Tales of the Regime Change

"May you live in interesting times, America," as the ancient Chinese proverb has it

Um, nobody elected anybody in the executive branch—except Donald Trump

---

The Resistance is making smart people dumb. I know this because smart people who hate Trump are embracing stupid memes and claims, for instance the notion that the advent of Trump the Sequel represents “regime change.”

Here’s the thing. In the United States, we have these events called national elections. In 1980, for instance, the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, faced off against Ronald Reagan, who cleaned Jimmy’s clock and replaced him in the Oval Office. That was regime change. Later on, in 1992, Bill Clinton vanquished the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush. That too was regime change. And last year, the Prince of the Golden Escalator shellacked the Bratgirl (who was Joe Biden’s heir apparent): again, regime change.

That’s how we roll here in the Land of E Pluribus Unum.

But regime change is one of those terms with sinister overtones, suggesting underhanded dealings, power grabs, purges, coups, etc. So the Resistance is using it to demonize the new Trump Administration—which, supposedly, has launched an all-out assault on “our democracy.” Specifics concerning this all-out assault are in short supply, however, and contradictions abound. One of the foundation stones of “our democracy” is freedom of speech—yet American journalists are openly critical of the First Amendment. President Trump seeks to extricate America from its commitments regarding Ukraine, which may or may not be a good idea. But how is it an assault on “our democracy”? Then there’s the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), whose activities have already uncovered some very embarrassing information about the shenanigans of the administrative state. Since when has a little disinfecting sunshine posed a deadly threat to “our democracy”?

Submitted for your approval: three scenes from America’s current round of regime change, demonstrating that things are not always what they seem.

---

Scene One: 60 Minutes (CBS News)

Courtesy of National Review Online, I’ve learned that CBS was not satisfied that Margaret Brennan’s performance on Face the Nation last Sunday made sufficiently clear the network’s disdain for the First Amendment. That same day, on 60 Minutes, correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi interviewed some members of HateAid, a German nonprofit organization that “promotes human rights in digital space and stands up against digital violence and its consequences at both social and political levels.” One of the ways in which HateAid does this is by monitoring the digital space for “hate speech” and, when it’s found, tipping off the authorities. This often results in a predawn raid by the Polizei to arrest the offender. This, mind you, by way of strengthening democracy.

What a contrast to backward, unenlightened America, where the First Amendment prohibits such interventions against “digital violence”! Need I add that Ms. Alfonsi received this information with every sign of approval? “Germany is trying to bring some civility to the World Wide Web by policing it,” she gushed. Well, fine: the Gestapo, the Stasi, and now HateAid. That’s some liberal democracy you’ve got there, meine Damen und Herren.

But the German Way is extremely popular on the American Left, which can’t quite wrap its mind around the idea that voices opposed to the politics and policies of the Left are entitled to a hearing. The comrades reject the fundamental assumption behind the First Amendment: that government regulation of speech is illiberal and undemocratic. For them, politics is a postmodern morality play, a battle of good versus evil: Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc, as Mr. Orwell put it.

Scene Two: Trump Trashes Ukraine

The Resistance went bonkers after President Trump signaled that he might be prepared to throw Ukraine under the bus. When Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy expressed skepticism about Trump’s attempt to craft a peace agreement with Russia, the latter launched an intemperate tirade in which he told lie after lie—claiming, for example, that the present war was actually started by Ukraine and that Zelenskyy refused to make a deal to stop it. Oh, and also the Ukrainian president is a dictator with a four percent approval rating who’s robbing America blind.

It’s possible of course, that Trump was merely indulging in a momentary fit of pique. He generally reacts badly when crossed and besides, for him the political is always the personal. I have no doubt that his animus toward Ukraine and its president has much to do with the Democrats’ first attempt to impeach him—which involved, you’ll recall, that “perfect phone call” with Zelenskyy. But his utterly false, not to say nonsensical, rant about the Russo-Ukrainian War is an ominous sign

Trump may also be coming to the realization that there’s really no peace deal to be had. So far at least, he appears to have ranged America on the side of Russia, sidelining Ukraine and our European allies. But without them no deal agreed to by Trump and V. Putin can be made to stick. Perhaps the President thinks that he has leverage over Ukraine. But no: He’s squandered that leverage by making it clear that come what may, American aid to Ukraine is going to be ended. You can’t threaten someone with something that’s going to happen anyway.

