A war on competence has been waged in the United States for the past eight years and nowhere has it been pursued with more intensity than in Collier County, Fla.
In this year’s primary election, the citizens of Collier County will decide what they value more: expertise, experience, and integrity or anger, fury and fanaticism.
The issue of ability and fitness for office is one that transcends party or political philosophy. Do people want their local government and school board run well or badly? Do they value people who have dedicated their lives to public service or people who have never before handled public affairs?
The dividing line in making these endorsements is not political party or ideology; rather, it is competence versus non-competence, or uncertain competence or, in the case of at least one current officeholder, proven incompetence.
That is not to say there aren’t larger issues at stake as well: Do voters want to maintain the Bill of Rights’ wall of separation between church and state in their government and schools or allow religious indoctrination and dogma to reign? Do they want public health decisions made on the basis of science and research or suspicion and ignorance? Do they want to move forward in time or retreat into an imagined past?
Since its launch in 2018, The Paradise Progressive has argued that endorsing candidates is the duty of any publication or media outlet that regularly and responsibly covers elections and those who seek office.
That especially holds true today.
And so, in keeping with that principle, this article presents endorsements for candidates on the ballot on Aug. 20 and the reasoning behind them.
What is unique is that these endorsements cover both the Republican and Democratic primaries, since some offices will be determined in the closed primaries of their respective parties (and since readers are members of both parties).
This article does not endorse in all primary races but does provide some notes and observations on the candidates in the races where it does not take a position.
As its name implies, The Paradise Progressive approaches its coverage from a particular political perspective. For thorough, unbiased and neutral information about all these races and candidates, see Sparker’s Soapbox, whose author, Sandy Parker, does an outstanding job providing a comprehensive and objective overview.
These endorsements cover Collier County. A subsequent article will cover endorsements in Lee County. They are in the order that they appear on ballots.
US Senate
Republican nominee for US Senator
There is no endorsement for a Republican nominee. The incumbent, Sen. Rick Scott, has repeatedly demonstrated egregious incompetence in ways that harmed the state and people he represents. He has also called for sunsetting the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs on which many Southwest Floridians depend.
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a committed, articulate, energetic activist who has served in the US House of Representatives. She can be expected to do an outstanding job representing Florida and all its citizens in the US Senate.
Downs is the incumbent Property Appraiser and has served in that office in one capacity or another since 1994. She has demonstrated competence and a steady hand, making incremental improvements to the office that will continue if re-elected.
Blazier has the experience, knowledge and—most of all—integrity to continue to conduct clean, honest and accurately counted elections in Collier County.
It’s very difficult to render judgments on judges who are supposed to make objective, unbiased decisions based on the law on a case-by-case basis.
In this instance both sitting judges have records unblemished by accusations of ethical lapses or improper behavior. Nothing in their records indicates any unfitness for office or reasons for discontinuation of their service.
Krier briefly came into political prominence in Southwest Florida from 2020 to 2022 when she adjudicated a lawsuit brought by congressional candidate Casey Askar against Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.). Askar charged that Donalds had defamed him but Krier ruled that he hadn’t done so with malice and Askar lost the case. Her ruling appeared sound and reasonable. (The full story and coverage of the ruling can be read at “The Donalds Dossier: Putin’s pal; an address mess; and a legal laurel—Updated.”)
School Board (non-partisan)
Endorsements:
Stephanie Lucarelli (District 2)
Erick Carter (District 4)
Both of these incumbent candidates have demonstrated expertise, care and commitment to the education of Collier County students. Both have served responsibly and conscientiously and attended to the nuts and bolts of the county schools. Both are rational, reasonable and sensible. Their service is informed with the experience of office and their own backgrounds.
Lucarelli was a professional teacher before moving to Naples in 2002. She taught in Collier County schools as a guest teacher and volunteered in a variety of capacities. She has a long and proven interest in education.
Erick Carter’s interest in education traces back to his experience as a ballroom dance instructor and training at Lorenzo Walker Technical College.
Their opponents are typical of an uninformed, ideologically-driven opposition threatening sensible, secular Florida public education that prioritizes the best interests of Collier County students.
Notes on other races (without endorsements)
US House District 26
Incumbent Republican Mario Diaz-Balart is running for his 12th term in this district, which stretches from Hialeah and Doral in Miami-Dade County in the east to inland Collier County, roughly along I-75 in the west and includes the towns of Immokalee and Ave Maria.
Diaz-Balart has been in office so long he is the longest-serving member of all of Florida’s congressional representatives. He was first elected to the US House in 2002. He has risen to chair the powerful Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs, which oversees all US foreign aid programs.
He is running against opponents who have no prior legislative or political experience.
Florida House District 81
Florida House District 81 runs along the coast in Collier County from Immokalee Road in Naples to Goodland south of Marco Island. Its western boundary is I-75, Collier Blvd., and Rt. 41.
The candidates are Yvette Benarroch and Greg Folley.
Benarroch is co-owner of a landscaping company with her husband. She’s a US Air Force veteran. She heads the Collier County chapter of Moms for Liberty. She claims to have previously worked on political campaigns for Ron DeSantis and Byron Donalds.
Greg Folley, a retired corporate executive and lawyer, has served on the Marco Island City Council since 2020, worked on the White House staff under President Ronald Reagan and has served on numerous corporate and charitable boards. Folley has far more management and government experience than Benarroch.
Collier County Republican State Committeeman
Douglas Rankin is running for State Committeeman. He’s a longstanding, traditional Republican who was very active in the county Party and served in the committeeman position from 2008 to 2020. In 2020 he was ousted as State Committeeman by Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, who was riding high on his defiance of COVID-19 precautions and county public health measures.
Rankin is running against Frank Schwerin, a retired doctor. Schwerin is endorsed by Oakes.
Collier County Republican State Committeewoman
JoAnn DeBartolo, the incumbent, is an actively pro-Trump, long-time conservative Republican activist.
Southwest Florida would face fiscal blow after nature’s damage
A victim of Hurricane Ian in Venice, Fla., hugs a federal officer in gratitude for his help as part of the national response after the storm in 2022. (Photo: CBP/ Glenn Fawcett)
Aug. 1, 2024 by David Silverberg
Updated Aug. 2.
While the head of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has departed, the ideas his Project proposes for completely remaking the federal government remain and could be implemented if Donald Trump is elected president a second time.
These changes would directly affect Southwest Florida in the event of a disaster like a hurricane—and one may be on the way as this is written. Today, Aug. 1, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) declared a state of emergency in 54 of Florida’s 67 counties in anticipation of a storm coming from the Caribbean Sea.
Among Project 2025’s proposals are changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which would impose new and heavily burdensome costs on local governments and reduce federal support.
Changes at Project 2025
Project 2025 is a sweeping, 887-page tome of recommendations for presidential and legislative changes to be made under a conservative president, in this case, upon the election of Donald Trump. It is authored by the conservative, Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation think-tank. The proposals were accompanied by a drive that included recruitment of personnel, training for those people and a 180-day Playbook for immediate implementation should there be a change of administrations.
As people become familiar with its contents, it is increasingly a target for Democrats and critics alarmed by its radical proposals.
Although Trump campaign operatives repeatedly called on the Heritage Foundation to stop promoting Project 2025 as part of the campaign, the Heritage Foundation did not do so, leading to a rift between the camps.
“Friends and patriots: to every thing there is a season. We completed what we set out to do, which was to create a unified conservative vision, bringing together over 110 leading organizations united behind the cause of deconstructing the administrative state,” Dans wrote in an email to Heritage and Project 2025 staff.
“This tool was built for any administration dedicated to conservative ideals to utilize. The work of the project was due to wrap with the nominating conventions of the political parties. Our work is presently winding down, and I planned later in August to leave Heritage. Electoral season is upon us, and I want to direct all my efforts to winning bigly,” Dans wrote.
Despite Dans’ departure, the work of Project 2025 is expected to continue, as confirmed by Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation.
“Project 2025 will continue our efforts to build a personnel apparatus for policymakers of all levels—federal, state, and local,” Roberts stated in an X posting.
While Trump has denied and dismissed Project 2025, much of it was written by former officials in his administration and it is endorsed by Sen. James David “JD” Vance (R-Ohio), his vice presidential running mate. Vance wrote the foreword to an upcoming book written by Roberts based on Project 2025.
Moreover, if Trump is elected, his army of loyalists, enablers and aspirants will no doubt use Project 2025 as their policy roadmap regardless of what he says—and therein lies its potential impact on Southwest Florida.
Targeting FEMA
If changes proposed by Project 2025 are made to FEMA, Southwest Florida cities and towns would incur a far heavier financial burden for disaster preparedness, response and recovery than at present.
The proposals would especially impact this region vulnerable to hurricanes, algal blooms, wildfires and other natural disasters. This is especially relevant in the midst of what is expected to be a very active hurricane season.
Under Project 2025’s proposals, Southwest Florida communities—and all American communities—would have to bear a far larger proportion of the expense of a disaster or meet deductibles, as in the private insurance market.
Lee County communities just went through the trauma and uncertainty of retaining a discount for flood insurance, which if lost would have been extremely costly to local homeowners. The Project 2025 proposals would be similarly costly to local governments, which would have to pass on the costs to residents in new taxes to provide the funding for recovery.
