While the addition of Michael Bloomberg to the Democratic debate stage in Las Vegas was causing some sort of chemical reaction in which everyone bubbled over and started telling each other—but especially Bloomberg—how they really feel, the incumbent president they all want to run against was holding a rally. And while there are massive differences between Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders, and the visceral hatred between Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg looks very real indeed, it's always good to get some perspective in the midst of a knock-down-drag-out primary brawl. What Donald Trump's counter-programming once again demonstrated, you see, is that he's an authoritarian ghoul who's a few sandwiches short of a picnic.



The current President of the United States took the stage in Phoenix, Arizona, and hit all the notes. He demanded to know, and not for the first time(!), whether anyone in the crowd hates their kids. OK, in fairness, he only asked whether anyone "in this incredible audience—man, this is a big building" does "not love their children." He asked for a show of hands. You know, normal president stuff.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

normal times at the Trump rally pic.twitter.com/37brGFv0fM — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020

These bizarro routines are Trump's way of hyping his estate-tax cut, which he, like Mitt Romney or Marco Rubio would have, has repackaged as a boon to farmers. This sounds a lot better than "we cut taxes on multi-millionaire trust-fund kids," which is what mostly happened. The tax formerly applied to estates worth more than $5.49 million, or $10.98 million for married couples, and according to CNN, just 13 percent of all taxable estates in 2016 reported any farm assets at all. Overall, farm assets represented a tiny percentage, on average, of taxable estates, especially very large estates. It's a scam, but again, it's a better message for rural America than "many of you are getting killed in the trade war but we're papering over the cracks with full-on socialism." In this way, Trump's intent makes (cynical) sense, but his methods are 'round the bend.

Also, there was this.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Trump short-circuits when he tries to read "NAFTA" pic.twitter.com/d0NvZ6qAAS — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020

It wouldn't be a Trump rally without some deranged racist propaganda wherein he offers the crowd a rhetorical snuff film about an individual case of immigrant violence and presents it as representative of everyone who wants to come here. You will notice that stories about a mother who travels here to work 14-hour days in search of a better life for her children does not feature in these appalling displays. It's only ever violent criminals who get a mention from the president, because from the very first day of his 2016 campaign, he has sought to paint brown immigrants as rapists and criminals. He scarcely even bothers with the "some, I assume, are good people" stuff anymore.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Trump sensationalizes crime stories, referring to a criminal as a "savage animal," to push collective guilty on undocumented immigrants pic.twitter.com/AMOZpithZb — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020

Ah, nice. In this case, we got some dehumanization as well. Again, the effect here is not just to call the individual "a savage animal." By failing to contextualize this as one bad actor who does not represent the whole—there is no evidence that immigrants, documented and otherwise, are more likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens—it has the effect of representing the whole. Trump's intent is for the crowd to think of anyone trying to cross the border as an animal, and worthy of requisite treatment. It makes it a lot easier to throw people in cages.

And then, inevitably, we were treated to the rhetorical extension of Trump's now full-fledged war on our independent system of justice, in which he's attempting to subvert the institutions charged with applying the law equally and without prejudice into instruments of his own power. He has purged the government of public servants and replaced them with loyalists, and begun pardoning his crooked cronies in preparation for even greater feats of abject lawlessness. But on Wednesday evening, he brought it all back to where it began.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Trump brings up Hillary Clinton then nods and gives a thumbs up as his Phoenix crowd chants "lock her up!" pic.twitter.com/6yDzvAaIP5 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) February 20, 2020

And this is where it's all headed. This week, Trump began to flex his newfound ability, thanks to a rubber-stamp from the Republican Senate, to ensure that Friends of Trump are immune from legal jeopardy as long as they never give up The Boss. Soon enough, he will test his power to punish his enemies using the power of the justice system. Attorney General William Barr is in the midst of his own scam, trying to convince credulous observers that he is offended by Trump's interference in the Department of Justice, but there's no reason to believe him. They are working together to build an America where the only way to be assured of your freedom and prosperity is through allegiance to The Leader.

That's why, for all the threat that Bloomberg's campaign poses to democracy, even he must surely be a better choice than the incumbent. Look at the permission Trump took from his acquittal in the Senate to ramp up his authoritarian rampage. Imagine the lessons he'll take from re-election. It is doubtful the institutions of a free republic will be able to withstand what comes in his second term. Is Bloomberg really the same as that? Of course, the beauty of the Democratic primary at this stage is that there are many non-Bloombergs to choose from.

Jack Holmes Politics Editor Jack Holmes is the Politics Editor at Esquire, where he writes daily and edits the Politics Blog with Charles P Pierce.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io