Is Anybody There? The Foxes Multiply

 

As usual, a political cartoon encapsulates the truth—this one by Matt Davies in Newsday.

 

In February, I argued that the midterms may be a chimerical defense against autocracy, highlighting Kurt Olsen's appointment as Director of Election Security as a "fox in the henhouse." I said then that "putting a man sanctioned for spreading election falsehoods in charge of 'integrity' feels like a satirical plot point a novelist would reject as too preposterous." Rather than recapitulating everything, here is the link to Is Anybody There? The Systematic Dismantling of the Midterms.

 

The recent appointments of Bill Pulte and Todd Blanche reinforce that warning by suggesting a broader consolidation of political control over institutions traditionally expected to operate independently. Like Olsen, both men are widely viewed as unwavering political loyalists. Todd Blanche, nominated to serve as Attorney General, appears tasked with reshaping the Department of Justice by targeting political opponents while diminishing independent oversight. Bill Pulte, appointed concurrently as Acting Director of National Intelligence despite having no intelligence background, appears intended to exert direct political influence over the nation's intelligence community. In my opinion, these appointments undermine the integrity of elections (the Midterms in particular)—ironically, the very thing T***p claims he’s concerned about. 

 

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Attorney General William P. Barr—once denounced by Trump as "gutless" and a "coward" for refusing to overturn the 2020 election and prosecute political opponents—appears to be seeking a return to Dear Leader's good graces in his op-ed: Confirm Todd Blanche at Justice—He Is Well Qualified and Will Run the Department as Well as Anyone Could Under President Trump.

 

Barr's principal argument is that, regardless of senators' reservations, rejecting Blanche would merely invite an even worse nominee. As he writes, "It wouldn't force the president to make a better choice. It will simply invite more chaos and a less desirable appointment." This line of reasoning not only indirectly admits to Blanche's lack of qualifications, but it also normalizes the idea that the Senate should confirm a nominee not because he is demonstrably independent, but because someone even less acceptable might otherwise be chosen. By that logic, every successive appointment merely lowers the standard further. Isn't it better to reject someone who fails even that diminished test, leaving Blanche to serve only temporarily?

 

Barr concludes: "The nation needs a serious, effective and competent attorney general. America's interests are best served by confirming Mr. Blanche." You decide.

 

Meanwhile, T***p is reportedly using Bill Pulte's controversial acting appointment and the delayed confirmation process as leverage to pressure Congress into passing the SAVE Act—a sweeping elections bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote, mandating photo identification, restricting mail-in ballots, and incorporating additional provisions touching on transgender issues.

 

A concise summary of the SAVE Act appears on the BBC, a source that, in my opinion, has become more consistently reliable than much of today's American media. As the BBC notes, "some Republican-led states have taken up the cause to introduce their own proof-of-citizenship bills. Democrats say the SAVE legislation disenfranchises eligible voters, while Republicans say it is necessary to prevent voter fraud."

 

It is hardly surprising that Republicans would champion legislation that may discourage participation by elderly voters, those in poor health, citizens who rely on mail-in ballots, and even many first-generation Americans who are fully eligible to vote but may find the new documentation requirements burdensome or even onerous. It erects considerable barriers to address what appears to be a minuscule incidence of voter fraud.

 

Taken together, Olsen, Blanche, and Pulte seem well-suited to reducing independent oversight while strengthening executive influence over the institutions charged with enforcing the law, gathering intelligence, and protecting the electoral process. So, regarding the prevention of elections from being "stolen"—long their boss’s pet screed—one must ask: from whom, and by whom? They also divert public attention from unresolved questions surrounding the administration's handling of the Epstein files—an issue that only days ago dominated the national conversation.

 

Democracies rarely disappear in a single dramatic moment. Just look at how the January 6th insurrection of more than five years ago has been swept under the rug of history, the perpetrators either not being called out or, for those arrested, pardoned. It all happened before our eyes, as are these appointments. But history teaches that by the time we recognize a pattern, it has already become the new reality.

 

Postscript:

Yesterday, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, spoke at the ultraconservative Faith & Freedom Coalition’s 2026 Road to Majority Conference, pledging a “protection program” for Trumpublicans… “heaven forbid, these Democrats, y’all, impeachment is not even the big concern. They will turn every committee of Congress into an investigative body, and they’ll go after the president’s family, the cabinet, his donors and friends. Half of you in this room will be targeted. I run the protection program. I’ll take care of you. Okay? We’re gonna win. We’re gonna win the midterm.” 