A quick primer on the current system
To fully understand the impact and nature of Project 2025’s proposals, it helps to be familiar with the existing FEMA system of disaster response and support for individuals and communities.
The current FEMA system is fundamentally based on the belief that the American government has a duty to assist its citizens and communities when disasters occur that are beyond their immediate ability to handle. While it regards this as an integral role for the federal government, it relies on states and localities to first respond to the degree they can before relying on federal help.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is the law that defines and determines what officially constitutes a disaster. It also sets out the authorities and responsibilities of different federal agencies in responding to disasters.
The law was first passed by Congress as the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 and then substantially amended by then-Sen. Robert Stafford of Vermont in 1988. It has been amended further as definitions were refined and different forms of disaster added.
(Of relevance to Southwest Florida has been the effort, started under then-Rep. Francis Rooney in June 2019, to include harmful algal blooms as officially designated disasters. Rooney’s successor, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.), although reintroducing the bill as the Combat Harmful Algal Blooms Act (HR 1008), has not pursued it with any effort during his time in office.)
When a disaster strikes, state and local officials determine if they need federal assistance. If they do, they put in a request for aid and the President (actually, FEMA and the Office of the President) approves the request and makes a disaster or emergency declaration. A major disaster declaration allows a wide variety of assistance, while an emergency declaration provides federal supplements for local efforts, for example to stave off a worse disaster or protect property and public health.
There are three types of federal assistance:
Individual Assistance helps individual survivors with immediate needs like shelter and repairs.
Public Assistance is a government-to-government program. It provides federal grants to state, local, tribal and territorial governments. It helps with a wide variety of activities like restoring public infrastructure and providing life-saving emergency protection.
Hazard Mitigation helps with the rebuilding of communities to be stronger, more resilient and prepared for future hazards.
Of great importance to Southwest Florida is federal assistance for debris removal, which has been a major expense for all communities hit by hurricanes.
After the immediate response, FEMA aids communities with their rebuilding and recovery. This is guided by the National Disaster Recovery Framework.
The Lee County experience
The impact and importance of federal support can be seen in Lee County in the aftermath of 2022’s Hurricane Ian.
The Lee County government put the estimated cost of Hurricane Ian in the county at $297.3 million. Over half of this was for debris removal, whose cost came to $156.3 million.
According to Lee County, FEMA approved $477.7 million in Individual Assistance. That included $299 million for repair and replacement assistance and $6 million in rental assistance for 23,704 households. Moreover, 775 households were approved for direct housing assistance.
When it came to Public Assistance, Lee County received $293.9 million in funding. This aided in repairing the Fort Myers Beach Water Reclamation Facility, lift stations for sewage flow, repairing the Lee County Sports Complex and Jet Blue Park, and the Bonita and Lover’s Key beaches.
Looking toward the future from 2023 when Lee County’s report was written, it was estimated that improving and rebuilding Lee County communities would cost $293.9 million, which would be covered under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
These were substantial funds provided to Lee County by FEMA. They have made the rebuilding of communities like Fort Myers Beach possible at a much faster pace than would be otherwise possible.
Project 2025 would change that.
What Project 2025 would—or wouldn’t—do
The changes to FEMA are contained in the section of Project 2025 that covers homeland security, since FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
This section appears under the byline of Ken Cuccinelli.
Project 2025 observes that while FEMA is the lead agency for preparing and responding to disasters, “it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt.”
Project 2025 blames the Stafford Act for a shift in disaster response from the states and localities to the federal government and complains that FEMA is too “state-friendly.”
In particular, it takes aim at a “per capita indicator.” The indicator gives FEMA the authority to set a threshold below which states and localities are ineligible for public assistance, i.e., the level under which a community won’t get FEMA assistance if its damages are too small.
FEMA, argues Project 2025, sets the indicator so that most communities will get FEMA assistance.
What is more, it states, the indicator has “failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed.”
Project 2025’s solution is to make it tougher to get federal aid.
“FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin,” it states.
If the indicator can’t be raised there’s another option: “Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities.”
“In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 percent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters.”
In other words, states and localities should bear the greatest financial burden for disaster preparation, response, recovery and resilience and that’s where Project 2025 would put it.
For Southwest Florida, this would be…well, in a word…a disaster.
The impact
Under Project 2025 communities already reeling under the devastation of a disaster would be hit with far higher costs and financial burdens for response and recovery than at present. They could look to FEMA for assistance but that assistance would be much lower and more grudging than at present.
FEMA would go from “state-friendly” to “state-stingy.”
Imagine Lee County in the wake of Hurricane Ian under Project 2025 guidelines.
Lee County would have had to bear the cost for most of the $297.3 million in damages from the hurricane. It would have been a staggering burden; in fact, it could have driven the county into bankruptcy—or at the very least the recovery would be even slower and more painful than at present. People would suffer longer. As it is, Lee County’s recovery has been agonizingly slow for some people. Under Project 2025, it wouldn’t recover for decades.
The other Project 2025 alternative, having communities pay deductibles, would be equally burdensome. At a time when their communities were flattened by hurricanes or tornadoes and digging out, towns and cities would be ineligible for aid at the very moment they need it most unless they met arbitrary deductible thresholds.
Lastly, imagine a system in which “small” disasters get only 25 percent in federal support. Was Hurricane Ian a “small” disaster or a “truly catastrophic disaster?” Anyone on the ground knew it was truly catastrophic—but in the full spectrum of disasters handled by FEMA it might not be considered such and so would not have gotten the support for a full recovery. Every new disaster would leave devastated populations wondering: was this “a truly catastrophic disaster” that will get federal help?
The evolution of caring
In 1927 President Calvin Coolidge included this in his annual message to Congress:
“The Government is not the insurer of its citizens against the hazard of the elements. We shall always have flood and drought, heat and cold, earthquake and wind, lightning and tidal wave, which are all too constant in their afflictions. The Government does not undertake to reimburse its citizens for loss and damage incurred under such circumstances. It is chargeable, however, with the rebuilding of public works and the humanitarian duty of relieving its citizens from distress.”
Coolidge was writing in the midst of a truly horrendous Mississippi River flood that devastated the states along its banks and displaced millions of people.
Throughout that disaster, which lasted over months, he refused to visit the site of the floods, wouldn’t request additional appropriations from Congress, wouldn’t make any appeals for voluntary donations and for all intents and purposes ignored the whole event.
It’s a response unthinkable today. But he was reflecting the attitudes of the time. People were on their own, he was saying, and so were their towns, counties and states.
That attitude changed with the Great Depression and the New Deal.
The Great Depression was a natural disaster only in that evoked natural feelings of panic and fear. But it was a disaster that overwhelmed people and even their best individual efforts had virtually no effect.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt altered the national attitude. For the first time the federal government felt an obligation to aid its citizens in their times of need, when they couldn’t cope with a disaster with the tools at hand. (For a full history, see the author’s book, Masters of Disaster: The Political and Leadership Lessons of America’s Greatest Disasters, available on Amazon Kindle.)
More specifically, each natural disaster has led to greater federal involvement to help people crushed by overwhelming events.
In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Disaster Relief Act authorizing federal assistance if a governor requested help and the president approved by declaring a major disaster.
In 1974, after tornadoes struck across 10 states resulting in six federal disaster declarations, Congress passed the Disaster Relief Act.
Then, in 1980, after Mount St. Helens erupted and blanketed parts of the West in volcanic ash, for the first time the federal government assumed 75 percent of the cost of the recovery.
The capstone was the 1988 passage of the Stafford Act, which has been updated since.
Commentary: Project 2025 makes Americans vulnerable again
Project 2025 is critical of FEMA from a banker’s perspective. It correctly points out that FEMA’s emergency fund sometimes gets low. In the Project’s view, that is because FEMA is overly generous to states and localities.
But when this last happened, in August 2023, it was because FEMA was handling multiple disasters including Hurricane Idalia—which especially hit Florida—and wildfires in Maui, Hawaii. As a result its funding had to be replenished by an emergency appropriation of tax dollars.
(It should also be noted that Southwest Florida’s congressman, Rep. Byron Donalds, has consistently voted against appropriations bills that would replenish FEMA funding.)
What the Project 2025 analysis neglects is that FEMA is not a bank. It does not operate a profit and loss balance sheet. It doesn’t charge interest.
FEMA’s mission is to “help people before, during and after disasters.” That means assisting them when they’re in need and usually at the worst times of their lives. It’s not a loan or a handout.
Federal disaster assistance is one of the greatest benefits of being an American citizen.
What’s more, it is what a citizen’s taxes buy. As has been said in these pages before, taxes are a two-way street. A citizen pays into the general pot but gets appropriate benefits as needed.
In this case people’s taxes buy them help when they need it as a result of a natural disaster.
There’s nothing wrong with that, nor is there anything wrong with replenishing FEMA’s emergency funds when there are so many disasters that those funds run low.
Lastly, as for FEMA failing to promote state and local preparedness and response, as Project 2025 charges, the Project’s authors might ask the city officials of Cape Coral, Bonita Springs, Fort Myers Beach and Lee County whether FEMA insists on local preparedness, readiness and resilient rebuilding.
