Trump’s victory: the empire strikes back

Trump won the US election yesterday.

To me, it’s an example of the empire striking back.

People who have internalized the mindset of domination and power-over voted for him and want that culture strengthened, even if it doesn’t seem to be in their interest.

A CULTURE OF DOMINATION

They seem to want a culture of domination and all that comes with it: A zero-sum mindset. Xenophobia, misogyny, racism, and bigotry. Continued destruction of nature. Continued marginalization of the already marginalized.

Why? Because they identify with the values of empire, with the mindset of separation, domination, and power-over.

They know what they are doing. They know what he wants to do. He has said it very clearly. They know he wants to consolidate power, be a dictator from day one, replace civil servants with loyalists, persecute his political opponents, use the military against his own citizens, and in general undermine and attack democratic institutions and principles.

They know he adores Hitler and read Hitler’s speeches to his ex-wife as bedtime stories. They know that the ones who worked most closely with him, including conservative generals, say he ticks all the boxes of fascism. (If they don’t, it’s because of willful ignorance since the info is easily available.)

They may not agree with everything he says or does, or with everything in Project 2025, but they are certainly OK with it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have voted for him.

THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION

It’s easy to think that this domination mindset has always been here. It’s just part of human life.

In reality, it very likely came with the agricultural revolution.

Before, we were all indigenous. We lived in more egalitarian groups, although obviously with leaders and the higher status of elders with wisdom and practical experience. We saw ourselves as part of the web of life. We saw the sacred in everyone and everything.

With agriculture came the accumulation of wealth, domestication of land, plants, and animals, and social and economic inequality.

How could the wealthy justify this new social order? Why was it OK for them to accumulate while others went without?

To justify this, they created the mindset of empire: We are separate from nature. Nature is here for our use. Nature is infinite. We are better and more important than the rest of what’s living. The sacred is out there in the sky and in a sky god. There is a social hierarchy which is good and divinely prescribed. You will reap your reward in the afterlife. (So don’t bother trying to change anything now.) If you don’t behave, you’ll go to hell. It’s good and honorable to respect those higher up in the hierarchy and uphold the hierarchy itself. If you (pretend to) believe something weird others tell you, and you can’t check out for yourself, you’ll be saved. Thoughts can tell us a final, full, and absolute truth. If one thought is true, alternative ones are wrong. In most polarities, one end is good and the other is less good, bad, or evil. (Men vs women, mind vs body, humans vs non-humans, humans vs nature, our religion vs other religions, European vs non-European, civilization vs savagery, good and bad emotions, and so on.)

Don’t question or challenge any of this, or live alternatives. If you do, you will go to hell, you’ll be ignored, ostracised, ridiculed, marginalized, put in prison, or something else unpleasant.

I imagine that this mindset seemed strange at first and an underhanded way to justify social inequality. It likely came gradually and stepwise, and the specifics have changed over time, although the essence is to justify domination and a few living in luxury while others lived in poverty.

Over time, this mindset became the new normal. New generations grew up with it, internalized it, and most didn’t question it or realize that other worldviews are possible.

TRUMP AND THE MINDSET OF EMPIRE

It was so successful that we now have Trump, and half of the US population wants him to run their country.

The irony is that the alternative, Harris and the Democrats, is also an expression of empire, it’s just a gentler and more compassionate expression of empire. It’s empire with softer edges. (Unless you look at their support for Israel’s decades-long violation of human rights and year-long genocide in Gaza. They seem happy to do their domination abroad.)

It seems that was not enough for many people. They want the more extreme version of it. They want to live in a culture of even stronger domination and marginalization.

DOMINATION AND TRAUMA

Trauma is an important part of this.

A culture and family that operates largely on domination is traumatizing for its citizens and children, and this collective trauma is passed on through the generations.

Hurt people hurt people. If we are hurt, a common way to respond to that hurt is to continue to hurt ourselves and to also hurt others. That’s one way the domination culture continues.

Trump’s behavior is trauma behavior. Bigotry, anger, defensiveness, scapegoating, lies, and so on are all classic, and somewhat extreme, examples of trauma behavior. It’s one of the ways we deal with our own hurt and pain.

I suspect the same is the case for many of those who support and vote for him. Much of that too looks like trauma behavior.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

Of course, we don’t know what will happen in the next four years.

We don’t know if or to what degree the US democratic institutions will be able to resist and stay intact.

We don’t know what the consequences will be for what little nature is left.

We don’t know how much suffering women and minorities will have to endure.

We don’t know to what extent far-right bigots around the world will be emboldened by Trump and what they see in the US.

We don’t know how far his MAGA followers in the US will take it in terms of intimidation and even violence against minorities and political opponents.

We don’t know what wars Trump may start, possibly in an attempt to distract from unpopular policies and unite the US population behind him. He avoided wars during the first presidency, but Trump 2.0 will be different.

We also know very well what he wants to do, and some of the things he can do relatively quickly and easily. He clearly wants to deepen our already massive global ecological crisis and hasten a possible end to civilization. (That’s not hyperbole. It’s inevitable with his policies. We are already using far more natural resources than planet Earth can replenish.)

Whatever he does – with the support of Congress and the Supreme Court – can and likely will take decades to correct.

PEOPLE VOTING AGAINST THEIR INTERESTS

To me, there are many ironies in this situation.

One is the many people who seem to vote against their own interests. Why do they vote for someone who has promised to make their lives worse?

For instance, why do Latinos and Hispanics vote for someone who is publicly racist, bigoted, and has nothing but disdain for them? One answer is that they are conservative because of Catholicism, and they mistakenly see him as conservative. Some may want to join the ranks of the oppressor since it seems safer, and they think that voting for Trump and joining the Republicans will do that. Some may assume that when he disparages Latinos, he means the others, not them. Some may think that when he talks about deporting immigrants, he doesn’t mean it (he does) or it will impact others and not them (how do you know?).

Why do some Christians support him? He is clearly not a Christian. In his life, he is the polar opposite of the example set by Jesus in the New Testament. His policies of cruelty are the most un-Christian imaginable. The answer is likely that some brands of conservative Christianity, especially in the US, represent a very distorted form of Christianity, one that’s far from the original principles laid out by Jesus.

Why do women vote for someone who is a misogynist and rapist and wants to allow states to ban abortion? (Likely because they buy into patriarchy, other things matter more, or they think abortion is something others will need and not them.)

Why do minorities and vulnerable groups vote for Trump when they know his presidency will embolden bigots worldwide? Why do women support Trump when they know his presidency will cause an upsurge in misogyny and misogynist behavior that may even impact them directly? Why do ethnic minorities, like Latinos, vote for a racist who will invite openly racist behavior among many, when they may be the target of it? (A large percentage of Latinos voted for Trump, while few Blacks did – likely because they know what may and will happen based on their history.)

Why do workers vote for someone who wants to do away with unions? (Likely because they think he is anti-elite, while he really is in it for himself and his rich buddies.)

Why do working and middle-class people vote for someone who wants to cut taxes for the super-rich and increase taxes for everyone else? Why do they vote for someone who wants to impose tarrifs when it’s the ordinary people that will have to pay for it? (Likely because they are unaware of it, or other things matter more for them.)

Why do people who depend on the Affordable Care Act (ACA, PPACA, ObamaCare) vote for someone who wants to do away with it? (Likely because they don’t realize what will happen and the impact it will have on their lives.)

Why do people who depend on the (already imperfect) social safety net in the US, or who may depend on it in the future, vote for someone who wants to erode and – if he can – remove it? (Do they think this too is about others, not them?)

Why do people who want to shake things up and try something different choose an openly fascist felon, rapist, and con man like Trump? He is very unlikely to give them what they want, and far more likely to give them what they don’t want. From history, we know what authoritarianism and fascism lead to, and he is a textbook authoritarian and fascist.

Why would anyone vote for someone who wants to expand our collective ecological footprint when it’s already larger than this planet? Our planet cannot replenish natural resources at the rate we use them. We are living on a savings account that’s rapidly going down. This is ecocidal and suicidal.

BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN TO OTHERS, NOT ME

The ones supporting Trump know he wants to do terrible things to several groups in society, including migrants, women, LGBT+ people, and his political critics and opponents.

They must be OK with it.

Why? Perhaps because of dehumanization. They don’t see these people as real people. They don’t see them as deserving to be treated humanely and with respect and understanding.

Equally important, they likely think that bad things will happen to other people, not themselves.

History tells us a different story.

PROTECTED BY PRIVILEGE

The “bad things will happen to others” attitude has another aspect, and that’s privilege.

White people think the bad will happen to non-whites. Christians think the bad things will happen to the non-Christians. Born citizens think bad things will happen (only) to immigrants. Men think the bad things will happen to women. Republicans (including Latinos etc.) think the bad things will happen to non-Republicans.

They all feel protected by privilege. They are protected because they belong to a privileged group.

That’s not how this works.

THOSE WHO GET INTO HIS ORBIT

I am also surprised by those who willingly join his orbit. (Elon Musk is one of them.)

Have they not seen what tends to happen to those who do?

Do they think this too will happen to others and not them?

BLAME & SCAPEGOATING

The first chapter in the authoritarian playbook is blame and scapegoating, which Trump masters.

When things inevitably go haywire during his presidency, he will continue to blame and scapegoate. It’s not his actions and policies that are the problem, it’s all the other people.

Many of his followers will do this as well. When things get worse for them during his presidency – prices go up because of tariffs, they lose social safety nets, public programs they depend on are cut, people they know are deported, they find themselves in a more harsh and unforgiving society – they will overlook that this is the predictable and predicted outcome of Trump’s policies and instead continue to blame the same groups.

