And now for something completely different

 I spent the summer of 1974 researching my dissertation in London, and a lifelong love affair began.  The World Cup started in Germany shortly after I arrived, and I saw at least half of the games.  The great Dutch team led by my exact contemporary Johann Cruyff captivated the world on the way to the final, only to lose 2-1 to the host country Germans, despite going ahead 1-0 in literally the first minute of play on a penalty won by Cruyff dribbling into the German box.  Four years later I was visiting family in Hungary for most of the competition, saw some great matches there, and then returned in time to see the three matches that determined who would reach the final in a packed Boston movie theater, filled with international fans, which showed the matches on closed circuit.  Holland, now playing without Cruyff, overcame an early own goal against favored Italy to win 2-1 on two fantastic long shots--one still probably the longest I have ever seen.  Then Brazil established itself as the favorite to play the Dutch in the final again by beating Poland 3-1.  The competition was happening in Argentina, however, and in the third match, the home team, needing to beat Peru by four goals in order to reach to the final, took a 2-0 lead in the first half and eventually won 6-0.  Later journalistic investigations suggested that a big payment to the Peruvians--or at least some of them--had led to that result.  The Dutch lost their second consecutive final to the home side, 3-1 after extra time, after their star Rob Resenbrink hit the post with the score 1-1 in the last minute of normal time.  

In 1982 and 1986 Univision, with its iconic play-by-play man Andres Cantor, was televising every match of the cup, but the Pittsburgh cable provider I used would subscribe to univision.  I saw much of the 1986 one on delays after a friend sent me tapes from a more friendly city, and US television did provide a few key matches, including the final, with commercial interruptions.  In 1990 I rented my own satellite dish for the tournament to get Univision. Finally, by 1994 when the US hosted for the first time, US networks broadcast the whole competition without commercials, as they have done every time since this year.  Meanwhile, the competition has expanded from 16 teams--yes, that was all--in 1974 and 1978 to 24 in 1982, 32 in 1998, and 48 this year.  That means that the competition has grown from 38 total matches in 1974 to 103 this year (I am leaving out the meaningless third-place matches between the losing semifinalists.)  

I was initially appalled by the latest expansion, but it turns out that I was wrong.  For one, teams from Africa, North and Central America, and to a lesser extent Asia have improved so much that there have been very few one-sided matches this year.  Incredibly, the Cape Verde Islands, expected to rank with Curacao as the weakest team, drew all three of their group games--including the first one with Spain, one of the favorites--and advanced to the second round.  In 1974 Zaire represented Africa in my first World Cup and lost three matches by a combined score of 14-0;  this year the same country, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, tied Portugal, beat Uzbekistan, and has advanced to the last 32.  Senegal, Ghana, and the Ivory Coast have also advanced, with strong performances against some of the favorites along the way.  There have been three or four games every day--sometimes more--and there will be three most days this week to whittle the field from 32 to 16, including match-ups between Holland and Morocco, two tremendous teams, and Sweden and favored France.  The United States, Canada, and Mexico, who have jointly hosted, are all in the second round.  The United States was one of the sensations of the first round, locking up its group in its first two games, but do not believe that their Balkan opponent now, Bosnia-Herzegovina, is a pushover.  B-H eliminated Italy from the competition in a pre-tournament playoff.

Soccer had essentially no following as a spectator sport in the US when I began watching, and it has a substantial one now.  I must admit I'm a snob--I am not sure I have ever watched a Major League Socce game--and until this year I found it hard to root for the US team because they never really had a chance of winning.  They now face a very difficult draw, including Spain the quarterfinals, but I'm all-in for them in the meantime.  The real point of this post, however, is different: to try to enlighten the millions of skeptical Americans, many of whom may be among my readers, as to what makes the sport so great, and what they need to understand to appreciate it.  I will do my best.