Project 2025 wants to leave American citizens, states, territories, tribes, counties, cities and towns financially naked and vulnerable to natural disasters. It wants to go back to Calvin Coolidge’s cold indifference to Americans’ suffering and return to a time when there was no federal help of any kind.
Moreover, it wants to do this at a time when climate change is making disasters of all sorts more frequent, more intense, and more devastating—and there is no longer any reversing this, it is the new normal. The state of Florida may think it can eliminate climate change by banning mention of it in textbooks and official documents but that’s not the way reality works, as its current state of emergency demonstrates.
Project 2025 is correct in one assertion: FEMA is indeed “overtasked.” But far from gutting FEMA and its capacity to help Americans and their towns and cities, FEMA needs buttressing and support. It already has a big mission and that mission is only going to get bigger.
If Donald Trump is elected and Project 2025 implemented by his sycophants, enablers and loyalists, when it comes to disasters they won’t make America great again.
Instead, they’ll make it weaker, more vulnerable and more devastated— and they’ll do it in Southwest Florida just as much as they’ll do it everywhere else they can.
That is, unless the American people stop Project 2025 at the ballot box this November.
To subscribe to FEMA’s Daily Operations Briefing, click here. This free service provides a daily overview of American disasters, hazards and FEMA responses. (It’s especially informative during hurricane season.)
Supporters of Collier County Supervisor of Elections Melissa Blazier march this year in the Naples, Fla., July 4th parade. Blazier has been the target of disinformation from opponents. (Photo: Author)
July 28, 2024 by David Silverberg
Updated July 30 with full image of CCREC posting.
As the days count down to the August 20 primary election in Collier County, Fla., the campaigning is getting uglier, nastier and more unforgiving.
In this overwhelmingly Republican county (139,305 Republicans, 52,342 Democrats and 66,915 others as of July 27) the Republican primary will serve as the general election for a number of important races.
As a result, the outcome is more unpredictable than usual in what is normally a quiet and sleepy tropical corner of the Sunshine State—and as the stakes rise, the discourse sinks.
In particular, there is a rift between many longstanding Republicans who say they are in the majority versus Make America Great Again (MAGA) Republicans on the official Collier County Republican Executive Committee (CCREC, henceforth referred to here as the REC).
The REC is dominated by Francis Alfred “Alfie” Oakes III, the extremely conservative grocer and farmer, and chaired by John Meo, a Naples financial manager.
The battle has become bitter, personal and in some cases, overtly fraudulent.
False flyers and fake texts
The Collier County Supervisor of Election race is a key contest. After all, as Josef Stalin once said: “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything”—so the battle is on to be the one who counts the votes.
All are Republicans. In particular, Blazier is a member of the Naples Republican Club, Republican Women of Southwest Florida Federated, and the Women’s Republican Club. Guerrette has been a Republican for over 30 years.
But that hasn’t stopped the REC, which backs Schaffel, from sending out a text messsage accusing Blazier of being a Democrat and Guerrette of being a RINO (Republican in name only).
The REC-issued text message putting false labels on Supervisor of Elections candidates it opposes. (Image: CCREC).
“Tens of thousands of Republican voters received confusing and fraudulent messages meant to dupe voters,” Elias reported.
In the report both Blazier and Guerrette denied being anything other than Republicans.
However, “The attacks don’t stop there,” Elias pointed out. “Another flier went out to voters, making it appear that the Republican Party endorsed Guerrette instead of Schaffel.”
When the PAC sent out its list of endorsements on June 27 and denounced REC-endorsed candidates as unqualified for the positions they were seeking, REC Chair John Meo sent out his own text message to Republicans on July 17.
John Meo (Photo: CCREC)
In it he denounced the PAC and another conservative political action committee, Collier First PAC, which endorsed Guerrette in the Supervisor of Elections race. He also alleged that the dissident PACs were violating the law by making endorsements without REC approval.
“While these clear violations are under investigation by law enforcement and the Republican Party of Florida, I feel it is imperative to remind you that you should ONLY trust messages coming directly from the Collier County Republican Party,” he wrote.
“Unfortunately, these Never-Trump dark money groups are pushing candidates who have NOT been endorsed by the Republican Party,” he stated.
This message prompted a blistering response from Diane Van Parys, a Naples resident, president of Republican Women of Southwest Florida Federated and the immediate past president of the Florida Federation of Republican Women.
“Last time I checked, John, neither you nor the CCREC control who Republican’s vote for,” she wrote in an e-mail that was copied to 300 other local Republicans. “In the United States the ballot and the Democratic process of elections takes place. A primary is the process of vetting all the Republican Candidates and many of us are able to make a decision on who we choose as the best candidate(s) and vote accordingly without the CCREC’s assistance.
“The fact that you libeled yourself by labeling a Collier County Constitutional Officer /Supervisor of Elections a Democrat is reason enough to request you to resign your position as Chairman of the CCREC. You have proven once again that your lack of knowledge and blatant lies should not be tolerated by the CCREC any longer. Labeling another candidate a RINO who is a 30 year registered Republican is disgraceful.”
She made a particular point of contesting Meo’s point that the independent PACs had somehow broken the law.
“Chairman Meo, the fact that you are threatening fellow Republicans –‘We trust that law enforcement will bring the perpetrators to light and expose the frauds that have been posing as our party.’Exactly who do you think you are? You must be a liar, prove me wrong and produce the evidence of your filings on behalf of the CCREC with Law Enforcement.”
Parys also questioned the funding for the REC messages and the fact they were sent out during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, when many of the county’s top Republicans were away from Florida.
She pointed out that in neighboring Lee County, in contrast to Collier, the party executive committee was careful not to endorse candidates in contested intra-party primary elections, although other organizations were free to do so.
Meo’s allegation that “dark money” was being employed and that possible crimes were committed also opened up a whole other area for new allegations and investigation by law enforcement. Van Parys questioned the legality of REC’s spending money to promote its endorsed candidates against other Republicans legitimately seeking Party members’ approval. She also noted that while the REC was threatening the independent PACs it said nothing about Oakes’ Citizens Awake Now (CAN) PAC, which is backing the REC-endorsed candidates.
As of this writing there is less than a month to go until the primary. When it comes to the Collier County Republican Party, activities to watch are whether there will be new potential falsehoods, fraudulent propaganda, accusations, and whether law enforcement investigates possible illegal activity.
The sin of Pride?
The political bitterness has also infected the increasingly heated race for two seats on the Collier County School Board.
In this non-partisan race, incumbents Stephanie Lucarelli (District 2) and Erick Carter (District 4) are being challenged by Pamela Shanouda Cunningham and Tom Henning, both of whom have been endorsed by the REC.
Stephanie Lucarelli. (Photo: CCPS)
Cunningham, 49, who is running against Lucarelli, 50, in District 2, is advocating traditional educational principles. “I am committed to moving CCPS [Collier County Public Schools] away from its progressive educational framework and implementing a traditional educational model,” she states on her campaign website.
An earlier version of the website stated that she was an “unapologetic conservative” and claimed that Collier County children’s futures are “being sold out to big government bureaucrats who want to indoctrinate, not educate; career politicians who want to teach them what to think, not how to think.” She wanted to put “parents in classrooms, not the liberal elite” and “restore greatness to the American classroom.”
Pamela Cunningham. (Photo: Author)
In a recent campaign newsletter Cunningham targeted two Collier County parents who had received awards for their volunteer work from Naples Pride, a volunteer-based grassroots nonprofit organization supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and questioning community.
Megan Titcomb and Amy Perwein had posted a photo of themselves holding awards to their Facebook page.
In a recent campaign newsletter Cunningham targeted two Collier County parents who had received awards for their volunteer work from Naples Pride, a volunteer-based grassroots nonprofit organization supporting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and questioning community. Megan Titcomb and Amy Perwein had posted a photo of themselves holding awards to their Facebook page.
Megan Titcomb and Amy Perwein display their Naples Pride awards in the photo used by Pam Cunningham. (Image: WINK News)
Cunningham used the photo in her campaign newsletter, stating “my opponent and her supporters on the radical left are fighting to fundamentally transform our schools into centers of progressive indoctrination, meanwhile allowing true education to wither.”
Both women were outraged and alarmed by the newsletter and reached out to local media.
“Naples Pride has no affiliation with Collier County public schools,” Titcomb told Naples Daily News reporter Ellessandra Taormino. “The event where the picture was taken was not a school event, and it most certainty had nothing to do with Pam’s opponent, Stephanie Lucarelli.”
“I do not post often on social media and rarely publicly, but I could not remain silent,” Perwien said. “I spoke out because I do not want any other parents to be put in this situation; I sincerely hope that Cunningham reconsiders her campaign tactics.”
Of the two women, she said: “One of them was at the Naples Pride Fest this year on stage making a speech specifically naming me and my platform and asking the people at the Pride Fest to get out to vote for School Board.”
She said the two weren’t just ordinary parents but were “left-wing activists and are active volunteers for my opponent’s campaign.” Cunningham said she was sent the photos by another party, whom she did not name.
Titcomb and Perwein told WINK TV that they had filed an incident report with the Collier County Sheriff’s Department.
Cunningham’s action sparked a furious backlash in the community as reflected in letters to the editor in the Naples Daily News.