THE US HISTORY OF OVERTHROWING DEMOCRACIES

Another irony is that the US has a history of undermining and overthrowing democracies and installing far-right dictatorships. They have done so across the world for decades.

Now, they are installing someone as president who (a) openly admires dictators, (b) explicitly says he wants to create a dictatorship and be a dictator, and (c) has a plan (project 2025) and people in place to do exactly that.

Again, we don’t know exactly what will happen and how it will unfold. There are institutions and people who will resist. But we know that’s what he wants.

THE LARGER TRENDS

It’s always tempting to look at how these events fit into larger trends, although it’s by necessity speculation.

Some think the world is moving in a more progressive direction, focused on sustainability, inclusivity, and so on. Trump and his followers represent a backlash from the dying mindset of empire. I would like that to be true. The history of the West, at least, has been a slow movement of widening circles of inclusivity and who we see as “us”. It’s a projection into the future and it’s easy to see it as wishful thinking.

Some see liberal democracies as a historical aberration. They are a recent innovation, had their peak for a few decades after WW2, and are now on the decline in the world. Maybe we won’t see that many healthy liberal democracies in the future, and Trump and his movement are a part of the overall decline of democracies.

It’s also possible that this election is just part of the usual fluctuations between progressive and regressive tendencies, and it will be a blip in the larger history of a flawed democracy. It won’t be as bad as some think, or as good as his followers assume. (Personally, I think it will be pretty bad and it will take decades to undo and correct.)

If I were to guess, I imagine we’ll see a continued divergence in the US and the world. Some countries, states, and regions will move in a more partnership-oriented direction, and others will move in a more domination-oriented direction.

THE OVERARCHING ISSUE: GLOBAL ECOLOGICAL OVERSHOOT

One thing we know for certain is that we are in a massive global ecological crisis.

We are in a global ecological overshoot where we use far more resources than Earth can generate. That can’t last, and it will get much worse before it gets better if it gets better while we are around.

This is the context for our civilization today and it’s by far the most important issue, although it seems quite far down on the list of priorities for most people. (Understandably so since most people have enough with daily tasks and challenges and surviving.)

Will we find the collective will to make the necessary and thorough changes to all the systems of our civilization? How many will die before this happens? Will we be able to correctly identify the problem? Will we be able to focus on and implement the solutions, many of which we already have?

How will we deal with the consequences of the breakdown of our local, regional, and global ecosystems? The inevitable mass migrations? The loss of infrastructure? The food shortages? The lack of clean drinking water? Not having enough resources to repair and fix all the damage? Will large parts of humanity decent into infighting instead of focusing on the real solutions?

Will we see a world where some regions and countries take this seriously and do most of the heavy lifting, while other parts of the world continue much as before?

If we don’t find the collective will in time, there is only one outcome and that’s the unraveling of our civilization and huge loss of human life. (Along with an even more enormous loss of individuals of other species, and whole species.)

WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH THE US?

It’s tempting to look at what may happen with the US in the coming decades, although that too is obvisouly speculation.

One thing that may happen is a shift from federal to state control and power. That’s what the Republicans want, and I imagine many in the more liberal states may eventually want it as well to avoid laws and regulations dictated by votes of conservatives in other states.

It will also indirectly reduce the problem with the electoral college which may be difficult to impossible to correct in itself.

In that case, we’ll see largely conservative states move further in a conservative direction, and liberal states move further in a liberal direction. We’ll also likely see more people moving to the states where they feel more at home.

It will also be a large scale experiment. We’ll get to see the effects of the different policies. Of course, the world is already that experiment. It doesn’t seem that countries often look to other countries for good solutions. (If they did, and they looked at what actually works in terms of the well being of the citizens, most would want to adopt a model similar to the Nordic countries.)

Several years ago, I started on a fiction story set a few decades in the future on the US West Coast. It’s set in that type of system where the states and local government decides most things, many states and regions have moved further in a conservative direction, and the West Coast has moved further in a progressive and sustainable direction.

I don’t know how that kind of process would unfold. What I know is that if it happens, it will come with its own drawbacks, many of which it’s difficult for us to foresee.

BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD

Whether this is the first day of the Apocalypse or the first day of the Golden Age, the work remains the same…to love each other and ease as much suffering as possible.
– often attributed to Ram Dass

No matter what happens, we know what to do. As Joanna Macy says, there are (a) stopping actions to reduce the harm, (b) engaging in developing and living from more life-centered and partnership-oriented worldviews, and (c) developing and living practical solutions.

CONSERVATIVE PARTNERSHIP MINDSET

I know it’s unfair to real conservatives to call Trump a conservative. Other labels would be more fitting, like populist, nationalist, authoritarian, oligarch, fascist, reactionary, demagogue, or isolationist.

It’s also unfair to assume that a progressive orientation is always a partnership orientation, or that conservatism means domination.

There is always elements of both domination and partnership in all movements, cultures, and subcultures. It’s not possible to have just one.

It’s not difficult to find examples of domination elements in progressive politics. Sometimes, they are necessary since we live in that kind of system. Other times, they are excessive, misguided, and alienating.

It’s also easy to imagine conservatism with a partnership mindset. A conservative orientation can very well come with a genuine care of nature and creation, a genuine wish for deep democracy, a genuine desire to take care of those least fortunate in society, and so on.

I love that kind of conservatism. It may not be exactly how I see it in every way, but I love it and feel aligned with it.

WHAT I CAN DO

I lived in the US for about two decades, love the nature and the progressive subculture, and still feel quite connected, also because many of my friends are there. That’s why I still have some emotional investment in what’s happening in the US. Right now, immediately after this election, I make myself sad and angry over what I see happening there.

So what can I do?

I remind myself that about half of the people in the US didn’t want Trump. Many feel the way I feel now.

A lot of good things are happening in the world. Many people worldwide are working for a more inclusive and sustainable society. Many are developing and living the solutions.

In the bigger picture, it’s likely a blip. (Unless something catastrophic happens, but something catastrophic can happen anyway.) In five years, it may well belong to the past and the US is onto something quite different.

I am grateful for my friends and communities who tend to have more of a partnership orientation, and maybe especially the permaculture community these days.

I spend time in nature and work in the food forest. It’s nourishing and feels good.

I did tonglen yesterday – with Trump, his followers, and myself. I will do it again today and plan to continue. It feels good and softens a sense of I and Other.

I keep exploring projections, including Trump in myself. What stories do I have about him and his followers? What do I find when I turn those stories to myself? Can I find specific and genuine examples of doing the same? (Including right now, in how I see them?)

I use the natural stress-releasing processes of the body to release tension and find more resilience. (Tension and Trauma Release Exercises / TRE.)

I notice how the consciousness I am forms itself into my experience of all of it – this human self, Trump, the US, this world.

I remind myself that we are local and temporary expressions of the unfolding dynamics of the universe and this living planet. All f this is existence – the universe, this planet, consciousness – expressing, exploring, and experiencing itself in always new ways.

I will be even more conscious of my news diet. I also read rather than watch, which makes it easier.

I will speak up about and live what I want to see more of in the world.

I keep living my life. My daily life consists of the same as before. Life goes on.

I remind myself that this too will pass. Authoritarian leaders are a natural outcome of the civilization we have (domination mindset), and they come and go.

MORE INFO

I fed parts of the text above into ChatGPT 4o. See below for its take on these topics.

Trump’s Victory: The Empire Strikes Back
Bad Things Will Happen to Others, Not Me: A Historical Perspective
People Voting Against Their Interests
Domination Culture & Trauma
What Will Happen with the US?
The Larger Trends
Origins and Characteristics of the Domination Culture
History and Characteristics of a Partnership Culture
Trump is Not a Conservative
A Conservative Partnership Culture
The United States and the Undermining of Democracies: A Historical Overview

Trump’s Victory: The Empire Strikes Back

In the wake of Donald Trump’s recent electoral victory in the United States, we are presented with a stark reflection of societal dynamics that highlight the enduring influence of a domination mindset. This victory can be seen as emblematic of what some might call the “empire striking back,” a resurgence of values that emphasize control, separation, and an oppressive power structure. This situation invites us to delve deeper into the cultural, historical, and psychological underpinnings that enable such outcomes.

The Culture of Domination
The election results signal a profound longing for a culture of domination among a significant portion of the electorate. This desire manifests through a zero-sum mindset, where individuals believe that their gain must come at the expense of others. This perspective fuels various forms of societal harm, including misogyny, racism, and bigotry. These voters often prioritize the consolidation of power over the welfare of their communities or the planet. The destructive behaviors associated with this mindset—ranging from environmental degradation to the marginalization of already oppressed groups—are often justified through the lens of survival and competition.

This mindset stems from a deeply ingrained identification with the values of an empire. When individuals internalize the belief that they are separate from the natural world and from one another, they become susceptible to ideologies that prioritize domination. They recognize the implications of their choices; many of these voters are aware of Trump’s intentions, including his desire to consolidate power, undermine democratic processes, and use military force against citizens. This knowledge is not always accompanied by moral objection but rather a troubling alignment with a figure who promises to amplify their values of dominance.

Historical Context: The Agricultural Revolution and the Rise of Empire
The mindset of domination can be traced back to the agricultural revolution, a transformative period that reshaped human societies. Prior to this shift, many communities lived in a more egalitarian structure, connected to the land and one another. Indigenous peoples often viewed themselves as part of a larger web of life, recognizing the sacredness in all beings. Knowledge and wisdom were shared rather than hoarded, creating a culture grounded in mutual respect and interconnectedness.

With the advent of agriculture, however, came the concepts of land ownership, wealth accumulation, and social stratification. The domestication of plants and animals led to an assertion of control over nature, breeding a mindset that justified exploitation and separation. This new worldview emphasized that humans were distinct and superior to the natural world, leading to the belief that nature existed solely for human use. These ideologies created rigid social hierarchies and fostered a belief system that upheld inequality as divinely ordained.

