How Could Even the Most Pessimistic Predictions Not Be Pessimistic Enough?
When writing a column like this one, it is no longer possible to provide a manageably short list of the unprecedented things that are happening in the United States without leaving out some profoundly disturbing horrors. Indeed, as I wrote yesterday, there are now so many awful things happening that people would necessarily have trouble choosing the "this" that best fits the rhetorical question: "How is this not the only thing that we are talking about?" My pick in that column was the attack on an apartment building in Chicago last week by ICE agents. The agents brutalized everyone in the building, not even bothering to pay attention to who their actual supposed targets were -- which, of course, suggests that in fact any person they happen to come across is their target.
The central idea of yesterday's column was that the Trump people are obsessed with cinematic tropes and stale conventions that they have seen in movies and other pop culture. Their goal seems to be to harm people as part of a garish attempt to look cool and tough. I then noted that we can, in fact, learn some lessons by comparing movie versions of that kind of shocking raid -- armed-to-the-hilt agents rappelling through windows and ceilings into people's homes, grabbing innocent victims under false pretenses, and all the rest -- with what the Trump agents did in real life in Chicago. I focused in particular on the 1985 dystopian film "Brazil," which included a scene that was at the time clearly intended to depict the most unthinkably cruel version of a fascistic government attacking its own citizens. I pointed out, however, that the movie version inadvertently depicted government goons who were more restrained and more humane than the people who have been set loose on American streets -- and now allowed (encouraged? ordered?) to invade private residences.
As long as we are thinking about movie/TV comparisons, it is worth noting two further echoes that do not bode well for our future. "A Clockwork Orange," in which Stanley Kubrick set the standard for bleak cinematic political cautionary tales, focuses on a small group of thugs who lack all humanity and compassion. Although the most memorable clip from the movie is surely the scene in which the main character is strapped down with his eyelids held open, one of the grim jokes at the end of the film lands when he discovers that his former partners in brutal crime have been hired to be police officers.
And in real life, the headline on an article Slate in July read: "A Former ICE Official Is Worried the Agency Is About to Go on a Spree of Hiring Proud Boys." Meanwhile, a Guardian headline in April told us: "Trump officials increasingly recruit local police for immigration enforcement despite ‘red flags,’" detailing how a North Carolina county's police force went from being sanctioned for beating suspects, blatant racism, and embezzlement to being invited to partner with ICE.
And there is (at least) one more stranger-than-fiction comparison. "Watchmen," a comic book series that was turned into a much-disliked movie and then a harrowing and acclaimed 2019 HBO series, depicts "an America where police, costumed vigilantes, and hate groups all wear masks to protect their 'secret identities,' where anonymity leads to the corruption of power, and where those identities become dangerously blurred." Although I am highly skeptical of AI generated search answers (a "feature" that I have not been able to turn off in my browser), the answer to the question "In 'Watchmen,' why did the police wear masks?" included this:
The masks serve as a central symbol in the series, exploring the complex and often corrupting relationship between anonymity and power.
- Corruption of authority: The masks grant anonymity to those who are already wielding institutional power. The series shows how this unchecked power can enable abuse, racism, and fascism, and how the "heroes" of the system can be just as dangerous as those who rage against it.
- Blurring lines: By having police, vigilantes (like Angela Abar), and hate groups all wear masks, the show intentionally blurs the line between who is "good" and who is "bad". This raises questions about whether the rule of law is truly just when its enforcers operate in anonymity.
As with "Brazil," however, today's reality is worse than the fictional story. In "Watchmen," the masks became part of the uniform of law enforcement after a truly devastating massacre (evocatively called the White Night) of police officers and their families in their homes. (Even with that backstory, however, the wearing of masks is shown to dehumanize the surviving officers and lead them to commit horrific acts.). In real life, there has been no such event, even though Trump people claim nonstop that peaceful protesters are dangerous threats to heavily armed federal troops.
I do find it surprising that such anonymity has not (yet, I assume) led to an outbreak of chaotic vigilantism by people with any of a range of beefs against society. We know that the Trumpists have aggressively defended the masking of their agents and continue to allow people to be disappeared by un-badged people in unmarked vehicles. When anyone at all can say that they "don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!" what could possibly go wrong?
The title of this column refers to the broader context in which all of these horrible things are happening. That is, even those of us who have for years been accurately describing Trump and his followers' beliefs, goals, and policies never saw how bad this could be when it became a reality. All the way back in June of 2016, I wrote this in a Verdict column:
The worry, of course, is that Trump is the leading edge of a movement that would elevate taking misdirected action above all else, unfettered by constitutional limitations. He has already indicated his disdain for the federal judiciary and the press, and it is difficult to imagine that he would be moved by inconvenient facts about, for example, the prohibitive costs or basic inhumanity of trying to hunt down and deport millions of families.
Nor has Trump ever shown any awareness that his supposed solutions (which are, in their details, always changing) would be too costly or simply could not be done at all. Instead, he responds to such substantive criticism by hurling personal insults at people he dislikes.
Why was what I wrote there so lacking in specifics -- vague, even? ("Misdirected action"? Seriously, Professor Buchanan?) Part of it was simply a matter of not wanting or needing to explain specifically how, for example, a complete lack of respect for due process might play out. Even when I wrote about the specter of Trump-inspired concentration camps and the disruptions that would be caused by the sheer scale of what would have to be done to fill those camps, it would have seemed outlandish to predict anything resembling what happened in Chicago last week or what the Trumpists have done to Kilmar Abrego Garcia (or, for that matter, the US reliance on El Salvador's gulag prison).
But the larger reason for the insufficiently pessimistic predictions from those of us who were plenty pessimistic is surely that we did not anticipate how readily the Supreme Court would roll over and give Trump's most extreme advisors running room. When Trump sent troops to Los Angeles over the summer, for example, it seemed almost certain that there would be a back-and-forth and some tense days and weeks as we waited to see whether Trump's people would step over a clearly and recently drawn judicial line in the sand. We could not have expected lines never to be drawn, or in the few cases where they were, for the Trumpists figuratively to blow up the entire freakin' beach.
After I published my column yesterday, a frequent reader sent me the following message: "We also need to keep in mind the Child Narcissist's speech to 800 military generals and admirals about 'the enemy within.' It seems to me that democracy is at its breaking point, and the people who enable the 'march' are breathtaking. I find this whole horror truly disturbing." Indeed. While it was possible to imagine a lot of terrible things happening, Trump's attempt to induce the American military to use American cities as "training grounds" never would have occurred to me in a million years.
And as long as we are thinking about what one would not have expected, how is it possible that Trump's top anti-immigrant advisor Steven Miller is now being sent out to defend the Administration's policies on TV? As I put it to someone in a recent conversation: "Who in the world -- even someone who agrees with Miller on the substance -- would want him to be the public face of those policies? I can't think of Miller talking without the word 'screeching' coming immediately to mind."
As bad as Karoline Leavitt and Kristi Noem are, it is easy to see why they are out there defending the indefensible. But Miller? That alone tells us how much worse things are than we thought they would be, because the more we see him on our screens, the less possible it is to believe that the Trumpists care about how all of this looks. And that means that the backlash that might yet come will not end well. Can I be specific about what "not end well" might mean? Absolutely not. My powers of imagination have been exposed as being far too limited to keep up with reality.
- Neil H. Buchanan