“In political contests these days, many of us believe in the phrase, ‘When they go low, we go high,”’ wrote one county resident, Lisa Freund, in a letter. “Well, in this year’s school board election, incumbent Stephanie Lucarelli’s opponent Pam Cunningham has gone lower than low in attacking two friends of mine who are parents and community advocates for equality and education, all in the service of advancing her candidacy. Attacking parents who work with and for the children of CCPS is no way to run an election campaign.”
Analysis: Don’t trust and be sure to verify
As the campaigning clock ticks down to primary Election Day, it seems clear that MAGA REC Republicans are on the defensive and increasingly relying on outright falsehoods, innuendo, intimidation and insults to achieve their ends since a significant, perhaps majority, of county Republicans are rejecting them.
This was put very clearly by PAC Republicans when they issued their own endorsements on June 27 and stated: “While Collier County enjoys competent local governance, replacing experienced officials with angry, inexperienced individuals to address national issues could undermine our community’s standards.” They also rejected the REC’s “authoritarian stance”—i.e., its insistence that Republicans vote only for REC-backed candidates.
This is not the first pushback against REC dictates. In May 2023 School Board Chair Kelly Mason (formerly Lichter), whose election had been supported by Oakes and his CAN PAC, voted to install Leslie Ricciardelli as school superintendent despite Oakes’ opposition. He called her a “traitor” for her vote and sued the school board. This year, the Collier First PAC, whose registered agent is Lauren Maxwell, wife of Commissioner Kowal who was elected with Oakes’ endorsement and support, is supporting Guerrette for Supervisor despite the Oakes endorsement of Schaffel.
The REC is clearly basing its endorsements on loyalty to MAGA ideology rather than proven competence, experience or education. As Oakes put it on the Alfiespatriots.com website and in campaign flyers: “These are the only true patriots I trust to protect Collier County and get America back on track.”
Oakes’ pursuit of ideological loyalty overrides all other considerations and he most directly stated this at his Patriot Fest on March 19, 2022 when he told the assembled crowd: “I don’t want to hear about what IQ someone has or what level of education someone has,” when it came to candidate qualifications. “Common sense and some back is all we need right now.”
In the 2022 election cycle, ideologically loyal candidates were elected: Chris Hall on the Collier County Board of Commissioners in District 2, Dan Kowal in District 4 and Kelly Mason, Jerry Rutherford and Tim Moshier on the School Board.
Now the REC is trying to further install inexperienced, ideologically-driven candidates in positions that could deeply disrupt the effective functioning of Collier County government, elections and schools.
The use of false allegations, innuendo, intimidation and insults appears to be a reflection of a growing desperation by the MAGA-dominated REC. It’s very unsophisticated campaigning that seems impulsive, emotional and even childish.
It also imitates tactics debuted by Republican nominee Donald Trump in the past.
However, while these were novel tactics when Trump used them in his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, this year traditional conservative Collier County Republicans appear to be rejecting them at the local level. This rejection may also reflect simple weariness with the constant barrage of lies, paranoia and authoritarianism that has come to characterize MAGAism.
Ultimately, primary voters will have to exercise rigorous skepticism, discernment and alertness in trying to determine the truth of the candidates, their statements, policies and endorsements. And of course, the real test of the contest between truth and falsehood, and the strength of MAGAs versus traditional Republicans, will be rendered at the ballot box on Aug. 20.
Vice President Kamala Harris and her husband Doug Emhoff arrive on Air Force 2 in Cape Canaveral, Florida for a visit to NASA on Aug. 29, 2022. (Photo: NASA/Bill Ingalls)
July 24, 2024 by David Silverberg
President Joe Biden’s announcement on Sunday, July 21, that he was withdrawing from the presidential race in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris sent a thrill through Democrats and all those who fear and oppose a potential dictatorship under Donald Trump.
Harris’ candidacy is especially important for Florida given the Amendment 4 fight for abortion rights, the state’s demographic trends, and Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ ideological cultural clampdown.
Trump was on a roll in the wake of the July 13 failed assassination attempt and the bump from the Republican National Convention. Biden’s powers appeared to be failing and he seemed unable to carry through the campaign to a must-win victory. His endorsement of the younger, more vigorous Harris turned the trends on their heads.
But how will the new situation affect Florida politically? There’s little hard data so any analysis is necessarily speculative. Still, trends can be discerned and the focus put on key issues.
Amendment 4 impact
Harris seems poised to make a significant difference in the Amendment 4 fight, which cuts across party lines.
She has consistently been an outspoken advocate for women’s reproductive rights throughout her tenure as vice president. In the spring she held a “Fight for Reproductive Freedoms” tour around the country. She especially engaged after Florida’s six-week abortion ban took effect on May 1.
That ban energized Democrats and launched the movement for a state constitutional amendment protecting a woman’s right to choose. Support for the amendment cuts across party lines and polling has shown its support in the realm of 69 percent, well above the 60 percent threshold needed for passage.
Harris at the top of the Democratic ticket has boosted pro-choice supporters across the country but it looks to have an especially electrifying effect in Florida.
Can Harris flip the state?
Despite DeSantis’ overwhelming 2022 electoral victory and election of a Republican super majority in the state legislature, Florida Democratic Party chair Nikki Fried has persistently insisted that Florida is flippable. The Harris nomination gives some credibility to that assertion.
“Vice President Harris keeps Florida in play,” Fried told reporters in a remote press conference. “We are running a former prosecutor against a convicted felon. No one is better prepared than Vice President Harris to prosecute the case against Donald Trump.”
Since the start of the campaign Trump has consistently polled eight to ten percentage points over Biden in the state. The change in the ticket is so new that credible new data isn’t publicly available yet.
For a long time, top national Democratic Party campaigners viewed Florida as a lost cause and Southwest Florida as especially hopeless. Starting in 2016 the region has been a backwater campaign stop, left to secondary surrogates like former President Bill Clinton who visited Immokalee and Fort Myers on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) who visited Fort Myers in 2020 on behalf of the Biden campaign.
On June 24 of this year, Florida Democrats suffered a new blow when Biden campaign Chair Jen O’Malley Dillon contradicted state party assertions and simply stated that Florida wasn’t a battleground state.
This revelation came in response to a question from host John Heilemann in a podcast interview on the channel Puck News. Heilemann asked Dillon if Florida was a battleground state. Dillon answered “no,” prompting Heilemann to joke that he was afraid Dillon was going to lie to the contrary.
Jen O’Malley Dillon is interviewed by John Heilemann on Sept. 13, 2020 for his podcast. (Photo: John Heilemann).
The exchange was characterized as a “gut punch” to Florida Democrats’ hopes and efforts. It also contradicted an April campaign memo from Biden campaign manager Julie Chávez Rodríguez.
“Make no mistake: Florida is not an easy state to win, but it is a winnable one for President Biden, especially given Trump’s weak, cash-strapped campaign, and serious vulnerabilities within his coalition,” she wrote then.
The entire political universe has turned upside down since those statements were made.
The question to be answered in the days ahead is whether or not the Harris candidacy, the efforts of Florida Democrats and a change in the public mood can make Florida more obviously winnable for Democrats.
One thing that hasn’t changed, though: on Monday, July 22, Harris announced that O’Malley will stay on as Chair of her campaign.
This means that Florida Democrats must prove that the head of the Harris campaign is wrong. The only way to do that is to win the state and do it without national help.
Culture wars
DeSantis has made his crusade against “woke” culture the centerpiece of his governorship and had hoped to ride it to the presidency this year.
That ambition fell flat, particularly in the face of Trump’s attacks on him and his own shortcomings.
But DeSantis has kept up the effort rhetorically and financially, as when he vetoed all $32 million in state support for the arts this year.
For example, in August 2023 Harris came to lambast new Florida state curricula teaching the benefits of slavery to the enslaved.
“Right here in Florida, they plan to teach people that enslaved people benefited from slavery,” she said incredulously during that visit. When DeSantis challenged her to debate the issue she responded, “There is no roundtable, no lecture, no invitation we will accept to debate an undeniable fact: There were no redeeming qualities of slavery.”
She took on the entire DeSantis revision of history, saying in July 2023 that he and other conservative politicians “want to replace history with lies.”
“We will not stop calling out and fighting back against extremist so-called leaders who try to prevent our children from learning our true and full history,” she said at the time.
She has also spoken out against book banning and gun violence. In March she traveled to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland to honor the victims of the 2018 shooting.
What to expect
As of this writing it is 104 days (three months and 12 days) to the election. A lot can happen in that time.
Right now Harris is on a roll. Her pending nomination has supercharged Democrats and the media coverage. If all goes as expected she will head into a triumphant convention on August 19 in Chicago and benefit from the traditional convention “bump.”
However, it’s worth remembering that whenever one side is trending, the other side will try to disrupt that trend, especially when the trend seems to be heading toward victory.
The Trump campaign must do everything it can to re-orient itself to running against Harris and it will use every kind of ammunition it can against her—and her husband, Doug Emhoff, and all the members of their extended families.
Rick Wilson, the Florida-based pundit, author, Lincoln Project co-founder, and veteran Republican operative put it well in a blog post, “Karma Comes Knocking for Trump.”