 

 

Is Anybody There? The Systematic Dismantling of the Midterms

 

 

The New York Times recently published several unsettling reports concerning the upcoming Midterms, including "Republican Cash Edge Threatens to Swamp Democrats" and "House Passes Strict Voter ID Bill."   

 

Relying on the Midterms as the last bastion against autocracy may be chimerical, given what this administration is doing on its way to destroying our institutions, culture, and global agreements. The third article in the NYT yesterday underscores just how hopeless it might be to rely on those elections to bring us back from total oblivion: "Trump’s Director of Election Security Is an Election Denier; Even in a government full of conspiracists, Kurt Olsen stands out."

 

Appointing Kurt Olsen as the Director of Election Security and Integrity is the ultimate "fox in the henhouse" scenario. The administration hasn’t just invited the fox inside to guard the coop; they’ve given him a badge, a flashlight, and the authority to decide which hens are "legally" allowed to lay eggs. Putting a man sanctioned for spreading election falsehoods in charge of "integrity" feels like a satirical plot point a novelist would reject as too preposterous.

 

According to the New York Times, here are the major points of the investigation into Olsen's new role:

     He now has the authority to refer criminal investigations to the federal government—a power he has already used to catalyze a recent FBI probe into the 2020 election results in Fulton County, Georgia.

 

    Following the 2020 election, Olsen worked "round the clock" on a Supreme Court case seeking to reverse Trump’s defeat and pressured the Justice Department to take up similar suits.

 

    He has a long history of collaborating with conspiracy theorists such as Mike Lindell of PillowGuy fame and representing figures like Kari Lake in unsuccessful legal challenges.

 

    He was previously sanctioned in federal court for making "false, misleading, and unsupported factual assertions" during election litigation in Arizona.

 

    His appointment is part of an apparent "multipronged approach" to challenge state power over elections as the administration begins to cast doubt on the upcoming Midterms.

 

This is all happening before our eyes, just as the January 6th insurrection did. The records from the House Select Committee explicitly link Olsen to the strategies surrounding that day; while he was a private attorney then, his actions were deeply integrated with the White House’s response to the certification process.

 

This administration has long defended its most outrageous actions by laughably citing "transparency" as "proof" of validity. So, there it is—the fox in the henhouse. Thankfully, the "Fourth Estate" still has a pulse after the diminishment of the Washington Post to point this out.

 

"Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?"

Five Years After the Day That Changed Everything

 

 

Out of necessity—primarily my own mental health—I just can’t write much more about that day that will live in infamy: five years ago, Jan. 6.

 

We all saw it with our own eyes, and no matter how it is spun by the nihilism of the right, it was not only an impeachable offense but the beginning of a lawlessness in this country that now, on a daily basis, reaches new lows—while trampling international law as well.

 

Mike Luckovich, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you for an explanation of what, exactly, is going on.

 

In the wake of Jan. 6, I wrote this entry, but Heather Cox Richardson today provides a thorough explanation with five years of hindsight and her command of history. 

There was once a time I would be writing our representatives. But Congress, as well as SCOTUS, has made it pretty clear that we are on our own. That leaves the midterm elections this year as our only hope. And that assumes the very kind of election interference Trump et al. have gaslighted accusations about is not turned on by them in this crucial election.

 

Between gerrymandering and Republican control of both the narrative and the election rules themselves, we should be concerned. And will the Democrats have the good sense to run moderate candidates—ones Republicans fed up with Trump can at least hold their noses and come out to vote for?

 

I can go on. To what end?

 

Totally changing the subject, as I need to turn to something hopeful: our community has a local art show, and I entered two photographic pieces. Here is the proud “artist” with his contributions.

 

The top photograph was taken at the J.P. Morgan Library’s Jane Austen exhibit this past summer. I titled the photograph “Deliberations.” It captures a museumgoer admiring Amy Sherald’s oil painting, A Single Man in Possession of a Good Fortune (2019). The title, of course, comes from Pride and Prejudice. Sherald composes striking, dignified portraits of people of color.

 

The second photograph I titled “Waiting in Casablanca,” taken quietly with a telephoto lens so as not to disturb the subject, who sat alone in his chair for some time.  

 

To me, candid portraits and composition are what make photographs interesting and potential works of art.