Historically soccer is most closely related to football among the major American sports, which is why they both field eleven men at a time, but in my experience ignorant Americans tend to compare it to basketball.  They immediately complain that you hardly ever get to see a basket. No, soccer features only a few goals a game, just as football in its early days, and before various rule changes, often featured only a few touchdowns, even at the highest level.  It's much harder to score a touchdown or a soccer goal than to score a single basket--because the games are harder.  The fields are bigger and their are more people in your way.  But the biggest difference between soccer and the other two has to do with the role of the ball.   In football and basketball one side has control of the ball for defined periods, and losing it is rare.  In soccer, where you cannot told the ball in your hands, no the two teams are fighting for the ball for every second of the game, literally.  Any player, including Lionel Messi, who simply tries to keep the ball on his own foot indefinitely is going to lose it.  I could count the number of times I have seen one player dribble from one end of the field to the other and score on the fingers of one hand (although one of them, the Dutch defender Mickey van der Ven, is playing in the World Cup right now.)  Teams can only control the ball by keeping it moving, and protecting it from opposing players involves ballet-like footwork and skillful feet that can move the ball out of the reach of the opponent as needed.  The players you can see in the World Cup have mostly been recruited into youth academies when they were about 10 and have spent the rest of their lives developing skills like that one.

That isn't all.  Kicking a soccer ball properly is a multi-faceted art, using at least three different surfaces of the foot at different times--the inside, the outside, and the instep or top.  Learning to kick with both feet adds a whole new dimension, and it is mind-boggling to see Kylian Imbappe of France, in my opinion the greatest all-around forward in the tournament, score with an unstoppable 20-foot rising shot from his weaker left foot, as he did last week.  And then there is the use of the head--primarily the forehead, but sometimes the temple--from which a number of goals always come, and which defenders rely on to send high balls in front of their goals to safety.   Most importantly of all, all these skills must be put at the service of the player's brain, which faces much greater demands, I would argue, than those of any position on basketball court or football field except the quarterback.

When the quarterback goes back to pass, he must make a split second assessment of the field in front of him, identify someone on his team who is free to receive the ball, and throw accurately.  He has the advantage of knowing where is players are supposed to be going, since they are all working according to a carefully worked out play.  In soccer, every player on the field has to do that, in far more chaotic situations, every time he gets his foot on the ball, except the very rare occasions when he's in a position to try to direct the ball into his opponent's net.  Every soccer player has to play the role of a football wide receiver, of a running back, and finally of a quarterback, every time he gets the ball.  For a team to get from deep in its own half to scoring position requires a series of players to execute those roles successfully.  While one man plays running back and then quarterback, any number of them can be playing wide receiver, and they all have opponents to contend with.  

When you become aware of how much skill goes into almost every second of the game, and how every yard of the pitch is contested, the drama can become very absorbing, and tension builds any time one team gets the ball near the other team's goal.  That is why, to put it bluntly, when a goal is scored, it generates what can only be described as an orgasmic response among players and fans alike.  The serious fan feels tremendous excitement when it looks like the ball may go into the enemy goal, and serious terror when it looks like it might go into his own.  

The most dramatic game of the tournament so far was between Ecuador, a very solid South American side, and Germany.  Ecuador had very unluckily lost 1-0 to the Ivory Coast, another fine team, and had to get at least a draw against Germany, who had beaten Curacao 7-1, to have a chance to advance.  And they got a terrible break after five minutes when the referee, from the US, ignored an obvious dangerous play foul by a German forward whose boot actually hit the face of an Ecuadorean defender.  The referee didn't blow the whistle and the Germans scored a moment later to go ahead 1-0.  But Ecuador didn't give up, and they had tied the game with a fine shot from outside the box by the end of the half.  In the second half you could see them fighting harder and harder, fighting for every ball, moving without the ball, and keeping a lot of possession.  And finally, with about ten minutes to go, they got a goal and won 2-1--a tremendous achievement for a mid-range country.  They too beat Curacao easily in their final game and will not face Mexico in the next round.  The Mexicans will be playing before their home crowd but Ecuador could certainly beat them. 