“First, the Trump campaign is still armed and dangerous,” he warned. “Don’t underestimate their cash, cruelty, and [the] determination of Trump to stay out of jail. There is no lower boundary. They can and will fight like the rabid, cornered animals they are.”
He warned that Harris and her campaign will make mistakes. “This is inevitable. She will say something wrong. She will get tired. She will forget a date, a name, or a fact. Campaigns are exhausting.”
As entranced as the media is with her now, they will turn, Wilson warned. “Harris jumped up so fast they naturally want to take her down a notch, and they will.”
Violence is very much a possibility, as illustrated by the attempted assassination of Trump on July 13. Reaching back further in time, it’s worth remembering the killing of another female political leader, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in Pakistan in 2007 when it appeared that she was on her way to electoral victory.
The Secret Service is on high alert but the threat not only remains, it has intensified.
The election battle will also intensify in Florida, playing on emotions that will get meaner and nastier as Election Day approaches. While DeSantis and Trump still dominate the state, they will be fighting to maintain their dominance. They have a war chest, so voters can expect to see plenty of advertising in all mediums attacking Harris, Democrats, Amendment 4 and the marijuana legalization initiative, Amendment 3.
Unless campaign director O’Malley and the national campaign decide that investing in Florida is worthwhile, the Democratic response is likely to be tepid due to funding constraints. Only a truly robust ground campaign can even make a dent in the Republican registration advantage.
Florida Democrats do have some advantages, though. If Harris’ appeal remains strong it may lift all other Democrats down the ballot. Her outspokenness on reproductive rights, healthcare and women’s rights may have a cross-party allure, bringing her independents, the uncommitted and non-Trump Republicans. Anger over the six-week abortion ban and the movement to pass Amendment 4 is already providing a powerful boost to Democratic prospects.
Another factor in Harris’ favor is the fact that Americans appear to have become accustomed to the idea of a female president. When Hillary Clinton ran in 2016 the idea of a woman president was new and for many, scary; particularly that woman. (Even so, she won the popular vote by 2 million votes.) Since then the idea seems to have lost much of its novelty as was shown by the relatively strong showing of former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley in the Republican primaries. Clearly, even many Republicans are now comfortable with the idea of a female president.
Harris has another advantage—and his name is Donald Trump. No poll has measured the weariness, the disgust, and revulsion of voters towards this man. Americans now know the corruption, criminality, and devastation another Trump presidency will bring. The data that’s been made public to date hasn’t measured how many Americans fear the threat he represents to their democracy and rights as individuals. The hatred, prejudice and rage he generates, his meanness, pettiness, and viciousness is unlikely to in any way abate in the days ahead; indeed, it is likely to intensify. Many voters will recoil.
Lastly, Harris is continuing Joe Biden’s fight for the soul of America but with an additional challenge. Like Joan of Arc, she has to do more than just lead; she has to inspire. She needs to elevate the dialogue, raise the level of devotion and then bring it home on Election Day in a clear, unambiguous and decisive victory that puts Trumpist authoritarianism to rest once and for all.
It’s a tall order. Harris has stated that she plans to “earn and win” the nomination of her party. That nomination seems assured. After that she’ll need to “earn and win” the presidency. She’ll certainly have help from every supportive American.
But earning and winning that victory won’t be easy and it’s on that victory that this state, the nation, the world and the arc of all future history depends.
Then-candidate Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in 2020 shortly after he named her his vice presidential running mate. (Photo: Biden campaign)
Then-President Donald Trump basks in the flattery of his Cabinet in a meeting on June 12, 2017. (Photo: Nicholas Kamm/AFP)
July 18, 2024 by David Silverberg
On Feb. 7 of this year, over 700 Southwest Floridians gathered in a Naples church for a conference called “Reduce the Rancor.” It brought together a wide spectrum of people who were sick of the extremism, divisiveness and toxicity of the local political dialogue.
On July 14, the nation had a similar epiphany after the near-assassination of former President Donald Trump in Butler, Pa.
In an address from the Oval Office, President Joe Biden said, “You know, the political rhetoric in this country has gotten very heated. It’s time to cool it down. And we all have a responsibility to do that.”
There’s now much discussion of reducing the rancor in politics nationwide.
But as much as the temperature may turn down, as much as the rhetoric may cool, Americans should not forget or ignore the very real dangers to the nation presented by Donald Trump, his Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement, and Project 2025.
As has been stated many times in these pages, this election is much more than the battle between two candidates: it’s a stark contest between democracy and dictatorship, freedom and tyranny.
What are the dangers from a Trump dictatorship that Americans are facing? Some are psychological. Others are political. Some are constitutional.
The implications need to be explored, no matter how calmly stated. This essay presents some observations but hardly covers the entire spectrum.
Nonetheless, it bears repeating that even if the rancor is turned down, the danger remains and will come to fruition if Donald Trump is elected.
Government by groveling
On June 12, 2017, President Donald Trump’s Cabinet secretaries went around the table in the Cabinet Room of the White House, extravagantly flattering and praising him.
It was an extraordinary display of obsequiousness and debasement from otherwise proud, intelligent, accomplished people. However, Trump’s priority wasn’t the execution of their duties or the priorities of the nation, it was inflation of his ego. The Cabinet, led by chief of staff Reince Priebus, delivered on that, at least for the moment.
On Tuesday night, July 16, at the Republican National Convention, it was the turn of Trump’s former rivals for the presidential nomination to grovel before him.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis once said of Trump, “If he’s running for personal retribution, that is not going to lead to what we need as a country. You got to be running for the American people and their issues, not about your own personal issues and that is a distinction between us.” Trump for his part had dubbed DeSantis “Ron DeSanctimonious.” In Milwaukee, DeSantis changed his criticism to adulation and said of Trump, “We cannot let him down, and we cannot let America down.”
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who once called Trump “a con artist” and said “friends do not let friends vote for con artists,” and whom Trump for his part insulted as “Little Marco,” now praised Trump before the convention for having “inspired a movement” and “transformed” the Republican Party.
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who also served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, once called Trump “unhinged” and “not qualified.” Trump in turn called her “a birdbrain.” Now, after a long fight, she stood before the delegates and said “Donald Trump has my strong endorsement, period.”
And Sen. James David “JD” Vance (R-Ohio), now named Trump’s running mate, who in the past called him “America’s Hitler,” “a cynical asshole,” “reprehensible,” “an idiot,” and “cultural heroin,” now says, “President Trump represents America’s last best hope to restore what if lost may never be found again.”
And so the litany went on, with once-proud politician after once-proud politician, bending the knee, promising subservience, and most of all, groveling before the king.
Time and again Trump has shown that receiving respect is not enough; he demands debasement, he insists on subservience, his subjects must grovel before him. He will extend his insistence on complete submission to all Americans if he comes to power electorally or otherwise.
Where once the power of presidents flowed upward from the consent of the people they governed, under a Trump dictatorship the power will flow downward from his will alone and it will be dictatorial, imperious, and unaccountable, like any king that Americans once rejected.
The threat to women
Donald Trump’s contempt for women has been made abundantly clear throughout the time he has been in the political spotlight.
The public got its first revelation with the infamous Access Hollywood statement in 2016 when he was recorded saying that as a TV star he could do anything: “You can do anything. Grab ‘em by the pussy. You can do anything.” Since then accusations of rape have emerged several times—including of an underage girl he allegedly tied to a bed—and he was held liable in court for the rape of writer E. Jean Carroll.
Trump’s contempt and disparagement of women is likely to spill into the policy realm in a second term.
He has claimed credit for the striking down of Roe v. Wade based on his judicial appointments to the Supreme Court. As he put it at the time: “My Supreme Court justices are great. They had the courage to end Roe v. Wade.”
Although he has opposed a nationwide abortion ban, his promises based on his word are worthless. If elected he will be under pressure from anti-choice forces to enact such a ban and his vice presidential pick is firmly anti-choice.
But there’s no reason to expect that the MAGA movement will stop at abortion. Having rolled back one right, there will always be the possibility that another right could be rolled back and that includes a woman’s right to vote.
With a Trump election the MAGA forces seeking to suppress women will be emboldened and energized and know that they have a friend in the White House. The temptation to enact further restrictions on women will be very strong and they will be seeking new frontiers for suppression.
At the very least, as long as Trump is in power the ability of women to meaningfully engage in public affairs—or even participate at all—will always be under threat.
The end of elections
Donald Trump refused to accept the accurately counted and confirmed results of the 2020 election. He attempted to falsify the results of the Electoral College vote. He attempted to stop the certification of the results by inciting a violent insurrection. He encouraged the lynching of his vice president when thwarted in his illegal demands. He attempted to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. He disparaged and tried to discredit the entire system—the entire notion—of elections as the legitimate mechanism for expressing the people’s will.
The 2024 election could be the last if Trump is elected. He has already refused to commit to accepting the results of this year’s election, when directly asked about it in the June 27 debate.
He was unwilling to give up power when he lost in 2020 and he is likely to seek some means to end presidential elections altogether if he takes office. He will find a way to blow past the two-term limit for presidents (a term limit introduced by a Republican in 1947).
