Gessen’s rules for suviving an autocracy, written immediately following the election, has become the most frighteningly prescient essay in many years. Gessen’s personal experience in seeing how quickly democracies can fail, infused with historical examples, was shocking, sobering, absolutely terrifying. Even more frightening, not one of those rules has failed to be useful in the era of Trump.

And her new article is a must-read for those getting a morning of alerts about songs and films. A big reminder that this is not normal, and it’s far from over.

In the past few months, Americans too have grown familiar with the sight of a president who seems to think that politics consists of demonstrating that he is in charge. This similarity is not an accident (nor is it a result of Russian influence). The rejection of the complexity of modern politics — as well as modern business and modern life in general — lies at the core of populism’s appeal. The first American president with no record of political or military service, Donald Trump ran on a platform of denigrating expertise. His message was that anyone with experience in politics was a corrupt insider and, indeed, that a lack of experience was the best qualification.

Please. Go read the rest. And if you haven’t read Autocracy: Rules for survival, do so.

The New York Times on Trump’s utter lack of leadership.

The swiftness of President Trump’s transformation of America’s global image from a proud and valued leader to something more nearly resembling a whiny bully has heads spinning at home and abroad. Mr. Trump was elected on a slogan of “America First” and a promise that the country would never again be bound by agreements and conventions that, in his view, compromised its sovereignty. But the policies and pronouncements that have flowed from this promise have in fact made the United States, and his presidency, the object of disbelief, alarm, even derision.

Trump is unable to conceive of leadership that doesn’t consist of beating, berating, and threatening others to get what you want. The respectful cooperation inspired by President Obama isn’t just alien to Trump, the idea is so counter to his thinking that it’s revolting.

In short order, Mr. Trump has pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, ceding leadership on trade in Asia to China; refused to reaffirm the mutual defense commitment that has been the bedrock of trans-Atlantic security for half a century, forcing America’s European allies to think about dealing with threats like Russia on their own; and abandoned a landmark agreement on climate change signed by 190-plus other nations, ceding leadership on the issue to Europe and China, and, in the bargain, forfeiting the rewards of participating in a worldwide clean energy economy that the agreement will bring.

Trump has fulfilled all the dreams of the original America First crew in creating a nation that’s isolationist in the name of “Pittsburgh not Paris” whether Pittsburgh likes it or not. It’s a formula for failure; the opening act of a catastrophe.

The Miami Herald on Trump’s stepping back from the world by withdrawing from the Paris agreement.

With this move, the United States relinquishes leadership in the battle against global warming and its pernicious consequences: pollution — the air in some cities, such as Beijing and Mexico City, is often unbreathable — rising sea levels, which will inundate coastal areas and cause enormous losses and human displacement; and abrupt changes in the ecological balance.

When it comes to CO₂, the citizens of Pittsburgh breath the same air as Paris. Climate change respects no borders. But the scary thing is — even Trump knows that. What he’s really saying is not that no one outside our borders should legislate our environment. He’s saying that we reserve the right to destroy the environment of those outside our borders.

The effects are already visible in coastal regions, and especially in South Florida, where municipalities, namely Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale, have signed an agreement to combat the phenomenon with ecological measures.

But Trump refuses to see this reality.

If Mar-a-lago were under to it’s gaudy roofline, Trump still wouldn’t acknowledge that humans had anything to do with climate change. Hey, wasn’t it even warmer when dinosaurs were around? Then it’s not our fault! Q. E. Conservative.

Eugene Robinson on decamping from the last patch of moral high ground.

With his backward policies and his tiresome antics, President Trump seems to be trying his best to do something that ought to be impossible: make the U.S. presidency irrelevant to world progress.

Climate change offers one example. Trump tried hard to build suspense for Thursday’s announcement about whether he would honor or trash the landmark Paris accord; doubtless he’d rather have attention focused on greenhouse gases than on the snowballing Russia investigations. At this point, however, I have to wonder what difference the decision to leave the agreement actually makes.

Unfortunately for the world, Trump can’t actually make the US presidency irrelevant. He can only turn it into a festering wound.

Trump is abdicating all moral power. The world has no choice but to move on.

If only it gets the chance.

Kathleen Parker on how Trump roused the sleeping American giant … against him.

A curious thing happened on President Trump’s way out of the Paris climate accord. American mayors, governors, corporate leaders and others immediately committed to meeting the agreement’s terms anyway. ...

That these localized pledges resulted from Trump’s blundering into decentralization on an international scale is a function of Gumpian invention. Andrew Jackson would be pleased as punch. Not only did Jackson have no interest in fashioning other countries in America’s image, as Peter Beinart has written, but he (and every other American) undoubtedly wasn’t much interested in the converse, either.

Unfortunately … go back to Gessen’s essay at the top. Trump’s sheer incompetence doesn’t diminish his impact. In fact, it makes it worse. 

As of this writing, about 100 businesses, 80 university presidents, three governors and 30 mayors have announced their intention to stick with the Paris program. Although the group hasn’t named itself yet, defying the laws of hashtag and beingness, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg is leading the charge. Ever the optimist, Bloomberg predicts that this joint effort could still reduce America’s contributions to greenhouse-gas emissions by 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

Not only would this effort be entirely voluntarily and immediately subject to the whims of passing local politics … would you want to bet against Trump actively working to eliminate funds for cities that make this pledge? These cities are bowing down to an internationalist order, placing the new world order above our own law, oppressing their citizens with an eco-sharia … It’s not just possible, bet on it.