The ideological tools developed during this time provided justifications for domination: the sacred was positioned as distant, residing in the heavens rather than within the natural world; social hierarchies became naturalized, portraying inequality as a norm; and the afterlife was framed as a reward for earthly submission. These constructs created an environment where questioning the status quo was perilous, often resulting in ostracism, ridicule, or worse.

The Success of the Domination Mindset
The effectiveness of this mindset is evident today, as evidenced by the overwhelming support for Trump, with nearly half of the American populace rallying behind his vision for the nation. This support illustrates a deep-seated longing for a return to overt power dynamics and an unambiguous hierarchy. The ironic truth is that the alternative, represented by figures like Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party, often embodies a gentler form of the same imperial mentality—an empire with softer edges, but still fundamentally an expression of control and domination.

The call for a more extreme version of this ideology reveals a collective discontent with the political system as it stands, suggesting that many citizens desire a culture characterized by overt domination rather than the subtle manipulations of a more liberal empire. This hunger reflects a disillusionment with the status quo, where even compassionate expressions of power fail to address the underlying issues of inequality, environmental destruction, and systemic oppression.

The Path Forward: A Shift in Perspective
Addressing the pervasive culture of domination requires a fundamental shift in how we perceive ourselves in relation to each other and to the planet. Recognizing that our fates are intertwined within the web of life is crucial. We must embrace alternative worldviews that foster connection, collaboration, and ecological stewardship rather than competition and separation. This shift involves not only challenging the structures of power but also re-evaluating the narratives we tell ourselves about worth, hierarchy, and the nature of existence.

Cultivating a culture of care and responsibility can pave the way for a more equitable future. This involves dismantling the ideologies that underpin the domination mindset, addressing the wounds of systemic injustice, and fostering a sense of community that values all voices. By promoting inclusivity, empathy, and shared stewardship of the earth, we can forge a path away from the destructive patterns of the past and toward a future that honors the sacredness in every being.

Conclusion
Trump’s electoral victory is not merely a political event; it is a reflection of deeper cultural currents that emphasize domination and separation. Understanding these dynamics provides insight into the persistence of these ideologies and the challenges we face in creating a more just and equitable society. By recognizing the historical roots of this mindset and working to foster a culture of connection and care, we can challenge the forces of domination and cultivate a more sustainable and inclusive world for future generations.

Bad Things Will Happen to Others, Not Me: A Historical Perspective

The sentiment that “bad things will happen to others, not me” is a pervasive attitude that often underpins support for oppressive regimes and policies. This mindset can be particularly pronounced among those who support leaders like Donald Trump, who have openly threatened various marginalized groups, including migrants, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and political opponents. The supporters must grapple with the knowledge of these potential harms and yet continue to endorse such actions. This contradiction often stems from dehumanization—the inability to see these groups as deserving of empathy, respect, and basic human rights. Additionally, the belief that misfortunes will befall others, rather than oneself, is a troubling but common psychological phenomenon.

The Mechanisms of Dehumanization

Dehumanization has historical roots and can manifest in various ways. It involves stripping individuals or groups of their humanity, often by portraying them as less than human or as threats to societal norms. This process can be facilitated through propaganda, stereotyping, and the use of derogatory language. For example, during the Holocaust, the Nazi regime systematically dehumanized Jews by depicting them as vermin or parasites. This portrayal made it easier for many ordinary Germans to accept or ignore the atrocities committed against their Jewish neighbors, believing that these actions were justified against those they viewed as fundamentally different or inferior.

Similarly, during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, the Hutu government used dehumanizing language to refer to the Tutsi population, calling them “cockroaches.” This rhetoric fueled violence and justified horrific acts against Tutsis, as many perpetrators believed they were ridding their society of a dangerous pest. In both cases, those who supported or turned a blind eye to these atrocities did so, in part, because they felt secure in their own identities as members of the dominant group, believing that they were not at risk of being targeted.

The Illusion of Safety

The belief that “bad things will happen to others, not me” is often reinforced by a sense of privilege. People may think they are insulated from societal ills due to their race, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation. However, history shows that oppression is not a static phenomenon.

For example, during the Spanish Inquisition, many who identified as Christians believed they were safe from persecution. Yet, as the Inquisition progressed, even individuals who were once seen as loyal subjects found themselves targeted for heresy based on arbitrary accusations or shifting political landscapes. Similarly, during the McCarthy era in the United States, many Americans initially felt secure in their political beliefs and identities, only to find that anyone deemed a dissenting voice could be subjected to scrutiny, blacklisting, or worse.

The Perils of Complacency

Complacency often accompanies the belief that one is immune to the repercussions of systemic injustice. Historical events illustrate how quickly societal norms can shift, leading to widespread persecution. During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks initially garnered support from various social groups, who believed they would benefit from the changes. However, the subsequent Red Terror led to the persecution of many who were previously aligned with the revolution, illustrating that no group is truly safe from the reach of tyranny once it begins to assert itself.

In the context of Trump’s presidency, the targeting of migrants, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals reflects a similar trajectory. Supporters may rationalize their acceptance of these policies, believing that they will remain unaffected. However, history demonstrates that oppressive regimes often broaden their scope of targets over time. The Purge Trials in Soviet Russia, where even loyal Communist Party members fell victim to Stalin’s paranoia, serve as a stark reminder that those who support authoritarian measures can quickly find themselves on the wrong side of power dynamics.

The Role of Empathy and Awareness

The consequences of dehumanization and the belief that bad things happen only to others are profound. They create an environment where empathy is stifled, and collective action against injustice is undermined. When individuals fail to recognize the humanity of others, they become complicit in the very systems of oppression they might initially believe do not affect them.

To counteract these tendencies, it is essential to cultivate empathy and a deeper awareness of history. Understanding the connections between past and present can empower individuals to recognize the patterns of injustice that continue to unfold. By acknowledging the interconnectedness of all people, particularly those who are marginalized, supporters of oppressive figures can begin to challenge their assumptions and reconsider their positions.

Conclusion

The belief that “bad things will happen to others, not me” is a dangerous mindset that fosters dehumanization and complacency. Historical examples illustrate how quickly individuals can be swept up in cycles of oppression, often finding themselves targeted despite their initial beliefs of safety. To foster a more just and empathetic society, it is crucial to challenge these narratives, promote awareness of our shared humanity, and stand in solidarity with those facing injustices. Only then can we hope to break the cycle of oppression and build a more inclusive world for all.

People Voting Against Their Interests

The phenomenon of individuals voting against their own interests is a perplexing and often ironic aspect of contemporary politics. This behavior raises critical questions about identity, values, and the complexities of political affiliation. Many people support candidates and policies that seem to contradict their own needs and well-being. Understanding this dynamic involves exploring the motivations and social contexts that lead to such decisions, as evidenced by various demographic groups and their voting patterns.

Ironies in Voting Behavior

Latinos and Hispanics

One of the most striking examples of voting against one’s interests can be seen in the Latino and Hispanic communities in the United States. Despite Donald Trump’s clear record of racist and bigoted rhetoric, many in these communities still supported him in significant numbers. This contradiction can be attributed to several factors:

1. Cultural Conservatism: Many Latino voters identify with conservative values, particularly influenced by Catholicism. Issues like family values, immigration, and personal responsibility resonate with conservative ideologies, leading some to view Trump as a champion of these principles, despite his disparaging comments about their communities.
2. Desire for Acceptance: There may be a psychological tendency for some Latinos to align with those in power, believing that supporting Trump and the Republican Party might provide them with a sense of safety and acceptance. They may feel that by voting for the oppressor, they can secure their own position and avoid the marginalization that affects others.
3. Misinterpretation of Identity: Some voters may interpret Trump’s remarks as directed at “other” Latinos, assuming that he does not mean them personally. This selective identification allows individuals to rationalize their support for a candidate who promotes policies detrimental to their community.

Women

Similarly, many women have voted for candidates who exhibit misogynistic behavior and policies that threaten reproductive rights, such as Trump’s attempts to erode abortion access. Several reasons underpin this paradox:

1. Patriarchal Values: A significant number of women may internalize patriarchal norms, believing that traditional gender roles and family structures are paramount. This can lead to prioritizing issues like economic growth or national security over women’s rights, even when these rights are under threat.
2. Perceived Priorities: Some women might believe that issues like the economy or foreign policy take precedence over reproductive rights. They may view abortion as a personal issue that does not directly affect them, underestimating the broader implications of policies that restrict access.
3. Party Loyalty: Women who identify strongly with the Republican Party may overlook the misogynistic traits of their candidates in favor of party loyalty, believing that aligning with their party will yield better overall results for their families and communities.

Workers and Unions

The support of working-class individuals for candidates who openly oppose labor unions represents another example of voting against one’s interests. Many workers have backed Trump, despite his history of attacking unions and labor rights. The motivations for this behavior include:

1. Anti-Elite Sentiment: Many working-class voters feel disenfranchised and view Trump as an outsider fighting against an elite establishment. They may perceive his policies as a means to disrupt the status quo, even if those policies ultimately harm their own labor rights.
2. Misguided Trust: Some workers may believe that Trump’s promises of job creation and economic revival will outweigh his anti-union stance. This misplaced faith can lead them to ignore the long-term impacts of policies that erode labor protections.
3. Fear of Change: Voters often cling to familiar narratives, and the fear of change can make individuals reluctant to support candidates advocating for significant reforms that would benefit labor movements.