If he wins this year and accepts the notion of a regularly scheduled election in 2028, that one will truly be rigged. It will be the kind of election held by dictators like Saddam Hussein who won his 2002 election with 100 percent of the vote, or Vladimir Putin who won his fifth term in office this year with 88 percent of that vote (after his likely rival, Alexei Navalny, was disqualified and died in prison).
If elected this year, Donald Trump will almost undoubtedly try to find a way to become president for life. His cultic enablers will certainly be complicit.
Aftermath
With Project 2025 as a blueprint, there are innumerable specific actions that are likely to flow from a Trump victory.
To date, no one has better warned of them in a concise manner than the Lincoln Project, an organization of political and media professionals “dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy.” On July 8, the Lincoln Project released a 4-minute, 16-second video called “Aftermath” that provided a preview of a Trump presidency and the measures he is likely to take. The video has its greatest impact when watched but its text is a powerful warning.
Donald Trump defeats a divided and dispirited Democratic campaign.
On January 20th, 2025, Donald Trump is sworn in as the 47th president of the United States.
Unfortunately, he keeps his promises. Trump seizes control of a divided government, signing hundreds of executive orders implementing Project 2025. Trump replaces over 50,000 civil servants with hard-line MAGA loyalists.
The federal oath of office now requires declaring loyalty to the president, not the Constitution.
Protected by the Supreme Court’s grant of total immunity for official acts, Donald Trump orders the Department of Justice to arrest members of the January 6th Commission, current and former DOJ employees, and political opponents for treason, election interference, and conspiracy.
He declares it to be an official act.
Trump ends birthright citizenship by executive order and turns millions of American-born citizens into illegal aliens overnight.
Mass deportations begin. Hundreds of thousands, including legal US residents and American citizens, are imprisoned in newly-built camps.
Protests erupt.
Trump addresses the nation from the Oval Office, invoking the Insurrection Act and declaring the protestors a danger to American sovereignty.
He orders the National Guard to use deadly force to suppress the protests.
In the wake of the bloody violence, Trump declares nationwide martial law, awarding himself new powers under the freshly-signed American Sovereignty Protection Order, which defines protests of immigration policies as non-protected speech and a threat to national security.
Governors in New York, California, Illinois, and elsewhere declare their opposition, promising to refuse compliance in their states.
Trump orders their arrests.
Trump pardons every January 6th attacker, including those who assaulted the police, and in a White House ceremony, issues a new presidential medal honoring them.
Many are given jobs in his administration.
The Department of Education is renamed the Department of American Values, and mandates a nation-wide Christian nationalist curriculum for all schools receiving federal aid.
Trump, joined by speaker Mike Johnson and evangelical leaders, announces that the Department of Health and Human Services has reclassified Mifepristone, making it illegal to distribute or prescribe, as well as new HHS regulations that make IVF treatments impossible to legally administer.
Trump reverses one campaign promise by declaring a national abortion ban by executive order.
Challenges to his authority are rejected by the Supreme Court, which has seen new appointments from Trump after it was expanded to 12 justices.
He signs an executive order removing abortion records from HIPAA privacy regulation and announces a new federal data-sharing program so states can monitor women’s periods.
Thousands are detained while crossing state lines under suspicion of seeking an abortion.
Trump’s acting secretary of defense, a disgraced ex-general, fires over 400 generals and admirals, leaving the military leaderless.
Other Trump appointees purge the ranks of the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice.
By executive order, Trump withdraws the United States from NATO and ends Pentagon cooperation with Ukraine.
Russian tanks enter Kyiv. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is killed.
It is announced that Trump will run for a third term, claiming he was unfairly cheated in the 2020 election.
His Supreme Court ultimately agrees with this interpretation, paving the way for Trump’s 2028 reelection.
If you hear all this and believe it isn’t possible, then ask yourself, what did you believe was impossible just eight years ago?
This isn’t a fantasy.
It’s Trump’s plan, and he’s counting on you to believe it couldn’t happen.
The decision
In his first term Donald Trump was restrained by good, patriotic people committed to American freedom and the Constitution. He was bound by institutional checks and balances, by a truthful and skeptical media and by the law and the courts.
Since announcing his run for the presidency he has been tried and convicted of 34 felonies. He is accused of many more and may come to trial.
However, he has also bulldozed his way through all the restraints built into the Constitution, he has been granted near-total immunity from prosecution if elected president, he has successfully delayed or obstructed prosecutions and he has so consolidated his grip on his political party that he has turned it into an unthinking and obedient cult.
The elements for an extraordinarily oppressive and total dictatorship are in place. The enablers, from highly placed officials, to Supreme Court justices, to ground-level cultists to Project 2025 applicants, are primed and ready to implement it. They are blind to what they’d be giving up in freedom, liberty and equality.
This election represents the final barrier to total tyranny, regardless of who is at the top of the Democratic ticket. If the election is held as scheduled, if it is honestly counted and if the majority of Americans want to keep their freedom and democracy and express that desire through their votes, then the American experiment will live on and America will not only be great, it will move on to new greatness.
The rancor can be dialed down but the substance remains. In coming days, those who would defend democracy may be polite—but those who would end democracy should heed the words of Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor: “Don’t mistake politeness for lack of strength.”
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris after he named her his running mate in 2020. (Photo: Biden campaign/Adam Schultz)
July 12, 2024 by David Silverberg
There may be a simple solution to the dilemma that Democrats are facing right now in the presidential race.
Perhaps switching the presidential ticket to Kamala Harris for President and Joe Biden for Vice President would be a winning combination that will preserve democracy, defeat Donald Trump, and protect the United States from the ravages of dictatorship, tyranny and terror.
This ticket will put the younger, dynamic face of Kamala Harris at the front of the Democratic campaign while keeping the wisdom, maturity and steadiness of Joe Biden in the administration. The two have successfully collaborated and could continue their partnership after winning election. Together they could build on their record to date, “finish the job” as Biden has declared he wants to do—and then go on to new initiatives.
It would be perfectly legal. Biden has served a single term as president and is eligible to serve another if called upon to do so. It would also preserve the campaign fundraising done to date. It could unite the entire Democratic coalition again: Democrats who stand with Biden with those concerned about his ability to win, those who support Harris and ethnic, immigrant and progressive communities. Printers wouldn’t even have to change the typeface on the campaign signs.
Of course, at the moment Biden is adamant that he’s all in, that he can win and that he has the wherewithal to do it. As he has pointed out, the campaign hasn’t even kicked into high gear yet. He’s probably right.
But the questions about his capabilities are overshadowing the real issue of this year’s election: whether the United States will remain a democracy or be ground under the criminal heel of Donald Trump, his cult and Project 2025.
Obviously, this decision would require the consent of the principals and have to be ratified by the entire Democratic Party.
Moreover, this is a proposal coming out of nowhere, far from the power centers of Washington, DC, and the Party’s inner circle but this author hasn’t seen it proposed anywhere else.
At least it’s an option and worth considering.
If America is to remain the citadel of democracy, if Americans are to remain free, if the world isn’t to surrender to Vladimir Putin and the forces of autocracy, Donald Trump and dictatorship must be defeated.
A Harris-Biden ticket would have a high likelihood of doing that.
Pro-choice demonstrators rally in Naples, Fla., on May 3, 2022. (Photo: Author)
July 11, 2024 by Christina Diamond
Floridians are angry. We have been angry since the overturning of Roe v. Wade two years ago and more outraged since our Republican-controlled state legislature subsequently passed a 6-week abortion ban. Our anger has been channeled into action. We have worked hard to ensure that a constitutional amendment to allow abortions until viability will appear on the ballot in November as Amendment 4. However, merely passing this Amendment does not guarantee the reproductive choice Floridians hope for. In addition, we need state legislators who will support it rather than work to kill it.
Florida is under the national spotlight. Choice is on the ballot in November throughout the country. The overwhelming majority of Floridians and Americans think we should all have the freedom to make our own personal healthcare decisions without interference from politicians. Polls show that well over 60 percent of registered voters in the state support Amendment 4, the threshold required for it to pass.
Florida’s governor Ron DeSantis and his Republican super-majority in the state legislature are actively opposing the Amendment. No surprise. They are the ones who voted to pass the 6-week ban in the first place. In recent constitutional amendments that Florida voters passed, Florida’s elected Republican representatives ignored the voice of the people and passed laws or filed lawsuits that put obstacles in the path to implementing the voter-approved change. Unless we elect more pro-choice legislators this year, the Republican super-majority will undoubtedly weaken, stall, and hinder the full enforcement of Amendment 4.
Voters must understand that electing representatives to the Florida legislature who will carry out Amendment 4 is the final step in restoring access to this critical reproductive healthcare. Ruth’s List Florida is working to do just that. Our organization recruits, trains, and helps elect pro-choice women to the state legislature. Electing these women is key to ensuring that Amendment 4 is implemented and that the will of the voters is realized.
Ruth’s List is committed to electing thoughtful, forward-thinking pro-choice women who will roll up their sleeves and drive meaningful change as elected officials. With financial support and campaign training, Ruth’s List works to help qualified women win elected positions across the state at all levels of government- women who fight for what Floridians want- the opportunity to live their best lives without government interference in their most personal decisions.