The New York Times on Trump’s swamp-overflowing excess of lobbyists.

We wanted to believe that President Trump was doing the right thing when the White House announced in January that executive branch officials would be banned for two years from working on policy or regulations they once were paid to influence as lobbyists and lawyers.

Really? Did you really? Because there wasn’t a moment when it wasn’t utterly clear this pledge was a direct test of the Fifth Avenue Rule.

His pledge now seems worthless. On Wednesday, after weeks of prodding, the administration released waivers it had granted to White House staff members to let them violate the rule. The waivers — for at least 16 staff members — are further evidence of the White House’s disregard, even contempt, for good government.

Please give your What Would Obama Hate bracelet a rub and think really hard for about two seconds. Yup, done. Competence isn’t just an unattainable goal, it’s the enemy.

Dana Milbank and how Trump is what the rest of the world sees when they think ‘American.’

For the last fortnight, Trump has presented himself to the world as the caricature of the ugly American: loud, boorish and ill-informed. For nine days in Europe and the Middle East, Trump shoved, hectored and lectured, betraying confidences and demonstrating an ignorance of world affairs. …

Trump would have been humiliated if he were capable of feeling shame, but on some level even he must have known he was being dismissed, for he responded as he does when ridiculed — with still more cartoonish bluster.

Trump doesn’t get embarrassed. He just throws a tantrum. It’s easy if you just stay on the brink of perma-tantrum.

The withdrawal from the world climate accord itself wasn’t terribly surprising, but the way he did it was a thumb in the eye to the rest of humanity. Trump didn’t merely state a principled disagreement. He turned the Rose Garden, where Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat once joined hands, into a setting for a political rally, and he delivered a campaign speech against the world.

It seems clear that we’re closing in on a moment when we’ve got to rise up — and I mean rise up, not have a neat “March for (a cause here)” — or lie down. That moment is days, or at best, weeks away. 

Colbert King points out an obvious imbalance in Trump’s thinking.

… when it came to the terrorists involved in the Manchester, England, attack that killed 22 people. “I won’t call them monsters because they would like that term,” Trump said. “I will call them, from now on, losers, because that’s what they are. They’re losers.”

Terrorists most likely don’t care one whit about being held in low esteem by Trump. Their feelings are probably mutual.

…

More interesting is the fact that Trump has had more to say about the Manchester monster than Portland’s homegrown right-wing terrorism.

Even what Trump said in the brief official tweet fell way short of the mark. He called the attack “unacceptable” and added: “The victims were standing up to hate and intolerance. Our prayers are with them.” Not one word about the killer. Not even a nod toward the two young women of color on the train, one of whom was wearing a hijab, who were the targets of the perpetrator’s shouted anti-Islamic slurs.

The killers in Manchester were Muslims, so … monster losers. The killer in Portland was attacking Muslims so … hmm, Trump literally has no words to condemn that position.

Robert O'Harrow and Shawn Boburg didn’t write an editorial, but what they did write is interesting enough that I didn’t want it missed just because it ran on the weekend.

Long before Trump promised to build a wall, ban Muslims and abandon the Paris climate accord, [David] Horowitz used his tax-exempt group to rail against illegal immigrants, the spread of Islam and global warming. Center officials described Hillary Clinton as evil, President Barack Obama as a secret communist and the Democratic Party as a front for enemies of the United States.

The Freedom Center has declared itself a “School for Political Warfare,” and it is part of a loose nationwide network of like-minded charities linked together by ideology, personalities, conservative funders and websites, including the for-profit Breitbart News.

This network of “charities” have a well-funded, long-term and deadly serious set of facilities and institutions dedicated to replacing the government of the United States with one that would make Offred quail beneath her hood. It’s a fine example of how even the most extreme voices can gain political credence — if gifted with millions of dollars a year over decades by a wealthy fragment of society.

Anne Applebaum and a quick look at post-Brexit Britain.

We are days away from the British parliamentary elections on Thursday. I’m not going to predict the result, but it’s already clear that the British prime minister will not get the landslide she wanted. The same polls that showed a huge majority for Theresa May two months ago have narrowed. Some foresee, if not an outright Labor victory, then at least a hung Parliament. Even if she wins, her position is tarnished. Support that seemed solid has vanished. Why?

That Labour stands a chance of actually winning this thing is one of the most jaw-dropping political turnarounds imaginable — and it didn’t come because Labour suddenly got its act together and carried out a brilliant campaign. It came because Labour … wasn’t afraid to be on the left.

For one, it looks like her watered-down English national populism doesn’t work — or at least can’t compete with the tougher, nastier, harder-core version of populism on the British left. As I wrote when it started, this election has been a contest between parties that are offering extremist versions of what they used to be.  …

Instead of helping May, the nihilistic “we don’t believe in anything, we don’t trust anybody” mood that helped the “leave” campaign win the Brexit vote is now working in the Labour Party’s favor. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is an old-fashioned leftist who doesn’t do slick campaigning — and that seems to appeal to people right now. He hasn’t changed his views about anything since the 1970s — he would nationalize industry if he could, he has never been too keen on NATO, nuclear defense or the British army — and somehow that makes him seem sincere. Labour’s slogan, “For the many, not the few,” sounds like a Labour Party slogan, not something chosen by a public relations team.

The whole idea of “right-wing populism” is so counter to the idea of actual populism, that the phrase still rankles me every time it comes up in the media. If Brexit foreshadowed Trump, let’s hope that Labour’s revival is also a sign of things to come.