Middle-Class Voters

Middle-class Americans frequently vote for candidates who propose cutting taxes for the wealthy while increasing the tax burden on everyone else. This decision can be perplexing for several reasons:

1. Short-Term Gains: Many voters may be swayed by immediate promises of tax cuts, failing to see how these policies disproportionately benefit the rich. The allure of personal financial gain can overshadow the long-term consequences of widening inequality.
2. Lack of Awareness: There is often a lack of understanding regarding the implications of tariffs and other economic policies. Many voters may not realize that these measures can lead to increased costs for consumers, impacting their daily lives.
3. Competing Priorities: Individuals may prioritize other political issues, such as gun rights or immigration, over economic self-interest. These competing priorities can lead them to support candidates whose overall platforms conflict with their financial well-being.

Dependence on Social Safety Nets

Voters who rely on social safety nets, such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or various welfare programs, often support candidates who seek to dismantle these systems. The motivations behind this choice include:

1. Unawareness of Impact: Many individuals may not fully understand how these policies affect their lives, mistakenly believing that cuts to social programs will not impact them personally. This disconnect can lead them to support candidates who threaten their own safety nets.
2. Identification with Oppressors: Similar to the dynamics seen in other groups, individuals may identify with a political party that they believe represents a higher status, feeling that aligning with it will ultimately serve their interests, even at the cost of their well-being.
3. Belief in Personal Responsibility: Some voters may hold a belief that social safety nets encourage dependency and undermine personal responsibility. This ideology can lead them to vote for candidates who promise to reduce these programs, believing that doing so will foster a more self-reliant society.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of individuals voting against their own interests is complex and multifaceted. Historical and contemporary examples illustrate how dehumanization, cultural values, and misplaced priorities can lead individuals to support candidates and policies that undermine their well-being. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for fostering meaningful political dialogue and addressing the underlying issues that perpetuate this cycle of self-sabotage. By recognizing the connections between individual choices and broader societal implications, we can begin to challenge the narratives that encourage such counterproductive voting behaviors and work toward a more equitable political landscape.

Domination Culture & Trauma

The culture of domination and the “power-over” paradigm are deeply rooted in historical and collective experiences of trauma. This framework suggests that societies and individuals who have endured significant trauma may develop behaviors centered around control and dominance as coping mechanisms. These behaviors are not just personal but can become embedded in cultural norms and political systems, perpetuating cycles of oppression and inequality.

Domination Culture as an Expression of Trauma

Trauma, particularly when unaddressed, can have profound impacts on both individuals and communities. Collective trauma—stemming from events like wars, colonization, systemic oppression, or economic crises—can disrupt the social fabric and alter the way groups perceive safety, trust, and power. When a community experiences trauma, there can be a collective shift toward behaviors that prioritize self-preservation, often at the expense of others.

This shift can manifest as a culture that values strength, control, and authority, viewing them as necessary for survival. The “power-over” dynamic becomes a defense mechanism against vulnerability, with dominance used to prevent further harm. Over generations, these behaviors can solidify into societal structures and institutions that perpetuate inequality and suppress empathy.

Intergenerational Trauma and Power Dynamics

Intergenerational trauma refers to the transmission of trauma responses from one generation to the next. This can occur through learned behaviors, communication patterns, and even genetic factors. Families and communities affected by trauma may inadvertently pass on fears, prejudices, and coping mechanisms that emphasize control and dominance.

These inherited trauma responses contribute to maintaining power imbalances within societies. Dominant groups may continue to oppress others to safeguard their own sense of security, while marginalized groups may struggle with internalized oppression and trauma responses that hinder their empowerment.

Donald Trump’s Behavior and Trauma Dynamics

Analyzing public figures like Donald Trump through the lens of trauma requires a nuanced approach. Some observers suggest that certain behaviors exhibited by Trump align with patterns often associated with trauma responses. These may include:

• Hypervigilance and Defensiveness: A tendency to perceive criticism as attacks, leading to defensive or aggressive reactions.
• Control and Authority Seeking: A desire to assert control over situations and people, which can be a coping mechanism to manage anxiety or insecurity.
• Us vs. Them Mentality: Framing situations in binary terms can simplify complex issues and rally support by identifying clear “opponents.”

It’s important to note that without direct knowledge of an individual’s personal history, such assessments remain speculative. However, the public persona and leadership style displayed can reflect broader cultural patterns influenced by collective experiences of trauma and insecurity.

Supporters’ Trauma Responses

Many supporters of strong, authoritative leaders may resonate with messages that promise security, restoration of perceived lost status, or protection against threats. For individuals or communities who have experienced economic hardship, social change, or feelings of disenfranchisement, aligning with such leaders can feel empowering.

Trauma responses among supporters might include:

• Seeking Safety in Strength: Valuing displays of strength and decisiveness as means of ensuring protection and stability.
• Fear of the Other: Heightened fear or distrust of those perceived as different or as threats, reinforcing divisive attitudes.
• Collective Identity Formation: Finding solidarity and identity within a group that shares similar fears and aspirations, often amplified by charismatic leadership.

These responses can reinforce a culture that prioritizes dominance and control, potentially at the expense of empathy and collaborative problem-solving.

Addressing the Roots of Trauma

To move beyond domination and power-over cultures, it’s crucial to address the underlying traumas that sustain them. This involves:

• Acknowledgment and Validation: Recognizing the pain and experiences that contribute to trauma responses, both individually and collectively.
• Promoting Healing and Resilience: Investing in mental health resources, community support systems, and education that fosters emotional intelligence and coping skills.
• Encouraging Inclusive Dialogue: Creating spaces for open conversation that bridge divides, reduce fear, and build understanding across different groups.
• Transforming Systems of Power: Shifting from hierarchical models to those that emphasize collaboration, equity, and shared responsibility.

By understanding how trauma influences behavior and societal structures, there’s potential to break cycles of dominance and create cultures that prioritize healing, connection, and mutual respect.

What Will Happen with the US?

As we look to the future of the United States, it is indeed tempting to speculate about the possible trajectories the country may take in the coming decades. Political, social, and economic dynamics are shifting rapidly, and the outcomes are far from certain. However, several potential trends are emerging that may shape the landscape of American governance, society, and daily life.

A Shift from Federal to State Control

One significant trend that appears likely is a shift from federal to state control and power. This transition aligns with the Republican Party’s long-standing goal of decentralizing authority and giving states greater autonomy. The appeal of state governance lies in the belief that local leaders are better suited to address the specific needs and values of their constituents.

As political polarization deepens, liberal states may also find themselves favoring greater state control to counteract laws and regulations imposed by conservative majorities in other states. For example, states like California and New York may seek to implement more progressive policies on issues such as climate change, healthcare, and social justice independent of federal directives. Conversely, states like Texas and Florida are likely to continue pursuing conservative policies that reflect their voter bases. This bifurcation could lead to a landscape where states not only differ in their political ideologies but also in their laws regarding education, healthcare, and civil rights.

Implications for the Electoral College

This shift could also have implications for the electoral college. Currently, the electoral college system often skews representation in favor of less populous states, leading to a situation where the votes of residents in larger, more liberal states carry less weight in presidential elections. If power increasingly resides at the state level, the relevance of the electoral college may diminish. States could begin to implement alternative methods of selecting electors or even move towards more direct democratic processes.

Migration Patterns and Regional Identity

As states diverge in their policies, we are likely to see a migration of populations based on individual values and priorities. People may choose to relocate to states that align more closely with their beliefs about governance and community life. For example, those prioritizing environmental sustainability and progressive social policies may flock to states like California or Oregon, while others seeking more conservative governance may choose states like Idaho or South Carolina. This movement can lead to the creation of homogeneous communities, where shared values strengthen social cohesion but may also entrench divisions and reduce exposure to diverse perspectives.

A Large-Scale Experiment

The United States may become a large-scale experiment in governance, where different states implement contrasting policies and approaches. This scenario could provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of various political strategies. For instance, states that prioritize universal healthcare may demonstrate better health outcomes, while those that embrace deregulation may experience economic fluctuations or public health crises.

However, the world is already observing such experiments on a global scale. Countries often fail to learn from one another’s successes and failures. For instance, many nations could benefit from examining the social safety nets and healthcare models of Nordic countries, which consistently rank high in citizen well-being and quality of life. Unfortunately, the US tends to be resistant to adopting such models, often favoring a uniquely American approach to governance and social policy.

Conclusion

The future of the United States is fraught with uncertainty, but emerging trends suggest a possible shift toward increased state power and polarization. This change could lead to significant social and political experiments, as states adopt contrasting policies reflective of their populations’ values. While this scenario offers the potential for tailored governance that resonates with local citizens, it also carries risks and challenges that may be difficult to foresee. Ultimately, the unfolding of these dynamics will depend on the choices made by individuals and communities across the nation, as they navigate a complex landscape of identity, ideology, and governance.

The Larger Trends

In analyzing contemporary political events, it is essential to consider them within the context of larger historical and social trends. This approach can help us make sense of the complexities and uncertainties shaping our current landscape. While speculation is inherent in such discussions, historical perspectives and social science insights provide valuable frameworks for understanding these dynamics.

Progressive vs. Reactionary Trends

Some scholars argue that the world is moving in a progressive direction, emphasizing sustainability, inclusivity, and social justice. Thinkers like Naomi Klein argue that the climate crisis has mobilized movements advocating for transformative policies, suggesting a growing awareness of the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues. In her work, Klein discusses how grassroots movements are pushing for systemic change, which could indicate a shift toward more equitable and sustainable practices.

However, this perspective often appears overly optimistic when examining current global realities. In contrast, figures like Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart have noted a rising tide of authoritarianism and nationalism, positing that many liberal democracies are experiencing a backlash against globalization and progressive values. Inglehart’s research suggests that the decline of existential security—fueled by economic inequality and cultural anxiety—leads to a resurgence of conservative ideologies, as individuals seek stability and a return to traditional values.