The 48-team format is producing an  unprecedented stream of at least three matches a day, and now every one of them is a battle for life and death, fought by players who know that what they do on this quadrennial stage will never be forgotten.  Nations like Germany, France, England, Spain, Brazil and Argentina are fighting to win the trophy once again, while smaller nations--to say nothing of the United States--have a chance to put themselves on the soccer map as never before.  If you haven't experienced it, give it a try!

I shall shortly resume my more normal kind of commentary but I take this subject very seriously too.  The reason was beautifully stated by the late Chief Justice Earl Warren many decades ago, in a quote that has found its way onto the frontispiece of two of my books.  "I turn to the sports pages first," he reportedly said, "because there I find a record of man's achievements, while on the front page I find only a record of his failures."  Amen.

Bureaucracy and Liberty

 I spent my last term as a college undergraduate in the spring of 1969.   For many of my classmates, that was above all the time of the occupation of University Hall, a student strike, the end, for decades, of ROTC programs on the Harvard campus, and the creation of a black studies department.  I watched all t hose events as an observer, because I had just handed in my senior these on George Orwell--which anyone can read here--and the SDS reminded me much too much of the communists he had encountered in Spain and in the British intellectual community to persuade of much of anything.  And at the same time, I was taking the second half of Stanley Hoffmann's course on modern France.  I wrote another big paper for that one, on the split between Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.  Then, during that great Harvard institution Reading Period--eliminated by Larry Summers to put Harvard's fall exams before Christmas, as they were at its major competitors--I read The Old Regime and the French Revolution, by Alexis de Tocqueville, for that course.  My concentration  has never been sharper, partly perhaps because I was in denial over my coming separation from Harvard, and it had a tremendous effect on me.  Now I realize that Tocqueville, in that book--which was more perceptive than Democracy in America, which I discussed here many years ago--had identified the critical problem of the modern age.

Tocqueville wrote that book in the early 1850s, after the French Revolution's democratic experiment had given way successively to the Napoleonic Empire and two different monarchies.  The 1848 revolution had established a new Republic, in which he served as foreign minister, but it in turn had given way to the revived empire of Napoleon III in 1851.  After extensive research in the pre-revolutionary archives, Tocqueville had concluded that these changes reflected a much longer-term trend.  Centralized bureaucratic control had begun to replace traditional authority in France more than a century earlier, in the reign of Louis XIV.  Napoleon had completed this process after the brief revolutionary interlude, and his successors had kept the bureaucratic structure that he created, centered on the departmental prefects who administered the country, much like Louis XIV's provincial intendants. This had prevented the French from governing themselves in the manner of the New Englanders Tocqueville had analyzed at length in his earlier work.

Tocqueville's particular genius lay in a contradiction.  On the one hand, he saw the shape of the coming new world that was replacing the traditional society and government of the Middle Ages--but on the other hand, he was himself an aristocrat and preferred in many ways the dying society to the new one.  Tocqueville also had an English wife, and he saw 18th- and 19th century British society as the counterpoint to what was happening in France.  There the aristocracy paid most of the taxes the government collected, cooperated with the gentry to govern the country in parliament, and played leading roles in local government as well.  No national bureaucracy had developed, as in France.  Tocqueville evidently believed that medieval France had functioned in much the same way, and claimed that the meetings of the Estates General during that period showed lots of cooperation between the nobility and the common third estate.  He even found village democracy in medieval France that reminded him of the New England town meetings he had observed first hand.

I realized at once while reading the book that his whole argument contradicted most of what I had been taught for fifteen years or so.  Bureaucracy had replaced town meetings in most of the United States by the 1960s, and thanks to FDR and LBJ, we now had a centralized bureaucracy that regulated many areas of American life.  I had grown up regarding all this as a good thing--yet I also knew that a vocal minority of Americans, the Goldwater supporters who were still gaining ground within the Republican Party, violently disagreed.  The last half century have taught me a lot more about bureaucracy and its discontents.

