"Trump, the Mesiah of our times" - in all of its connotations

It was refreshing to come across this article in Politico , "Donald Trump’s Fictional America" written by A.M. Rondon, that captured so much of my own thinking. In effect, he coherently states that Donald Trump's destruction of language as the vital tool of rationality is not a defect of his program, but its essence. Radon focuses on the similarity between Donald Trump and Chevez who while beloved when dictator of Venezuela, even in it's current failed state of poverty and violence is still revered by many.   
--------------------------------------
Trumps war on rationality is a requirement for his political success, yet his opponents show no inclination towards accepting this.  The L.A. Times is starting a three part editorial against him with one titled, Our Dishonest President, as though he were "only dishonest" which implies presenting a coherent alternative reasonable theory of events.  No, he is attacking reason itself and what he offers is not alien as it is a version of what most Americans espouse to some degree or the other, a specific definition of religion.  In the “establishment clause, the first freedom uses a single word, “religion.”  But it has two distinct meanings, as well defined in Dictionary.com :

1: A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing human affairs.
2: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons

#1 religions would be the three Abrahamic ones, among many hundreds of others.  #2 would include Universalist Unitarian, Scientology and one founded by a notable atheist,  First Amendmist Church of True Science — F.A.C.T.S

In the U.S., both #1 and #2 religions are treated the same in areas such as tax benefits and zoning along with the extra protection provided by RFRA.

There is a more profound contrast between #1 and #2 religions.  It is that the former includes a commitment and belief in the supernatural, that all that we know from our naive observations to the most arcane understandings of the scientific endeavor are subject to being overruled by the dogma of their religion.  Death is not irreversible,  miracles do happen,  good and evil are not human constructs, but the essential nature of the world. This definition of religion, describes the abolition   of reality that is the central aspect of what I will call "Trumpism."  Truth is no longer that which can be confirmed by research into the nature of things, but by the source of the utterance.  Christianity only took root when Jesus and God became one, accompanied by the ineffable "holy ghost." 

For the #1 religions, and those who espouse them,  not only is global warming a hoax, but so could be anything or everything that has been explained by the formal or unarticulated principles of the scientific method.

Vice President Mike Pence in his proclamation, “ I am, first of all, a Christian," defined who he was  In contrast, Donald J. Trump, while welcoming #1 Christians and Jews into his electoral coalition, shows no evidence of being one himself.  What he is doing fits a pattern, that his claiming faith in any God or Mesiah he would preclude that he is the one, the savior of all who suffer in this world.   He ignores the similarity of the three Abrahamic religions by turning Islam into the evil outside threat, a device that is essential to any would be autocratic leader.

Now to turn the page:


In a similar way when Representative Charles Schumer sponsored this law elevating all religions over non-religion, being a secular Jew it is unlikely that this was done for other than political expediency.  He expresses no contrition for sponsoring this bill, accurately described by John Paul Stevens in his concurrence as being a violation of the first amendment of our Constitution.  Schumer is to the bone a politician, in the worst meaning of the word.  His motivations and thinking is limited to amassing power, in his case entwined with the Democratic party.  This individual is, as I write this, about to precipitate the culmination of destroying the unique aspect of the United States Senate, which was that the minority party would commonly have the ability to prevent the will of the majority, by use of the filibuster maintaining.

I write this as the slow motion train wreck of Senate Democrats, in an act of destruction that can only be described as a petulant child's destroying his favorite toy to show his rage at not getting his way, is about to start the chain of events that will end the traditional rights of a minority in choosing a member of the Supreme Court.   The New York Times, in this editorial still blaming Republicans, had this to say about the pragmatic harm to Democrats of forcing the Nuclear Option.

Whether legitimately outraged at Mr. McConnell’s treatment of the Garland nomination or opposed to Judge Gorsuch on the merits, if they lose the filibuster now — as they will — then it is not available to use against another Trump nominee, who may be objectionable not only to Democrats but to a few Republicans, as well. Yes, the Republicans could possibly strip the filibuster away the next time, too. But surely having some slight chance of being able to deploy it to stop a renegade justice is better than having no chance at all. And the danger some Democrats appear to fear of seeming naïve by clinging to a goal of bipartisan support for the court seems less acute than the certainty of their appearing ineffectual in a futile effort to block the Gorsuch appointment.

Schumer and the Dailykos followers ignored not only the harm to their party but to the institution of the Senate and will continue to make their case as this is being written.

The justification for Republicans not considering Garland enhanced by this speech on the Senate floor in 1992 by Chair of the Judiciary Committee Joe Biden, it's meaning contended by Democrats as not applicable.  My own careful reading is that it certainly does show the intent of the majority Senate democrats to do in 1992, exactly what the majority Republicans did in 2016.

Conclusion:

Donald Trump is destroying the office of the President, while the Democratic party is destroying a major element of the United States Senate.  This is personally depressing, and the depredations of one does not justify that of the other.  Now to go back to CSPAN and watch as the proverbial train of the U.S. Senate gets closer to the bridge over the chasm that has collapsed, with no one on the train having the ability to prevent the approaching disaster. 

After spending the day watching the statements of Democratic  Senators I'm no longer convinced that Neil Gorsuch is the independent jurist that I had believed.  Senior Democrats  with a deep understanding of the intersection of politics and law such as  Tim Kaine, who had been a law professor delved into the details of specific decisions by Gorsuch, that were enlightening.  I leaned just why the "Chevron preference" and "plain language" were important terms of art that Gorsuch had breached, all with a certain bias.

I had now spent close to 40 hours watching these hearings and floor discussions, and it seemed more clear that Judge Posner's observation, made by many others, that Supreme Court decisions are commonly reflections of the Justice's values, and not as claimed simply calling balls and strikes. It is all but certain that the filibuster elimination will now include Supreme Court Justices.