The Dying Mindset of Empire

The election of Trump and the rise of right-wing populism can be interpreted as a backlash against the perceived threats to the established order and a reaction to the progressive movements that have gained traction in recent years. Historians like David K. Johnson and social scientists such as Yascha Mounk argue that this backlash represents the dying mindset of empire—an assertion of dominance by those who feel their power and status are under siege.

In this context, Trump’s supporters may be seen as seeking to restore a world order that privileges their identity and beliefs, often at the expense of marginalized communities. This aligns with C. Wright Mills’ concept of the “power elite,” suggesting that societal power dynamics are driven by a small group of individuals who perpetuate their dominance through manipulation and control of public discourse.

The Historical Aberration of Liberal Democracies

Another perspective posits that liberal democracies are a historical aberration—a brief moment in time characterized by relative stability and prosperity that followed World War II. Francis Fukuyama, in his book The End of History and the Last Man, argued that liberal democracy might represent the endpoint of humanity’s sociocultural evolution. However, as subsequent events have unfolded, this notion has been challenged by many historians and political scientists.

Scholars like Larry Diamond and Robert Putnam highlight the fragility of democratic institutions and the increasing threats posed by authoritarianism and populism. Diamond, in his works on democratization, suggests that many democracies are experiencing a decline in civic engagement, leading to weaker institutions and increased susceptibility to authoritarian movements. This trend suggests that the future may not hold as many stable and healthy liberal democracies as previously hoped.

The Cyclical Nature of Political Trends

It is also possible that the current political climate is part of the usual fluctuations between progressive and regressive tendencies in society. Historians like Eric Hobsbawm have noted that history often unfolds in cycles, with periods of progressive reform followed by conservative retrenchment. This cyclical view suggests that the election of Trump may not represent an irreversible trend but rather a moment in the ongoing oscillation of political sentiment.

From this perspective, some might argue that the current turmoil is a temporary blip in the larger history of a flawed democracy. As seen in previous periods of unrest, such as the civil rights movements of the 1960s or the counterculture movements of the 1970s, societies often experience backlash before ultimately progressing toward more inclusive policies.

Additional Scenario: Diverging Directions

In addition to the aforementioned possibilities, another scenario could emerge where some countries, states, and regions move in a progressive partnership direction while others gravitate toward a more conservative stance. In this scenario, progressive states or regions may actively collaborate on shared initiatives focusing on sustainability, social justice, and community empowerment. This cooperative model could lead to innovative solutions and a more integrated approach to addressing global challenges, such as climate change and economic inequality.

Meanwhile, conservative states may pursue policies that reflect their values, potentially leading to a fragmented national landscape. This divergence could result in a patchwork of governance, where some areas thrive under progressive policies while others face challenges due to regressive measures. Such a scenario would highlight the importance of local governance and the varying capabilities of different regions to respond to contemporary issues.

Conclusion

As we contemplate the future of the United States and the world, it is essential to recognize the interplay of larger trends shaping our societies. While speculation is inherent in these discussions, drawing on historical perspectives and social scientific insights can provide valuable context. Whether we witness a progressive resurgence, continued polarization, or a recalibration of democracy, the unfolding of these dynamics will undoubtedly be influenced by the choices made by individuals and communities in the face of complex challenges. Understanding the cyclical nature of history and the fragility of democratic institutions is crucial for navigating this uncertain landscape and working toward a more equitable and sustainable future.

Origins and Characteristics of the Domination Culture

The origins of domination culture trace back to the Agricultural Revolution, a transformative period that began roughly 10,000–12,000 years ago. This era marked a shift from hunting and gathering to settled farming and animal domestication, leading to profound changes in human societies. While the Agricultural Revolution enabled the production of surplus food, it also laid the foundations for hierarchical societies, social inequality, and the power-over dynamics that characterize domination culture.

Origins in the Agricultural Revolution

Before the Agricultural Revolution, human societies were predominantly nomadic hunter-gatherers, living in relatively egalitarian social structures with shared access to resources. These groups were small, mobile, and often practiced cooperation and mutual dependence, which were essential for survival. The shift to agriculture fundamentally changed these dynamics. Settled farming allowed for larger populations, food surpluses, and the development of more permanent communities. However, with these benefits came new social and economic structures that emphasized control over land, resources, and, ultimately, other people.

1. Control Over Nature: The Agricultural Revolution marked the beginning of humanity’s attempt to dominate nature. Agriculture required controlling land, water, and plants to produce reliable food sources. This shift represented a break from the hunter-gatherer relationship with nature, which was one of dependence and harmony. Instead, farming involved reshaping the environment, subjugating it to human needs, and enforcing boundaries to ensure productive land was protected from external threats.
2. Ownership and Accumulation: The concept of ownership, especially of land, emerged with settled agriculture. As people invested labor into specific plots, a sense of personal or group entitlement to land and its products arose. This laid the groundwork for private property, wealth accumulation, and social stratification, as some families or individuals amassed more land, animals, and resources than others.
3. Social Hierarchies: As surpluses grew, so did social divisions. People no longer needed to spend all their time procuring food, which allowed for the specialization of labor and the emergence of roles outside farming, such as soldiers, priests, and rulers. These roles became entrenched in social hierarchies, with those controlling resources, land, and military power rising to dominance over others. Over time, this stratification solidified into class systems where the few at the top controlled the resources and the majority at the bottom provided labor.
4. Gender Roles and Patriarchy: The rise of settled agriculture also brought about a division of labor along gender lines, which often relegated women to roles related to domestic work and child-rearing, while men engaged in farming, politics, and warfare. This division contributed to the entrenchment of patriarchal structures, where men held social and political authority, a pattern that became deeply rooted in many subsequent societies.
5. War and Defense: With land and resources now seen as valuable property, conflicts over territory and resources became more common. As agricultural communities grew, they needed to defend their land from others and sometimes sought to expand their territory. This led to the development of organized armies, fortifications, and, ultimately, a culture that normalized and even valorized war and conquest. Dominance over others was not only accepted but celebrated, especially as societies began to conquer and subjugate neighboring communities.

Characteristics of Domination Culture

These foundational changes introduced cultural characteristics that came to define domination culture. At its core, domination culture values control, hierarchy, and competition, often at the expense of empathy, cooperation, and equality. Key characteristics include:

1. Hierarchy and Power Over Others: Domination culture is characterized by rigid social hierarchies where a small group holds power over the majority. This structure fosters competition and often values strength, control, and authority over compassion and mutual respect.
2. Objectification and Control of Nature: In a domination culture, nature is viewed primarily as a resource to be exploited for human benefit. This perspective has led to environmental degradation, as ecosystems are continually reshaped and depleted to serve human purposes without regard for sustainability.
3. Gender and Social Inequalities: Domination culture perpetuates unequal social roles and privileges, particularly along gender, class, and racial lines. In many societies, patriarchal values remain ingrained, privileging men and disadvantaging women and marginalized groups, a legacy of the power structures first established during the Agricultural Revolution.
4. Violence as a Means of Control: Domination culture often uses violence—whether physical, psychological, or structural—to maintain power. From domestic abuse to institutionalized racism, and from military conquests to economic exploitation, violence becomes a mechanism for enforcing control and subjugating others.
5. Scarcity Mindset and Competition: The Agricultural Revolution introduced a scarcity mindset, even amid abundance. Since resources could now be owned and accumulated, the fear of losing them fostered competition and the notion that one person’s gain is another’s loss. This scarcity-driven competition led to the devaluation of cooperation and mutual support, which had been essential in hunter-gatherer societies.
6. Separation from Nature and the Sacred: Many domination cultures developed ideologies that justified their power-over approach by emphasizing humanity’s separation from nature and seeing it as inherently inferior or dangerous. Religions that promoted a distant, sky-bound deity reinforced the idea that the sacred was separate from the natural world, legitimizing the exploitation of nature as divinely sanctioned.

Cultural Legacies and Moving Beyond Domination

Domination culture has endured for millennia, becoming embedded in institutions, traditions, and collective mindsets. The values that arose from early agricultural societies still permeate modern social and economic structures, from capitalism’s competitive, profit-driven model to patriarchy and systemic inequalities. These characteristics have fueled environmental degradation, social injustice, and widespread disconnection from nature and each other.

To move beyond domination culture, we must recognize and address its roots in historical trauma and its profound impact on human consciousness and social systems. This requires cultivating empathy, valuing cooperation, and fostering respect for all forms of life. By reimagining societal structures that prioritize partnership over power, humanity can build a culture rooted in harmony with nature, genuine equality, and collective well-being, challenging and transforming the deep-seated patterns of domination that have shaped us for millennia.

History and Characteristics of a Partnership Culture

A partnership culture is one where relationships between individuals, communities, and the natural world are grounded in mutual respect, cooperation, and shared power. This cultural model emphasizes collaboration, empathy, and a recognition of interconnectedness, fostering a society where differences are valued and resources are managed sustainably for the common good. Partnership culture represents a fundamental alternative to domination culture, promoting balance rather than hierarchy and collaboration over competition.

Historical Foundations of Partnership Culture

While domination culture is often seen as dominant in recorded history, archaeological and anthropological evidence suggests that many early human societies practiced forms of partnership-based living. Before the rise of the Agricultural Revolution and the subsequent development of hierarchical societies, early human groups lived in small, close-knit communities where cooperation and reciprocity were essential for survival. These societies, often referred to as hunter-gatherer or forager societies, were typically more egalitarian in structure, with shared resources, collective decision-making, and a deep connection to nature.

