Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

President Trump? How about Don Donald?

Opinion

Donald Trump
Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Goldstone’s most recent book is "On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights."

On Aug. 8, in a scene that could have been lifted from the CBS series “FBI,” a team of federal agents, some wielding automatic weapons, descended on the sprawling, opulent home of an alleged crime lord to execute a court ordered search warrant in an attempt to retrieve documents that would provide incontrovertible evidence of his misconduct. What made the scene unusual was that the target was not a Mafia kingpin but rather a former president of the United States.

In the wake of the raid, Republican leaders predictably screamed “Unfair!” and “Persecution!” although Donald Trump was being investigated for the same sort of crime, and on a much larger scale, for which they had spent years vilifying Hillary Clinton. Still, it was somehow fitting that a man who for some time has been likened to a gangland boss was finally being treated like one. And Trump’s reaction was in character. He blamed venal FBI agents and self-serving prosecutors, expressing similar outrage as previous victims of overzealous law enforcement, such as John Gotti. In addition, two days after the raid, he took the fifth during a deposition in New York – serious “Godfather” behavior.


With this latest indication that laws are not things Trump pays a good deal of attention to, except perhaps to find ways to ignore them, many on the left have been wondering if now, after years of overlooking every show of contempt for the rules and for democracy, conservatives will finally recognize that their hero is precisely what a previous conservative icon, Richard Nixon, falsely denied being — a crook.

Sorry, liberals. Conservatives already know. The problem is not a lack of awareness, or even a lack of caring. The problem is that many Trump’s supporters like that he’s a crook.

To appreciate Donald Trump’s criminal allure, one must look back almost a century to the career of Boston’s James Michael Curley. The subject of the book and the film “The Last Hurrah,” Curley, whose political life spanned almost a half-century, served four terms as mayor of Boston, four terms in Congress, and one disastrous term as Massachusetts governor, during which time he was openly and almost gleefully corrupt.

Curley didn’t always get away with it. His last stint as mayor was interrupted in 1947, when he was sent to jail for mail fraud, this after being accused of any number of other crimes, including bribery and accepting bribes, all of which bothered his supporters not one whit. Curley had been in jail before, convicted of fraud in 1904, and while ensconced in his cell, he was elected to the city’s board of aldermen. He was released from his second prison term only five months into an 18-month sentence, after supporters convinced President Harry Truman that he was in such ill health that he might not survive. Returning home, Curley was greeted by thousands of cheering supporters while a brass band played “Hail to the Chief.” Curley, fit as a fiddle, lived another 11 years.

But the secret to understanding Curley — and Trump — comes not from his behavior, but from his supporters. During Curley’s tenure in politics, Boston was a deeply divided city. The working class were mostly first- or second-generation Irish Catholics and, in the early decades of the 20th century, Boston’s working class toiled for very long hours at very low pay and endured constant maltreatment from their employers, many of whom were middle- and upper-class old-line Protestants. Living conditions for the working poor in American cities in the early 20th century were appalling: Housing was substandard and overcrowded; health care was primitive or nonexistent; air and water quality almost a guarantee of disease; crime rampant; and, in Boston, Irish immigrants were generally treated as sub-human. One of the only city institutions from which they were not barred was the jails.

Curley attacked all of those injustices with unflagging ardor. As a more recent Boston mayor, Ray Flynn, wrote in the Boston Herald, “You cannot overstate all the things Curley did, particularly in his first two terms, to improve public health, hygiene, sanitation and safety for the poor, the immigrants and the working class in the city of Boston.” And the poor loved him for it. They could not have cared less if, as Trump might have put it, he had shot someone dead in the middle of Beacon Street.

It was not just the tangible improvements that made Curley so beloved. His supporters exulted every time he stuck his thumb in the eyes of the upper-class elites, which he made certain to do regularly. Curley bullied, cajoled, threatened, sweet-talked, oiled palms, and manipulated city or state laws to get what he wanted for his constituents, making sure there was always a bit of spillover for himself.

And so, as with Trump, Mayor Curley’s supporters not only accepted that he was dishonest — they reveled in it. He might be a crook, but he was their crook.

The Curley/Trump parallel has one serious divergence, however. Unlike Curley, Trump has no loyalty to those he claims to represent. Curley was one of his own constituents, a man who had felt the same sting of bigotry as had they, and he represented them because he felt they deserved to win for once. Trump, on the other hand, has spent his life sneering contemptuously at those in whose interests he claims to work. He would sell them out in a second.

In this, Donald Trump shifts away from populist politician and back to Mafia don. Those who deal with genuine underworld figures quickly learn never to underestimate their capacity for betrayal, vindictiveness and treachery. Conservatives who blindly obey the dictates of Donald Trump will find that out the second his interests conflict with theirs.


Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

American flag funnel with money

Illustration provided

Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

Reducing the influence of money pouring into presidential politics since the 2010 Citizens United decision may actually be possible by addressing the "winner-take-all" (WTA) structure of the Electoral College. By changing how electoral votes are allocated, the incentive to concentrate money in a few swing states could be reduced.

The winner-take-all (WTA) feature of the Electoral College narrows the focus of massive campaign expenditures in a “Funnel Effect”* to a handful of closely divided battleground states. Because candidates have little to gain from spending in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind, they concentrate all their financial resources on 15 or 16 states, or in some cycles, as few as seven key swing states. All this could change if the "battleground state" phenomenon were taken away from the wealthy, as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) would accomplish.

Keep ReadingShow less