On Amendment 4, Ruth’s List (ruthslistfl.org) is clearly in touch with the majority of voters in Florida. We strongly support Amendment 4 by working to ensure that more pro-choice women are elected to the state legislature so that the Amendment is fully enacted. As Floridians, we must pass Amendment 4 and we must elect the pro-choice women who will implement it. Lives depend on it. Failure is not an option. The opportunity to cast a vote to reverse the 6-week abortion ban is now.
Christina Diamond is chief executive officer of Ruth’s List Florida. She is president and owner of Diamond Strategies, a campaign consulting firm, based in St. Petersburg, Fla.
Ruth’s List was founded in 2008 by Alex Sink, who at the time served as Florida’s Chief Financial Officer. It is named for Ruth Bryan Owen, the first woman elected to Congress from the South, who took office in 1929.
Florida National Guardsmen evacuate flood victims in Arcadia, Fla., in the wake of Hurricane Ian on Oct. 3, 2022. (Photo: US Army/Spc. Samuel Herman)
July 7, 2024 by David Silverberg
Project 2025, a blueprint for post-election decisionmaking in a second Donald Trump administration, is recommending termination of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
All of Southwest Florida and its residents rely extensively on NFIP for affordable insurance in the face of events like hurricanes, storm surge and flooding.
“The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program,” states Project 2025.
It’s a radical proposal that could have a devastating fiscal impact on Southwest Floridians.
A quick primer on Project 2025
Project 2025 is a sweeping, 887-page tome of recommendations for presidential and legislative changes to be made under a conservative president, in this case, upon the election of Donald Trump.
The Project is actually a continuation of an effort by the conservative, Washington, DC-based Heritage Foundation think-tank that began in 1981. Then, the Foundation published a book called Mandate for Leadership with conservative policy recommendations. These were largely adopted by President Ronald Reagan, who handed out the book at his first Cabinet meeting.
Since then, a Mandate has been published every four years.
Project 2025 is a continuation of the Mandate series, only broader, more comprehensive, more radical and entirely Trumpist. It has also expanded beyond just the book and policy recommendations to include recruitment of personnel, training for those people and a 180-day Playbook for immediate implementation should there be a change of administrations.
Because of the radical nature of its current recommendations and Trump’s avowed pursuit of retaliation, revenge and retribution, Project 2025 is getting much more attention than previous Mandates.
It is sweeping in that it includes a complete reorganization of the federal branch, installment of ideological loyalists in place of non-political civil servants and reorientation of government toward unchecked presidential rule.
A quick primer on the National Flood Insurance Program
In 1968 Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act, spurred by losses in Florida and Louisiana caused by Hurricane Betsy and its storm surge. The bill was signed by President Lyndon Johnson and led to establishment of the NFIP to protect Americans from the financial hardships of flooding.
The program, which is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), takes three forms.
One is mapping flooding risk along rivers and coasts. By 2018, the fiftieth year of the program, NFIP had mapped all of the nation’s populated areas, or 1.1 million miles. Among other things, these maps help mortgage lenders determine flood insurance requirements.
A second goal is to mitigate risk by supporting local flood prevention and management measures. The program’s managers estimated this saves the country over $1.6 billion each year in flood losses.
The third pillar—and the one closest to everyday property owners in Southwest Florida and across the country—protects insurance policyholders from financial flood losses. In 2018, 5 million people held NFIP policies in 22,000 communities across the country.
Under NFIP, homeowners who meet its requirements can get flood insurance for most buildings and dwellings of all sorts, including condominiums, mobile homes on foundations, rental units and more. Policyholders are charged lower than market rates to make it affordable. Many commercial insurers don’t offer flood insurance and NFIP is the only option.
While homeowners are not required to purchase the insurance, some federally-backed mortgages require it if the building is in a Special Flood Hazard Area—places especially prone to flooding.
Given Florida’s susceptibility to storms, its flat terrain and its extensive coastline along the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean, NFIP is crucial to protecting Floridians and making life affordable.
In Southwest Florida, the City of Naples and Everglades City joined NFIP in 1970. Charlotte County joined in 1971. Collier County followed in 1979. Lee County joined in 1984 when it did its first flood insurance study and created maps to establish flood zones and determine elevations. Today, there are 51,103 NFIP policyholders in Lee County (statistics are unavailable for Collier and Charlotte counties).
Participation in the program “is crucial for coastal communities such as Lee County because most standard homeowner’s insurance policies do not cover flood damage, and without access to NFIP coverage, property owners would have to bear the full financial burden of flood-related losses or pay higher premiums from private insurers,” states the Lee County website.
Project 2025 versus NFIP
Project 2025 has no use for NFIP.
In its chapter on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it deals with FEMA and dismisses NFIP in a single paragraph on page 153:
“FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpayer-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program.”
Project 2025 has numerous authors and, as Edwin Feulner, founder of the Heritage Foundation, is proud to point out in an afterword, it draws on the expertise of 360 experts and 50 organizations. The recommendation to terminate NFIP is under the byline of Ken Cuccinelli.
Cuccinelli has long been known as an ideological extremist. He ran for governor of Virginia in 2013, losing to Democrat Terry McAuliffe. He had a tempestuous tenure as Virginia’s attorney general from 2010 to 2014 where he denied climate change and fought research into it, even launching an investigation of a climate scientist whom he accused of fraud for his scientific conclusions. In this case, Cuccinelli was rebuffed by the Virginia Supreme Court.
He’s an anti-immigration hardliner who has advocated repeal of birthright citizenship. Under Trump he was appointed acting director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services directorate of DHS. However, his appointment was disputed and resulted in suspension of all his directives. At the same time he was appointed acting deputy secretary of DHS but this too was determined to be improper by the Government Accountability Office. He was the subject of whistleblower complaints for his decisions regarding handling DHS intelligence.
After Trump’s departure from office, Cuccinelli joined the Heritage Foundation as a visiting fellow and last year in Florida he launched the Never Back Down Political Action Committee on behalf of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ presidential bid.
Analysis: A fiscal fiasco
Termination of NFIP would be as fiscally catastrophic for Southwest Florida as the worst, most destructive hurricane—in fact, much worse. It’s not enough that Florida is facing an insurance crisis anyway—this would dump yet another cascade of woe and expense on homeowners.
It would immediately impoverish existing homeowners who wouldn’t be able to afford commercial flood insurance—if companies even offered it. More than likely, most would have to leave the state for less expensive areas.
It would create two classes of Floridians: the uninsured and the ultra-rich. The uninsured would be wiped out every time there was a storm or flooding event because they would have no backstop or support. The ultra-rich, already paying high premiums for property insurance, would be the only ones able to afford what would be staggering flood premiums at commercial rates. Not even the merely wealthy would be able to keep up.
Flood insurance for Southwest Florida’s most flood-prone areas, its barrier islands like Gasparilla, Pine, Captiva and Sanibel, would be astronomical. Rates for property on larger islands like Estero and Marco would hardly be better.
This would come amidst the ravages of climate change, which is incontrovertibly causing more frequent and intense storms, greater storm surge, sea level rise, tidal inundation and more frequent flooding—and nowhere is this truer than in Florida, which is perhaps the most climatically vulnerable state in the union.
Lee County is already in a crisis because it failed to meet FEMA requirements for permitted rebuilding after Hurricane Ian and faced the loss of its discount under the Community Rating System. That’s a FEMA program providing discounts on flood insurance premiums to communities that exceed NFIP minimum requirements.
Without the discount, affected homeowners are looking at hikes of $300 to $500 in their insurance bills. Potential loss of the discount has caused distress, fear and anger among Lee County property owners and officials.
NOW IMAGINE THE COST IF THERE IS NO FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE AT ALL! THAT’S WHAT PROJECT 2025 IS PROPOSING.
This disaster wouldn’t just affect Southwest Florida: the end of NFIP would hit every community on every body of water that could flood: oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, even canals. Even places inland and as landlocked as South Dakota, Nebraska, Arizona and New Mexico would be affected.
In 2018 FEMA estimated that 13 million Americans lived in flood zones. However, that same year a study, “Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States,” by seven scientists called the FEMA estimates too low. They put the number at 41 million. That has probably risen in the years since and is expected to rise even further in the years ahead.
The scientists also noted that “…It is evident that the absolute value of assets on the Floridian floodplain is also particularly high at $714 billion: Florida is thus a hotspot of flood exposure.”
Imagine over 40 million Americans stripped of access to affordable, government-backed flood insurance as Project 2025 envisions.
Project 2025 is scornful of NFIP’s “subsidies and bailouts” that “only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer.”
However, there’s another way of looking at this: NFIP policyholders are getting the benefit of the tax dollars that they paid to the US Treasury.
It always needs to be remembered that taxes aren’t a one-way street. The taxpayer puts money into the national treasury—but the taxpayer also gets benefits from the taxes he or she paid and those benefits take many different forms.
In this case, taxpayers living in flood zones get the benefit of their tax dollars in the form of subsidized federal flood insurance at lower than commercial rates. It isn’t a handout or a bailout; it’s a purchase made through taxes.
As for encouraging building in flood zones, as Lee County residents have discovered, FEMA is very strict and alert to building and construction in flood plains and communities participating in NFIP have to rigorously adhere to FEMA standards.
Rather than encouraging unregulated building, NFIP provides an incentive for communities and individuals to prepare for climate change, build resilience, strengthen homes and adhere to firm standards.