In partnership societies, relationships were generally non-hierarchical, and survival depended on mutual aid rather than competition. Evidence from prehistoric sites suggests that these groups:

• Had more balanced gender roles, with women playing significant roles in food gathering, community rituals, and decision-making.
• Lived with a sense of connection to nature, viewing themselves as part of an interdependent web rather than separate or superior to other life forms.
• Practiced rituals and traditions that reinforced group cohesion and respect for the natural world.

Some indigenous societies worldwide have preserved aspects of partnership culture, sustaining egalitarian practices, cooperative governance, and respect for all living beings. Examples include the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in North America, known for its council-based decision-making and sustainable practices, and many South American Indigenous cultures, which prioritize harmony with nature and cooperative relationships. These cultures offer modern societies a living example of partnership principles in action.

Characteristics of Partnership Culture

A partnership culture is defined by several key characteristics that contrast sharply with those of domination culture. These characteristics include:

1. Egalitarian Social Structures: Partnership cultures value equality and minimize hierarchies based on gender, class, or race. Social roles are often fluid, allowing individuals to contribute to the community based on their strengths rather than predetermined social categories. Decision-making is typically collaborative, ensuring that all voices are considered and respected.
2. Shared Power and Mutual Respect: In partnership cultures, power is viewed as something to be shared rather than wielded over others. Authority is often distributed or rotated, with an emphasis on consensus and collaboration. Leadership, where it exists, tends to be service-oriented, focused on guiding and supporting the community rather than controlling it.
3. Cooperation and Interdependence: Partnership cultures recognize the interconnectedness of all members of a community, including the human and natural worlds. This perspective fosters cooperation rather than competition, encouraging individuals to work together to support the collective well-being. Success is seen as a communal achievement, not an individual conquest.
4. Respect for Nature and the Environment: Partnership cultures typically view the natural world as an extension of the community, deserving of respect and care. This perspective supports sustainable practices and the recognition that humans are not separate from nature but are part of a broader ecosystem. Natural resources are managed in a way that considers the long-term impact on the environment and future generations.
5. Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution: Partnership cultures often prioritize nonviolent communication and conflict resolution, viewing disputes as opportunities for growth and understanding rather than domination. Rituals, dialogue, and council practices are commonly used to address conflicts and make decisions, helping to maintain harmony within the community.
6. Empathy and Compassion: A partnership culture emphasizes emotional intelligence, empathy, and compassion. In relationships, individuals are encouraged to understand and care for one another, creating bonds based on mutual respect and shared experiences. Empathy is extended beyond humans to include animals, plants, and the environment, recognizing the interconnectedness of all life.
7. Inclusive and Flexible Gender Roles: Partnership cultures often display more flexibility in gender roles, with men and women contributing equally to the community in different capacities. These societies recognize the unique strengths and perspectives of all genders, often avoiding rigidly defined roles and encouraging each individual to express their fullest potential.

Modern Examples and Expressions of Partnership Culture

Though modern society is heavily influenced by domination-based systems, there are numerous movements and communities today that embody partnership culture. These include:

• Indigenous Stewardship: Indigenous communities around the world offer examples of partnership culture, particularly in their approach to environmental stewardship and communal decision-making. Many Indigenous groups view land and resources as communal assets rather than private property, practicing sustainable agriculture, fishing, and land management.
• Intentional Communities and Ecovillages: Intentional communities and ecovillages around the world strive to model partnership principles. They prioritize shared decision-making, eco-friendly practices, and egalitarian social structures. Organizations like the Global Ecovillage Network and movements such as permaculture encourage sustainable, cooperative lifestyles that align with partnership values.
• Cooperatives and Collective Ownership Models: Worker cooperatives, land trusts, and other collective ownership models distribute economic power and emphasize shared responsibility. By placing ownership in the hands of workers and communities, these models challenge traditional capitalist hierarchies and create a more equitable and inclusive economy.
• Restorative Justice: The restorative justice movement seeks to transform the justice system by emphasizing repair, accountability, and reconciliation rather than punishment. This approach aligns with partnership culture, viewing conflict as an opportunity for healing and growth rather than retribution.
• Consensus-Based Decision Making: Consensus-based decision-making processes, often used in activist groups and cooperative organizations, prioritize inclusive participation and equal consideration of all voices. This model contrasts with hierarchical decision-making by valuing cooperation and mutual respect over authority.

Benefits of a Partnership Culture

Partnership culture offers numerous benefits, from healthier relationships to more sustainable communities. Some key advantages include:

• Enhanced Well-Being and Social Cohesion: Partnership cultures foster social bonds through empathy, cooperation, and shared purpose. This creates a sense of belonging and interconnectedness that enhances individual well-being and reduces social isolation.
• Resilience and Adaptability: By valuing diverse perspectives and flexible social roles, partnership cultures can adapt more readily to change. These communities often develop creative, locally-based solutions to challenges, making them resilient in the face of environmental and social crises.
• Environmental Stewardship: Partnership cultures tend to have a more holistic understanding of nature, seeing it as a living community rather than a resource. This perspective leads to sustainable practices that protect ecosystems and reduce environmental degradation.
• Reduced Violence and Conflict: Partnership cultures’ emphasis on empathy and nonviolent conflict resolution helps to reduce violence and foster a more peaceful society. By focusing on reconciliation and mutual understanding, these cultures address underlying issues and foster lasting harmony.

Toward a Partnership Society

In modern times, there is growing recognition of the need to shift from domination to partnership culture. Movements for social and environmental justice, gender equality, and cooperative economics reflect a collective longing for more equitable and sustainable ways of living. By studying and embodying partnership principles, humanity can begin to address the root causes of social and ecological crises, creating a future rooted in harmony, respect, and shared prosperity.

As more communities and societies embrace the principles of partnership culture, there is hope for a world where diversity is celebrated, resources are shared, and the inherent worth of all life is honored. This shift requires a rethinking of societal values, structures, and priorities, moving toward systems that emphasize connection, cooperation, and care. In doing so, humanity can work toward healing the fractures of domination culture and building a world that truly reflects our interconnected, interdependent nature.

Trump is Not a Conservative

Donald Trump is often described as a conservative, but his approach and values differ sharply from traditional conservatism in both the United States and broader political philosophy. Classic conservatism is rooted in principles like a commitment to established institutions, a cautious approach to change, fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and a respect for norms and traditions. In contrast, Trump’s style and actions often diverge from these values. Labels that may better fit his political approach include populist, authoritarian, reactionary, and nationalist.

1. Populist

Trump’s appeal is largely rooted in populism, which champions the idea that society is divided into two groups: the “pure” people and the “corrupt” elite. Populism often portrays itself as the voice of the average person, railing against established elites. Trump’s populist rhetoric resonates with many who feel left behind or disillusioned with the political establishment. He positions himself as an outsider, despite his personal wealth and connections, and frequently frames issues in terms of a corrupt elite versus the common people.

Populism also tends to rely on emotional appeals, often oversimplifying complex issues and favoring bold, sweeping promises over nuanced policies. This emotional appeal is a core element of Trump’s rhetoric, where he focuses on slogans and simplistic solutions, such as “Make America Great Again,” rather than on policy details or long-term strategies.

2. Authoritarian

Another defining feature of Trump’s approach is his authoritarian style. Authoritarianism values strong, centralized control and often undermines democratic norms. Traditional conservatism, especially in the U.S., generally supports a separation of powers, respect for the Constitution, and a system of checks and balances. However, Trump has consistently shown a tendency to circumvent established democratic norms and institutions. For instance, he has questioned the integrity of elections, disparaged the judicial system, and shown disdain for the press—critical institutions in a democratic society.

Trump’s authoritarian tendencies also manifest in his emphasis on loyalty, his intolerance for dissent, and his admiration for authoritarian leaders around the world. This disregard for democratic processes and checks on power puts him at odds with conservative principles of limited government and the rule of law.

3. Reactionary

Rather than embodying conservative values, Trump’s approach is often reactionary. While conservatism seeks gradual change to preserve tradition, reactionaries seek to reverse change and return to a previous state. Trump’s political message is filled with nostalgia, particularly for an idealized version of post-World War II America. He presents a vision of returning to a “better” past, appealing to the frustrations of those who feel that modern progressivism and globalization have disrupted their way of life.

This reactionary perspective often leads to a resistance to change, not because of a thoughtful analysis of the impacts, but because of a desire to return to a perceived “golden age.” Trump’s stance on issues like immigration, trade, and global alliances is often not conservative in the traditional sense but is instead driven by a resistance to the changes of the last few decades.

4. Nationalist

Trump’s emphasis on nationalism also diverges from traditional conservatism. While conservatives have historically promoted national pride, Trump’s nationalism is often exclusionary and isolationist, contrasting with the conservative ideal of patriotism, which values a love of country that includes all citizens and emphasizes the nation’s ideals and values.

Trump’s brand of nationalism frequently targets immigrants and minorities, often portraying them as threats to America’s safety, economy, or cultural identity. This is more in line with ethno-nationalism than traditional American conservatism, which has typically emphasized integration, shared values, and a commitment to the Constitution. Moreover, Trump’s foreign policy, often characterized as “America First,” undermines international alliances and multilateral cooperation that previous conservative administrations have supported as essential to global stability.

How Trump Differs from Traditional Conservatism

1. Respect for Institutions and Norms: Traditional conservatives value institutions, norms, and constitutional principles. Trump, however, has repeatedly disregarded these, challenging the legitimacy of the media, the judiciary, and other institutions.
2. Fiscal Responsibility: Conservatism traditionally emphasizes limited government and fiscal discipline, aiming to reduce debt and government spending. Under Trump’s administration, the national debt grew substantially, in part due to large tax cuts that were not offset by spending cuts, which runs counter to the conservative principle of fiscal prudence.
3. Moral and Ethical Standards: Conservatism has often emphasized personal responsibility, ethics, and integrity. Trump’s behavior—marked by insults, inflammatory language, and disregard for political norms—clashes with the conservative emphasis on moral character.
4. Pragmatism and Incremental Change: Conservatives typically advocate for incremental change to maintain stability. Trump’s style, however, is marked by impulsiveness, a disregard for careful deliberation, and a tendency to favor rapid, disruptive decisions, which is at odds with conservatism’s pragmatic approach to governance.

