, there are advantages and disadvantages. When a school district considers restructuring its administrative roles, it's essential to weigh these carefully. Here are some considerations that hopefully the school board and district leaders will take into account. I’m sure there are more and members of the staff and community, including current and former students, will likely see fit to air them at an upcoming community forum. This short list should be considered as a holistic grouping as some advantages also create disadvantages.

Advantages of Assistant Principals over Deans of Students:

Broader Scope of Responsibilities: Assistant principals typically have a wider range of responsibilities, including curriculum development, staff management, and student discipline, which can offer a more holistic approach to school leadership.

Leadership Continuity: Assistant principals are often seen as second-in-command and can provide continuity in leadership when the principal is unavailable. This might make transitions smoother during times of principal turnover or absence.

Professional Development: The role of assistant principal can be seen as a stepping stone to becoming a principal, offering a clear path for professional advancement. This could attract candidates with ambitious career goals and a strong dedication to educational leadership.

Disadvantages of Replacing Deans of Students with Assistant Principals:

Specialized Focus on Student Affairs: Deans of Students often specialize in student behavior, discipline, and support services. Eliminating this role might dilute the focus on student well-being and behavior management, which could impact the school's climate and student success.

Potential Overburdening of Assistant Principals: Expanding the role of assistant principals to cover duties traditionally handled by Deans of Students could overburden these administrators, potentially leading to burnout and reduced effectiveness in their broader duties.

Cost Considerations: Depending on the district's pay scale, hiring additional assistant principals instead of Deans of Students might lead to increased salary costs. This financial aspect must be considered, especially in districts facing budget constraints.

Other Considerations:

Community Impact: A changing administration can create an unstable environment for both teachers and students. This instability can affect morale and lead to increased stress and anxiety among the school community. It's important to listen to and communicate the reasons for such changes and how they will benefit the students.

Difficulty in Building Relationships: Effective administration relies on strong relationships with staff, students, and the community. Regular changes make it difficult to build these relationships, which are crucial for creating a supportive and productive school environment.

Staff and Student Adjustment: Any change in administrative structure requires an adjustment period for staff and students. The impact of these changes on school culture and morale should be carefully managed. Changes in administration can disrupt the continuity of policies, initiatives, and programs. Frequent changes can lead to reform fatigue among teachers and staff, making them resistant to new initiatives. Long-term projects might be halted or redirected, which can lead to wasted resources and opportunities. An unstable administrative environment can contribute to higher teacher turnover. Teachers may feel undervalued or uncertain about their future at the school, leading them to seek employment elsewhere.

Loss of Institutional Knowledge: With each administrative change, valuable institutional knowledge can be lost. New administrators may not be aware of past challenges, successes, or the specific needs of the school community, leading to repeated mistakes or overlooked opportunities.

Impact on School Culture: Consistent leadership helps to build a strong, positive school culture. Frequent changes can undermine this culture, leading to a lack of shared values and vision among students and staff.

Ultimately, the decision should be based on the specific needs and goals of the school district, considering both the immediate impact and the long-term implications of such a restructuring. Consulting with educational leaders, reviewing case studies of similar decisions in other districts, and engaging with the school community for feedback can also provide valuable insights into making the most appropriate choice.

Summary of “H_NGM_N: What one says, and doesn’t say, to white educators“

Summary of https://kappanonline.org/what-one-says-doesnt-say-to-white-educators-beardslee/

The essay by Lois Beardslee, titled "H_NGM_N: What one says, and doesn’t say, to white educators," published on January 25, 2021, presents a poignant and critical reflection on racism, privilege, and the normalization of violence in educational settings, particularly through the lens of a Native American educator's experiences in northwest Lower Michigan. Here are the main points:

1. Racism and Denial of White Privilege: The author begins by setting the context of her experiences in a region characterized by "white-flight" communities, where discussions on racism and white privilege are vehemently avoided or denied by the white populace, despite overt racist behaviors.

2. Normalization of Violence: Beardslee critiques the use of the game "hangman" in educational settings, highlighting how it unconsciously normalizes historic violence against people of color, particularly lynching, and suggests considering alternative activities that do not glorify such violence.

3. Personal Experiences with Racism in Education: The author shares her extensive background in education and her struggles with racism, including direct threats and discrimination, which have limited her professional opportunities and forced her into low-status, substitute teaching roles.

4. Resistance to Change: Beardslee recounts an incident where she suggested rethinking the use of the game "hangman" to a white teacher, only to be met with anger and resistance, illustrating the broader unwillingness among white educators to acknowledge or address ingrained racial biases and norms.

5. Power Dynamics and Silence: The essay delves into the power dynamics in educational settings, where minority educators and students often feel compelled to remain silent about racism and discrimination for fear of retribution or further marginalization.

6. Impact on Children of Color: It also touches on the psychological impact of racism and discrimination on children of color, who learn from an early age that they cannot rely on white adults in authority positions for support or protection.

7. Systemic Exclusion of Minority Educators: Beardslee discusses the systemic barriers to employment for teachers of color in the region, which perpetuates a monocultural bias within education and discourages minority students from pursuing careers in teaching.

8. Personal and Familial Trauma: The author shares personal stories of racial violence experienced by her family, including the lynching of her grandfather, to underscore the deep, lasting trauma inflicted by such acts of hatred and the importance of not trivializing this history in educational contexts.

9. Critique of Educational Practices: The essay criticizes the educational system for its role in perpetuating racial violence and bias, both through the curriculum and the behaviors it normalizes, and calls for a reevaluation of teaching practices to better reflect a commitment to diversity and anti-racism.

10. Conclusion and Reflection: Beardslee concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of her experiences, questioning the norms that prioritize the comfort and convenience of white educators over the well-being and dignity of minority students and educators, and advocating for systemic change within education to address these deeply ingrained issues.

Note: After reading the original essay at the link, ChatGPT assisted with organizing my thoughts into this summary.