Commentary: The consequences of Project 2025
In the past, presidents and political parties didn’t rely out outside entities like Project 2025 for these kinds of sweeping proposals. Instead, they laid out their ideas for the entire electorate to see in the party platforms that they adopted through consensus and party input at their national political conventions.
In 2020 the Republican Party surrendered its political platform to Donald Trump, not bothering to adopt a set of proposals from Party members as it had in the past. Instead it stated that “the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.” It adjourned without adopting a new platform “until the 2024 Republican National Convention.”
In the absence of a Party platform, there is Project 2025 to provide the world with a roadmap of Republican intentions.
As alarm has spread over the Project’s recommendations, Trump has disavowed any knowledge or awareness of it.
“I know nothing about Project 2025,” he posted on his Truth Social platform on July 5. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”
However, as Edwin Feulner noted in his afterword to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation Mandates have had Trump’s attention since 2016. That one “earned significant attention from the Trump Administration, as Heritage had accumulated a backlog of conservative ideas that had been blocked by President Barack Obama and his team.”
Feulner continued: “Soon after President Donald Trump was sworn in, his Administration began to implement major parts of the 2016 Mandate. After his first year in office, the Administration had implemented 64 percent of its policy recommendations.”
Since it’s safe to say that Trump lies with every breath he takes, his protestations of ignorance of Project 2025 and its origins ring hollow. Furthermore, since his word is worthless, so is any pledge he makes not to implement Project 2025.
Even if Trump has not or will not read all 887 pages (hard to imagine him reading anything longer than an X posting!), his cultists will be looking to Project 2025 for guidance if he’s elected. In keeping with the Heritage plan, they’ll seek to implement its proposals in the first 180 days of his administration, many through executive action.
This article looks at just one small slice of Project 2025 that directly affects Southwest Florida. But if implemented as a whole, Project 2025 will be a disaster for all of America. Coupled with the total presidential immunity just granted by the Supreme Court, it will result in a radical reordering of the United States and American society. It’s a roadmap aimed at enabling a total dictatorship of unchecked power enforced by advanced technologies. Or as Winston Churchill put it when speaking of the Nazis, “all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”
The world knows America is at an inflection point. The battle is on between democracy and dictatorship. Project 2025 makes clear what’s at stake—for every Southwest Floridian and every American citizen.
This is the first in an occasional series of articles examining the implications of Project 2025 for Southwest Florida and the nation.
In 2018, prior to the primary election, Democratic candidates David Holden and Todd Truax debated in Florida Gulf Coast University’s Edwards Hall. (Photo: Chris Rehm, Holden campaign)
July 5, 2024
So, the nation had its first presidential debate—and how!
Whether one was delighted or appalled by the results, it did what a political debate is supposed to do: provide an apples-to-apples comparison of the candidates on a level playing field with neutral, unbiased moderation according to mutually agreed rules.
Now that there has been a national debate, it’s time for Southwest Florida to follow suit with its local and regional primary and general election candidates.
In the past, debates have been iffy things in Southwest Florida. Candidates have blown them off, claiming a permanent, full-time lack of availability, or local media have hosted only one party’s candidates or the debates have been conducted by biased, partisan organizations.
Moreover, local media and civic organizations have been very tepid in pursuing, hosting and holding debates. They’ve accepted candidate excuses and refusals without any protest or pushback.
As the national debate demonstrated on June 27, debates can have surprising outcomes and be starkly revealing—sometimes painfully so.
Southwest Florida voters deserve to have full, public debates by all the candidates seeking their votes.
In particular, a debate is warranted for the highest federal position in Southwest Florida: between Rep. Byron Donalds (R-19-Fla.) and his fully qualified Democratic challenger, Kari Lerner.
If the region’s media and civic organizations are to properly play their roles in this election year, the time to start organizing and scheduling debates is now. And it is the duty of candidates for public office to respond to them and appear to defend their records or offer their proposals.
On July 4, 1776 the British colonies of North America declared their independence. By December that independence appeared to be at an end.
General George Washington had suffered a string of defeats. The revolutionary army had been driven out of New York and pushed back through New Jersey. The soldiers were discouraged and many of their enlistments were about to expire. They were cold, ill-fed and ill-equipped and the enemy seemed overwhelming. The fervor of colonists for independence was wavering. There was little prospect that the revolt would—or could—succeed.
The situation was so dire that one soldier, a writer whose pamphlet Common Sense had been instrumental in sparking the revolution, sat down and writing on a drumhead, penned an essay he titled “The Crisis.”
The cause that Thomas Paine championed, that of liberty and independence, ultimately went on to achieve victory and the United States of America was born.
But it was by no means certain that it would succeed. At every point during a grueling, eight year war, all could have been lost. It was only extraordinary dedication and commitment to the cause that allowed it to succeed.
Today, on the 248th anniversary of that Declaration of Independence, the cause that Thomas Paine and George Washington served is again in crisis.
In 1776 the threat was a monarch across the seas, backed by the resources of a vast empire. Today, the threat is a domestic demagogue, backed by a foreign dictator with extensive resources, aiming to re-establish an empire lost through its own failures.
In 1776 the threat was “establishment of an absolute Tyranny” by a foreign king. Today, the threat is of establishment of an absolute tyranny by a domestic demagogue who seeks the power of a king.
In 1776 the threat was that the people of the colonies had suffered “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object” that “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” Today a long train of crimes, abuses and usurpations is again designing to reduce them under absolute despotism.
In 1776 the threat was that the people would be prevented from pursuing their “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Today the threat is that a would-be dictator will take away all the rights, liberties and freedoms won over the past 248 years and utterly crush those who seek them.
In 1776 the signers of the Declaration of Independence rejected the idea that a monarch held unlimited, absolute power and declared that “all men are created equal.” Today, a majority of justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have held that there is no equal justice under law and that one person, who holds the title President, is far more equal than all others and immune from punishment, checks or balances.
There are, of course, differences. A big one is that in 1776 the colonists weren’t sure what form of government would follow independence. Today, after 248 years of struggle and labor, America is a democracy.
The heart of hope
Democracy means many things but perhaps its greatest value is that it provides hope; hope that things can change, improve and adapt and that people can shape their government to meet their circumstances and needs.
But democracy doesn’t just provide hope in everyday lives.
The American system of unbroken elections held faithfully under its Constitution has also provided hope to those who seek political power through legitimate, constitutional means.
Throughout American history people pursuing elected office have been rejected by voters. But because they had the confidence that there would be new elections at regularly scheduled intervals and they had the internal fortitude to keep going, they dusted themselves off, learned from their mistakes, and made new efforts to win office. Democracy, the Constitution and elections gave them the confidence to try again.
It’s worth remembering that George Washington lost his first election for the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1755. Abraham Lincoln lost five elections before winning the presidency in 1860. In 1920 Franklin Roosevelt lost his bid for the vice presidency. Richard Nixon lost campaigns for president and senator. Closer in time George HW Bush lost two Senate bids. When starting out, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all lost their first bids for seats in the US House of Representatives.
In every case they trusted that the constitutional, democratic system of government gave them a chance to try again. It provided them with hope.
Only one candidate for high office in American history, Donald Trump, has ever responded to an electoral loss with denial, delusion, fraud, falsehoods, criminality, whining, interference, subversion, violent insurrection and ultimately, and arguably, treason.
Now he is seeking office again to replace the democracy of hope with a dictatorship of hopelessness.
That is certainly not the spirit of 1776.
The new crisis
As in 1776 when Paine sat down to write on his drumhead, patriotic lovers of democracy—of all parties—are in crisis.
Their confidence in their standard-bearer has been severely shaken. The courts are proving unable or unwilling to hold a criminal to account for his crimes. A blindly ideological Supreme Court has overturned America’s founding principle. The forces of despotism are energized, funded and seem overwhelming. Vast swaths of Americans seem susceptible to the hypnosis of cultic hallucinations. A would-be tyrant spews hatred, prejudice and rage while promising retribution, retaliation and revenge. The best lack all conviction while the worst are full of a passionate intensity. And the consequences of an electoral loss are apocalyptic and horrifying.
This would all be familiar to Thomas Paine.
But in their time, Paine and Washington refused to panic, desert or surrender. They soldiered on, marching into the face of uncertainty, committed to their ideals regardless of the odds.
This is what true patriots committed to democracy and the Constitution must do again.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who carries the standard for democracy. That decision is up to the candidate himself and the professionals, elected officials and the party faithful around him. There’s a vigorous debate under way.
But beyond the tactical considerations, the polls, the day-to-day campaign concerns and even the ultimate nominee, the question before the American people is very simple: One choice is democracy. The other is dictatorship. Regardless of the names, one outcome will protect, preserve and defend the Constitution. The other will crush, consume and eradicate democracy and all the rights so painfully won.
One candidate is hope. The other is despair.
Thomas Paine and George Washington made their choice. They stuck with it. It took a long time but in the end they won.
Today America doesn’t really have a choice. If the American democratic, constitutional public is to survive, if humanity’s last, best hope on earth is to live on, then we need to shoulder whatever serves as our musket and face forward to the enemy.
As Thomas Paine put it best:
“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”
The Paradise Progressive 