Alternative Labels for Trump’s Ideology

• Right-Wing Populism: His appeal to the grievances of “ordinary” people against the elite fits well with populism, especially as it’s commonly expressed on the right. This label captures his appeal to the frustrations of working-class and rural Americans, particularly those who feel alienated by modern progressive and globalist movements.
• Neo-Authoritarianism: His repeated attacks on the press, judiciary, and democratic norms align with authoritarian tactics that seek to consolidate power, undermine dissent, and suppress opposition.
• Ethno-Nationalism: Trump’s rhetoric often aligns with ethno-nationalist ideas, highlighting a desire to protect a narrowly defined national identity and prioritize the interests of certain groups over others.
• Cultural Reactionary: Trump’s focus on reversing the changes of recent decades in areas like immigration, social norms, and racial and gender equality fits the description of a reactionary. This label captures his desire to halt or roll back progress and return to a past societal structure.

In conclusion, Trump’s political identity is not well-defined by traditional conservatism. Instead, his ideology is more accurately described by terms like populist, authoritarian, reactionary, and nationalist, capturing his focus on emotional appeal, control, nostalgia, and exclusionary nationalism. These labels reflect the complex, multifaceted, and often contradictory nature of his approach, distinguishing it from the established principles of conservatism.

A Conservative Partnership Culture

A conservative partnership culture combines the values of conservatism—reverence for tradition, community cohesion, respect for the sacred, and responsible stewardship—with partnership ideals like collaboration, shared power, and a harmonious relationship with nature. Unlike hierarchical, domination-based societies, a conservative partnership culture preserves the wisdom of the past while fostering equitable relationships, environmental stewardship, and a communal sense of duty to one another and future generations.

Historical Examples of Conservative Partnership Cultures

Throughout history, many cultures have embodied conservative partnership principles, harmonizing traditional values with community-oriented living. These societies highlight how partnership and conservatism can coexist, honoring the sacred, fostering strong community ties, and respecting the natural world.

1. Medieval Monastic Communities: Christian monastic communities, such as those founded by Saint Benedict in the 6th century, exemplified a partnership-oriented conservatism. Benedictine monasteries valued stability, humility, and stewardship of resources, following the Rule of Saint Benedict, which promoted mutual respect, shared labor, and reverence for the land. These communities practiced sustainable agriculture, valued simplicity, and often provided education, medical care, and food to surrounding communities. Work, prayer, and study were balanced to support the well-being of both individuals and the community as a whole.
2. Indigenous Cultures: Many Indigenous societies throughout the Americas and other regions have long embraced partnership principles rooted in respect for nature, communal decision-making, and reverence for tradition. For example, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) in North America developed a governance model based on consensus, collaboration, and shared leadership among tribes. Their Great Law of Peace emphasized respect, harmony, and accountability, and decisions were made with consideration for the “Seventh Generation” to ensure the sustainability of resources for future people. This approach is deeply conservative in the sense that it preserves time-honored traditions while nurturing a responsible, cooperative relationship with the land.
3. The Amish: The Amish communities in North America exemplify a conservative partnership culture, balancing traditional beliefs with a deep commitment to community welfare, humility, and environmental care. Rooted in Anabaptist Christian values, the Amish emphasize simplicity, sustainability, and shared work, choosing practices that respect the land, minimize waste, and honor collective well-being. While they adopt new practices selectively, their commitment to preserving tradition, family, and mutual aid aligns with the partnership-oriented conservatism they practice.
4. Maori Communities of New Zealand: The Maori people of Aotearoa (New Zealand) have a deep connection to the land, known as whenua, which is considered sacred and an integral part of their identity and heritage. Maori culture values kaitiakitanga, the principle of guardianship over nature, emphasizing responsible stewardship and respect for all forms of life. Governance is often based on whanau (extended family) and iwi (tribal) structures that foster community-oriented decision-making, respect for elders, and communal support. Maori tradition views humans as part of a larger interconnected web of life, and practices such as seasonal fishing, rotational agriculture, and ritual celebrations reinforce a sustainable, cooperative relationship with the environment.
5. Balinese Subak System: In Bali, Indonesia, the subak system of rice farming embodies a partnership-based approach to land and water use, rooted in Hindu beliefs about harmony with nature. The subak system is a cooperative irrigation network that manages water resources equitably, ensuring that all farmers have access to the water they need. This system is not only practical but deeply spiritual, as it is tied to the Balinese concept of Tri Hita Karana, meaning “the three causes of well-being”—harmony with God, people, and nature. Local temples oversee water distribution, and rituals honor deities connected to fertility and abundance. The subak system has helped maintain agricultural sustainability in Bali for centuries, balancing individual needs with the welfare of the whole community.
6. Hopi Tribes of North America: The Hopi people of what is now the Southwestern United States have a long-standing culture of sustainable agriculture and community responsibility. Hopi values emphasize sumi’nangwa, or cooperation for the common good, with communal decision-making and mutual support embedded in daily life. Their farming techniques, particularly dry farming methods adapted to an arid environment, demonstrate deep knowledge of and respect for their land. Hopi spiritual practices involve seasonal ceremonies that honor Katsinas, spirit beings representing natural elements, reinforcing their commitment to balance with nature. The Hopi’s conservative approach preserves traditional ecological knowledge while fostering a resilient, interconnected community.
7. Zulu Nation’s Ubuntu Philosophy: The Zulu people of southern Africa embody the philosophy of Ubuntu, which emphasizes collective well-being, shared humanity, and mutual respect. Ubuntu means “I am because we are,” highlighting the interdependence of individuals and the importance of community welfare. Zulu traditions and practices promote care for one another, respect for elders, and community cohesion, with a strong emphasis on ethical responsibility. Ceremonies, such as those honoring ancestors, serve to remind the community of their roots and interconnectedness. This philosophy encourages sustainable relationships, responsible resource sharing, and a communal commitment to future generations.
8. Ifugao Rice Terraces of the Philippines: The Ifugao people in the Philippines have cultivated rice terraces for over 2,000 years, using sustainable farming practices that reflect a deep respect for nature and ancestral knowledge. These terraces are an example of a partnership approach to agriculture, designed to harmonize with the landscape rather than exploit it. Governance within Ifugao communities is guided by traditional councils and involves collaborative decisions about resource management and land use. Rituals associated with planting and harvesting honor ancestral spirits and maintain a balance between people and nature. The Ifugao’s focus on conservation and communal farming supports both environmental sustainability and cultural continuity.

Characteristics of a Conservative Partnership Culture

A conservative partnership culture is characterized by values that prioritize community stability, respect for the sacred, responsible stewardship of nature, and cooperation among individuals. Here are some key characteristics:

1. Respect for Tradition and Ritual: In a conservative partnership culture, traditions and rituals are deeply valued, as they connect individuals to their ancestors, provide meaning, and foster continuity. These rituals are often communal events that strengthen social bonds and reinforce cultural values. For instance, harvest festivals, rites of passage, and seasonal celebrations all serve to renew connections between people and the natural world.
2. Stewardship of the Environment: Nature is seen as sacred and deserving of respect, rather than as a mere resource to be exploited. In line with conservative values, these cultures emphasize responsible stewardship, seeing themselves as caretakers of the land. Sustainable agricultural practices, water conservation, and a reverence for biodiversity are key aspects. Rather than seeking rapid growth, they focus on maintaining a balanced relationship with the environment, conserving resources for future generations.
3. Social Responsibility and Mutual Aid: Community members view themselves as interconnected and responsible for one another. This sense of duty manifests in practices of mutual aid, where resources, labor, and support are shared freely within the community. Family, friendship, and community relationships are based on mutual respect, reciprocity, and a shared commitment to the collective good.
4. Decentralized, Collaborative Governance: Decision-making in a conservative partnership culture is typically based on consensus or collaboration rather than centralized authority. Elders or leaders are often chosen for their wisdom and commitment to serving the community. This governance structure promotes a balanced power dynamic, preventing dominance by any single individual or group.
5. Emphasis on Self-Sufficiency and Simplicity: Such cultures often value simplicity, limiting their needs and desires to what is essential and sustainable. They prioritize self-sufficiency over consumerism, aiming to meet their needs within the local environment and reduce dependence on external resources.

Conservative Thinkers with a Partnership Orientation

Several conservative thinkers, past and present, have articulated ideas that align with partnership principles, emphasizing stewardship, community, and respect for nature.