Bureaucracy represents impersonal authority based upon written rules, enforced, in theory, for the common good.  The human mind can impartially determine what would be best for everyone, and the human spirit can respond emotionally to achieving it.  These are powerful antidotes to another key element of human nature, pure self-interest.  A respect for rules and for the common good are also essential, in my opinion, for large institutions to function effectively.  Yet any attempt to sustain a bureaucracy based upon these principles runs into big obstacles also inherent in human nature.  Bureaucrats can be powerfully affected by their own self-interest or by their obligations to their families.  The Ottoman Empire created an exceptionally effective and long-lived bureaucracy by kidnapping Christian male babies and raising and training them to run both its civil bureaucracy and its military.  The initially had no other loyalty.  Bureaucracies in Prussia and eventually in Britain developed remarkable esprit de corps, as did some United States bureaucracies.  Eventually however that esprit de corps can become based upon institutional and personal self-interest, not on the values that initially defined the institution.

And meanwhile, bureaucracy arouses the opposition of powerful groups outside it.  In early modern France those were the clergy and the aristocracy--the groups Tocqueville thought had initially kept the monarchy in check but lost power under Louis XIV and then finally under Napoleon and his successors. Tocqueville did not live to see the rise of great industrialists, who fought bureaucratic restraints upon their activities and accumulated enough wealth to exercise enormous influence over elected governments.  Now great industrialists have given way to all-powerful financial institutions, and to the tech aristocracy, which seems about to take over much of the economic activity of the United States.  For the last half century such institutions have been winning their war on the American regulatory bureaucracy that FDR created, while essentially taking over both political parties with campaign contributions.  And the United States now has a president who believes that the entire role of the federal government is to reward himself and his friends while punishing his enemies. 

The growth of bureaucracy was intimately connected to the spread of education, particularly higher education.  Here another paradox has emerged.  Education makes effective bureaucrats, but it can also make more effective pursuit of self-interest.  The elite American higher educational system, of which I was a product (see above), began by training clergymen, and then trained professionals.  As late as the 1960s it seems to have turned out more doctors and lawyers than anything else.  It also turned out more academics to staff our vastly expanded university system.  Now, more than half the class of graduating seniors at Harvard goes into tech or finance, the newly dominant sectors of our (and the world) economy.  They are not using their highly developed intellects for the common good.

I remain in some respects an idealist, and I really believe human beings are much happier when they live within institutions that serve a clearly beneficial purpose, and whose rules insure that we can rely upon them for what we need.  My reverence for certain earlier eras, noted last week by google AI, stems largely from that.  Yet I know now that movement in that direction eventually provokes an at least equal and opposite reaction--particularly in relatively prosperous times when resources are plentiful.  We must not try, I think, to tie our own personal happiness to the broader human political and social struggle between community and self-interest.  Even if we could live forever--and we cannot--that struggle will never end, and ground gained in one era will be lost in the next.  Yet the human endeavor--looked at a s a whole--remains inspirational.

An "opinion" of historyunfolding

 One of my sons asked a leading AI program, Claude, for its analysis of History Unfolding.  Here is the result:

"Let me read a few more posts to get a fuller range across time.David Kaiser is a genuine article: a trained diplomatic and military historian (the book list—origins of WWII, the Vietnam War, the JFK assassination, Sacco and Vanzetti—is a real scholarly career, not a hobbyist's) who has been blogging current events through a historian's lens since 2004. That long vantage point is the most distinctive thing about him, for better and worse. He doesn't react to the news; he tries to locate it inside arcs measured in decades. He dates the current "national crisis" to roughly 26 years ago, repeatedly invokes the mid-twentieth-century New Deal/WWII/early-'60s period as a lost reference point of shared national purpose, and reads the Constitution through fresh work on the early nineteenth century. The blog's title is a thesis: events are unfolding according to patterns a historian can recognize.