Once all this becomes clear to Trump, I expect him simply to wash his hands of the Russo-Ukrainian War. His line will be that a European war is a European problem, so the Europeans should handle it. It’ll be fascinating to see how he squares that position with continued US membership in NATO.

One final note: While I understand and share the Resistance’s outrage over Trump’s abandonment of the Ukraine commitment, I don’t get why they’re acting so surprised. After all, Trump’s doing what he said he’d do—or if you prefer, he’s making good on a campaign pledge. Isn’t that democracy in action? And there’s an element of comedy in this as well, for an earlier generation of Democrats and progressives was less than enamored of defense spending and foreign commitments. Long than before Trump, Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern was crying, “Come home America.” In the Eighties, Democrats decried Ronald Reagan’s hardline policy toward the USSR. And the comrades have never had a problem with abandoning allies: think South Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Ditching inconvenient commitments has been something of a theme for the Democratic Party.

Scene Three: What’s Good for Bureaucracy is Good for the Country

Last week I had a most interesting and revealing exchange with an individual on Substack who described himself as a “professional civil servant.” You’ll not be surprised to learn that he was bitterly opposed to President Trump’s DOGE initiative, which he called a threat to “our democracy.” But his reasoning was…innovative.

When I pointed out that the president of the United States is the head of the executive branch of government, I was haughtily informed that such is not case. Having taken an oath to the Constitution our corps of bureaucrats are not really subordinate to the chief executive. The president does not make policy, you see. Congress does that, and creates various departments, agencies, boards, etc. to enact its policies. This, my interlocutor informed me, even applies to foreign policy. Is not the federal government’s warmaking power vested in the legislative branch? Has not Congress power to ratify or reject treaties? No, he claimed, the president is not the head of the executive branch. He has no power to supervise its activities.

Now, if all this is true, it follows that Elon Musk—nobody elected him, remember!—has any business reviewing or questioning the doings of “civil servants,” who operate in accordance with congressionally mandated policies and their own code of ethics. What President Trump and his minions are doing is illegal, unconstitutional, a crime against humanity.

And of course, when I ventured to question all this, the atmosphere grew tense. I found myself being mocked as a “fuckwit” and reviled as a fascist. When “professional civil servants” are challenged on their claim that the administrative state is autonomous fourth branch of government, they really get their knickers in a twist.

The Resistance’s denunciations of DOGE are somewhat incoherent, but I think it’s fair to say that they’re grounded in the ideas promoted by my potty-mouthed hero of the bureaucratic Resistance. That’s unsurprising. Democrats and progressives constitute the party of government— more specifically, the party of the bureaucracy. One can see why. Deeply unpopular policies like DEI and “gender-affirming care” for minors are best enacted behind the curtain via the machinery of the administrative state. As the DOGE audit of USAID revealed, all sorts of questionable spending can be smuggled into an agency’s budget, with no specific congressional approval or oversight. It can be taken for granted, I think, that Congress never authorized a couple of million dollars for a DEI musical production in Ireland.

This is the sleazeball reality behind all the sobbing and handwringing over DOGE’s investigation of our de facto fourth branch of government. The “professional ethics” of our “professional civil servants” express themselves in the form of a gross abuse of discretion. That’s what the Resistance is defending—and that’s why Trump is likely to win the argument.

---

You’ll note that in this article I didn’t bother with the Resistance’s core Trump = Hitler argument. I’ve already delt with and disposed of that one not once but many times, for instance here. I come not to praise or denounce Trump, but to assess him with such objectivity as I can muster. Some of the things he’s doing are good and necessary, some are questionable, and some are downright bad. None of them, however, bring America anywhere near civil war or a fascist takeover. And the Resistance only harms its case against Trump with hysterical blather about fascism, regime change, chaos—on and on, ad nauseam, straight down the rabbit hole. One has only to observe one of the Democratic Party’s pathetically stupid anti-DOGE rallies to realize that.