1. Wendell Berry: An American writer, farmer, and environmental activist, Berry is known for his deep commitment to sustainable agriculture, local economies, and community-oriented living. His writings emphasize the importance of place, the dignity of manual labor, and the connection between people and the land. Berry advocates for a conservative approach to modernity, critiquing industrialization and consumerism while promoting sustainable, small-scale farming and a strong sense of responsibility to future generations.
2. Edmund Burke: Often considered the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke advocated for tradition and social cohesion. Though he lived in an era when industrialization was reshaping society, Burke stressed the importance of stability, respect for inherited wisdom, and a cautious approach to change. He saw society as a partnership across generations, including those yet unborn, and would likely resonate with an ethic of environmental stewardship and intergenerational responsibility.
3. E.F. Schumacher: The economist and author of Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered, Schumacher critiqued the environmental and social consequences of unchecked economic growth and consumerism. He advocated for “Buddhist economics,” which emphasizes sustainability, small-scale production, and the well-being of communities over profit. Schumacher’s work is rooted in a conservative impulse to protect the environment, maintain human dignity, and foster local economies, principles that align with partnership ideals.
4. G.K. Chesterton: A British writer and philosopher, Chesterton was a proponent of “distributism,” a form of economic conservatism that advocated for widespread property ownership and decentralized economic power. Distributism emphasized localism, self-reliance, and a rejection of monopolistic capitalism. Chesterton believed in the importance of family, community, and small-scale economies as the foundation of a healthy society.
5. Aldo Leopold: Often regarded as the father of ecological conservation, Leopold developed a “land ethic” that emphasized humans’ role as stewards of the natural world. His work, including A Sand County Almanac, promotes a respectful and responsible relationship with nature, advocating for conservation, sustainability, and an ethical duty to preserve biodiversity. Leopold’s environmental philosophy resonates strongly with the idea of partnership with nature, grounded in a conservative respect for what endures.
6. Mahatma Gandhi (India): Gandhi advocated for Sarvodaya, the welfare of all, promoting values such as nonviolence, community self-sufficiency, and sustainable living. His philosophy combined a deep respect for traditional Indian culture with a partnership approach to social and environmental issues. Gandhi encouraged local economies through the concept of Swadeshi, which valued self-reliance and local craftsmanship. His commitment to environmental stewardship, social harmony, and ethical responsibility embodies a partnership-oriented conservatism that respects both tradition and interdependence.
7. Masanobu Fukuoka (Japan): A pioneer of natural farming, Fukuoka advocated for farming practices that work in harmony with nature rather than controlling it. His approach, often called “do-nothing farming,” reflects a partnership ethos that minimizes intervention and allows ecosystems to maintain balance. Fukuoka’s work emphasizes the importance of small-scale, sustainable agriculture and challenges industrial farming practices. Rooted in Zen Buddhist philosophy, his methods promote humility, respect for natural processes, and a commitment to traditional ecological knowledge, blending conservatism with partnership.
8. Laozi (China): The ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi, founder of Daoism, advocated for a worldview rooted in harmony with the natural world. In Tao Te Ching, Laozi describes the principle of Wu Wei, or “effortless action,” which encourages individuals to live in alignment with the rhythms of nature rather than imposing control. Laozi’s teachings emphasize balance, humility, and respect for the interconnectedness of all life. His philosophy promotes a conservative approach to change, encouraging individuals to preserve natural harmony and seek simplicity, which aligns with partnership ideals that prioritize balance and mutual respect.
9. Ken Saro-Wiwa (Nigeria): A Nigerian writer and environmental activist, Saro-Wiwa was a vocal advocate for the rights of the Ogoni people in the Niger Delta, where oil exploitation had caused environmental degradation. He championed sustainable land use, respect for local customs, and justice for marginalized communities. Saro-Wiwa’s activism reflects a conservative partnership approach that emphasizes community welfare, environmental responsibility, and the protection of cultural heritage. He believed in preserving the traditional livelihoods and ecosystems of the Ogoni people, advocating for an approach to progress that respects both cultural and ecological integrity.
10. Satish Kumar (India/UK): An environmental activist and advocate for “reverential ecology,” Satish Kumar emphasizes the interconnectedness of all life, advocating for small-scale, sustainable practices. Kumar draws from the Jain philosophy of ahimsa (nonviolence) and the Gandhian tradition of simple living, promoting partnership-oriented values of environmental stewardship, nonviolence, and respect for all beings. As editor of Resurgence magazine, Kumar has consistently supported local economies, organic farming, and spiritual approaches to environmental issues, embodying a conservative partnership ethos that seeks harmony between humanity and the natural world.

Toward a Conservative Partnership Culture Today

The notion of a conservative partnership culture offers a model for addressing contemporary challenges like environmental degradation, social fragmentation, and the loss of cultural heritage. This approach would prioritize sustainable practices, community resilience, and respect for both tradition and innovation in solving modern issues.

1. Revitalizing Local Economies: A conservative partnership culture would encourage local production, small businesses, and sustainable agriculture. Communities would support local farmers, artisans, and craftspeople, promoting economic self-sufficiency while reducing dependency on global markets.
2. Practicing Environmental Stewardship: Inspired by thinkers like Aldo Leopold and Wendell Berry, a conservative partnership culture would adopt sustainable land use practices, such as regenerative agriculture and conservation initiatives. Communities would take pride in conserving natural spaces, protecting biodiversity, and reducing waste to honor their duty to future generations.
3. Strengthening Community Bonds: Fostering communal gatherings, mutual aid networks, and intergenerational dialogue would strengthen social cohesion. By emphasizing family, friendship, and local community, a conservative partnership culture would counteract social isolation and promote a strong support network.
4. Promoting Ethical Governance: Inspired by traditional forms of governance seen in cultures like the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, a conservative partnership culture would emphasize shared leadership and consensus-based decision-making, creating an inclusive system that respects the wisdom of elders and the perspectives of all members.
5. Balancing Tradition and Adaptability: A conservative partnership culture respects the wisdom of tradition while remaining open to necessary adaptation. Cultural practices, spiritual rituals, and social norms are preserved not for their own sake, but because they provide meaning, stability, and guidance for a balanced life.

In conclusion, a conservative partnership culture honors the sacred interconnectedness of life, promotes respect for tradition, and emphasizes our responsibility to the natural world and future generations. Inspired by historical examples and thinkers who value sustainability, community, and stewardship, this culture offers a vision for a world that preserves what is good and enduring while fostering equitable relationships and environmental care.

The United States and the Undermining of Democracies: A Historical Overview

The United States has a long and complex history of intervening in the political affairs of other nations, often undermining or overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of right-wing dictatorships. This pattern has manifested in various forms, including covert operations, military interventions, and diplomatic pressure, and has had significant and lasting impacts on the countries involved. Below are notable examples of such interventions throughout the decades.

Latin America

1. Guatemala (1954): The U.S. orchestrated a coup to overthrow President Jacobo Árbenz, who was implementing agrarian reforms that threatened the interests of American corporations, particularly the United Fruit Company. The CIA’s Operation PBSUCCESS resulted in decades of civil conflict and the establishment of a military dictatorship.
2. Chile (1973): The U.S. supported the overthrow of democratically elected President Salvador Allende. Through economic pressure and covert operations, the CIA facilitated the military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet’s regime was marked by human rights abuses, including torture and disappearance of thousands of political opponents.
3. Nicaragua (1980s): After the Sandinista revolution overthrew the Somoza dictatorship, the U.S. supported the Contra rebels, who waged a violent insurgency against the Sandinista government. The U.S. provided funding and military aid, leading to a protracted civil war that destabilized the country.
4. Argentina (1976): The U.S. supported the military junta that overthrew President Isabel Perón, leading to a “Dirty War” characterized by widespread human rights abuses, including forced disappearances and state-sponsored terror against leftist opponents.
5. Honduras (2009): Following the ousting of President Manuel Zelaya in a coup backed by the military and supported by the U.S., the country descended into political chaos and violence. The U.S. continued to recognize the new government despite the coup, which led to increased repression and human rights violations.

The Middle East

6. Iran (1953): The U.S. orchestrated the coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who had nationalized the oil industry. The CIA’s operation led to the reinstatement of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose authoritarian regime resulted in widespread repression, ultimately contributing to the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
7. Iraq (1963): The U.S. supported a coup that brought the Ba’ath Party to power, leading to a series of repressive regimes, including that of Saddam Hussein. The U.S. initially backed Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War, despite his brutal tactics against dissent.
8. Libya (2011): While the U.S. did not directly overthrow Muammar Gaddafi, it played a significant role in the NATO intervention that led to his ouster. The subsequent power vacuum and instability have resulted in ongoing conflict and a struggle for power among rival factions.

Africa

9. Democratic Republic of the Congo (1960): After the independence of the Congo, the U.S. backed the assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, who had sought to steer the country away from colonial influence. The U.S. subsequently supported the dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko, whose regime was marked by corruption and human rights abuses.
10. South Africa (1980s): During the apartheid era, the U.S. government maintained relations with the apartheid regime, prioritizing anti-communism over human rights. The U.S. supported various right-wing factions and governments in the region to counter the influence of leftist movements, despite widespread domestic and international condemnation of apartheid.

Asia

11. Vietnam (1950s-1970s): While the U.S. did not directly overthrow the South Vietnamese government, its support for the authoritarian regime of President Ngo Dinh Diem led to widespread repression. The U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War aimed to prevent a communist takeover but resulted in immense suffering and long-lasting consequences for the Vietnamese people.
12. Philippines (1972): The U.S. supported President Ferdinand Marcos, who declared martial law and ruled as a dictator for over a decade. The U.S. provided military aid and political support despite widespread human rights abuses and corruption under Marcos’s regime.

Recent Developments

13. Venezuela (2010s-Present): The U.S. has been involved in efforts to undermine the government of Nicolás Maduro, supporting opposition figures and imposing economic sanctions. While the U.S. frames this as a fight for democracy, it has resulted in significant suffering among the Venezuelan population.
14. Ukraine (2014): The U.S. supported the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych during the Euromaidan protests, which were partly driven by his decision to reject an association agreement with the European Union. While the U.S. framed its support as a promotion of democracy, the ensuing conflict has led to increased tensions with Russia and ongoing instability in the region.

Conclusion

The United States’ history of undermining democracies and supporting right-wing dictatorships is marked by a complex interplay of geopolitical interests, economic motivations, and ideological conflicts. These interventions have often led to significant human suffering, long-lasting instability, and the erosion of democratic institutions in the affected countries. Understanding this history is crucial for recognizing the potential consequences of foreign policy decisions and the need for a more principled approach to international relations that prioritizes democracy and human rights.