Thread by @CommsDirector

It's hard not to read stories about Trump turning the 4th of July into his own personal military party and not be concerned. washingtonpost.com/climate-enviro…

But lots of people don't quite understand why this is. So let me lay out some thoughts on the personalization and militarization of the state and why it's a problem.

A common strategy of authoritarians is to blur the distinction between the individual serving as executive and the institution of the executive. They do this in order to position themselves as the only source of stability in a crisis. "I alone can fix it."

"The logical outcome of personalizing power in the executive is centralization of authority away from other institutions." (democracyfund.org/publications/w…)

Trump demands loyalty to himself, rather than to the office or the constitution -- which, I'd add, all govt employees swear to uphold. See also: Comey, James. And he consistently refers to tools of state power as things he owns. "My military," "my generals."

This is especially true of military things. He makes no distinction between the role of Commander in Chief and either head of government or candidate for president. He has broken the norm against political statements to unformed service members more than a few times.

The 4th of July is historically neither a celebration of the president nor a celebration of the military. Yes, presidents have had roles in commemoration, especially on major anniversaries. What's more important is what they haven't done...

Presidents haven't given a speech at the decades-running national fireworks display. They haven't gone out of their way to bring the symbolism of the military into it. Trump is doing both. He's putting himself at the center of a national celebration of the founding.

By press reports, he even tried to change the fireworks vendor to one that he uses at his hotels. The White House is giving out tickets to be in the area where he'll give his speech. Anyone think those will be available to the general public? No chance.

We know he's tried to get DOD to hold a military parade before and now he's trying to get tanks and flyovers on July 4. So that's a (surely partisan) speech that the president gives out tickets to, with "his" military saluting him, with tanks and F35s, at the Lincoln Memorial.

I find the quote by the Secretary of the INTERIOR particular telling: "music, flyovers, a spectacular fireworks display, and an address by our Commander-in-Chief.” Note "OUR." Command in Chief is a military title. What do you mean "our"? Who is the 'we' it refers to?

He means "we" the audience. We the country. We the people. But that's wrong: He's the military's CinC; he's "our" president.

Personalizing state power into the executive leads to governance by presidential whim and welcomes corruption. Government by whim is already clear: Announcing policy by tweet while everyone in the WH scrambles to create post hoc justifications. Happens monthly at this point.

And when government happens by the President's whim rather informed and professionalized process, then the only guy you need to convince is the president. I guess it's helpful, then, that you can demonstrate your loyalty to the President by paying him at in his hotel...

Which is nice if you've got the money, I suppose, but 99.9% of Americans don't and can't. But other countries sure do. The emoluments clauses are defense against the personalization of the state; Trump and his lawyers have been fighting accountability there since Jan, 2017.

Warning signs for personalization of the state from *October 2018* paper pub'd by @DemocracyFund:

"increasing reliance on political events and imagery that associate the president with the military" -- see entire above thread. As well as stories like this from last year: nytimes.com/2018/02/07/us/…

"creation of bodies within the White House intended to centralize personnel control from agencies and departments;" See WH proposal to split OPM between GSA and the WH Office of Management and Budget with all federal workforce policy under OMB. federalnewsnetwork.com/opm/2019/05/tr…

"creation of budgetary authorities providing funds for direct use by the president;" See the president's decision to use the Intl Emergency Economic Powers Act to create, contrary to congressional will, billions for him to use for "his" border wall.

"presidential interference in regulatory and agency decision making formerly undertaken by agency leaders or bureaucrats;" A dozen possible examples, from census questions to trans miltiary ban to Muslim travel ban a million things at DHS.

OK, I have a meeting and so I will leave it there. But this isn't good and it isn't going away. /end.

Meetings over; picking this thread back up.

The other reason authoritarians personalize the state in the executive is that it equates patriotism with supporting the person of the executive. Criticizing the executive therefore becomes unpatriotically criticizing the country.

Trump knows our politics has often equated criticizing military policy choices with criticizing "the troops" and so he wants to wrap himself in military symbols and iconography. Short of wearing a special Commander-in-Chief uniform, parades, flyovers, etc are his best route.

There's a reason the stereotypical dictator wears a uniform festooned with decorations! It communicates that taking on the executive is taking on the military -politically and often very practically. Doing this to the military does great harm to its democratic legitimacy.

In America, the military is an instrument of the state and the state is an instrument of the people. "We the people...to provide for the common defense... do ordain and establish this constitution..." (Compare China, where the state and the military are instruments of the party.)

If the executive=the state, then the military is an instrument of the executive's personal will. We let the military do things no one else is allowed to do - they are legally permitted to kill people. That requires trust and that trust comes from political independence.

The more the president associates the military with political positions, the more he undermines trust in it.

But back to my main point: Trump clearly does not believe criticism of him is legitimate. It's all "totally unfair" and "fake news" and he wants to "open up the libel laws" and send his political opponents to jail. He says this all the time. Straight face. Repeatedly.

The president's solution to the fact that people criticize him is (clearly and intentionally) to equating criticism of him with unpatriotic criticism of the country and traitorous criticism of military. It's not complicated or hidden. It's right there.

Things like the July 4 Mall event put people of good faith in a real bind. Attending legitimizes his personalization of the state. Boycott and you seem, feel, or are accused of being both anti-american/anti-founding and anti-military. "What's you problem with the troops?"

And that, as well, is part of the point. Populist authoritarians need an out-group to be able to define the in-group as the "real people." Read the president's inaugural: "January 20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again..."

"The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.... We are one nation – and their pain is our pain. Their dreams are our dreams... We share one heart, one home, and one glorious destiny."

The "forgotten people" are *in.* Other? out.

OK, going to let this thread go now. ;-)