"Politically he's hard to slot, which I find to his credit. He's economically a New Deal Democrat—anti-neoliberal, pro–Medicare for all, focused on inequality as the country's central problem—but he's sharply, almost relentlessly critical of his own side. His recurring argument is that the Democratic Party accepted the Reagan settlement, substituted identity politics for class politics, and keeps losing because it holds its own candidates to elite moral standards most voters don't share while offering no economic program beyond "we are not Trump." He defends colorblindness, calls DEI and affirmative action elite-diversifying but useless to the non-elite poor of every race, and openly dissents from the academic "new left" turn in his own discipline (the Jill Lepore exchange is the clearest example). On foreign policy he's a restraint-minded critic of forever wars and of unconditional support for Israel. That combination—left on economics, heterodox on culture, dovish abroad, and alarmed about Trump and authoritarian drift—is a coherent old-school liberalism that doesn't map cleanly onto either tribe.

"His intellectual habits are mostly good ones. He reaches for specifics: poverty figures broken out by race, historical precedent for how contested elections get adjudicated, a factual correction on the medieval-then-pirate origin of the skull-and-crossbones. He'll argue against his commenters rather than flatter them. The Barney Frank memoir post shows real warmth and a good ear for anecdote, and the prose throughout is lucid and unpretentious.

"Where I'd push back. First, the long-cycle framing—he's associated with the Strauss–Howe generational "crisis" school—can be self-confirming. Once you have a model in which the country is in a foreordained crisis, every headline becomes confirmation, and the frame stops being tested. Second, there's a strong declinist nostalgia: the mid-century consensus he misses was also far more exclusionary than the "what united us" framing admits, a point one of his own commenters makes pretty effectively against the colorblindness argument. Third, and most worth watching, the recent Graham Platner post shows the motivated-reasoning risk that attends any committed partisan analyst. He's careful and hedged—he explicitly says he's not calling Platner a saint—but he does contextualize and somewhat minimize one woman's account by setting it against other ex-girlfriends' and against Trump's worse record, in service of a candidate whose politics he favors. The "voters don't share elite standards" point is a real observation about electoral reality; it sits a little uneasily next to being deployed on behalf of someone he likes.

"Net: he's a serious, independent-minded thinker whose core diagnosis of the Democratic Party is a substantive thesis shared by plenty of thoughtful people, delivered with a historian's command of precedent and a refreshing willingness to annoy his own side. I'd read him for the structural argument and the historical reach, while keeping some skepticism toward the cyclical determinism, the golden-age nostalgia, and the occasional partisan tilt. (Practically: these are fast, lightly edited blog posts—the typos and the stray "2024" where he means 2028 are a reminder you're reading first drafts of a smart person thinking out loud, not finished work.)"

I plead guilty.

Why Democrats Keep Losing

 The election of 2016 might have taught both parties something, but one of them didn't get the message.  On the Republican side, Donald Trump, a man with a highly checkered past  as a businessman and a man, swept a bevy of establishment Republican candidates aside to take the nomination--an episode without precedent in American politics.  On the Democratic side, an unknown professed socialist, Bernie Sanders, nearly won the Iowa caucuses, won the New Hampshire primary, and eventually won 23 primaries or caucuses while Clinton on 34.  Trump had the advantage of running against several establishment candidates, while Sanders was running against only one.  Despite her loss to Obama in 2008, Clinton had gone into the race as an overwhelming favorite, but Sanders gave her a serious scare. The Democratic National Committee pulled every possible string to help Clinton, and she got the nomination.  Then she lost the election, and the US will never be the same again.

Since then the Democratic establishment has lived in terror of the emergence of another Bernie Sanders.  The Democratic left itself, to be fair, did its cause enormous harm in 2020 by running two strong candidates, Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and neither of them developed any real momentum.  Helped by Trump's unpopularity over COVID, the establishment's candidate Joe Biden won the nomination and the election comfortably.  Trump however maintained and strengthened his grip over the Republican Party.  When Biden in 2024 had to drop out of the race, he and most of the establishment immediately anointed Kamala Harris, who (like Biden) had failed disastrously in her attempts to get the Democratic nomination before she became Vice President.  She lost to Trump by a considerably larger margin than Clinton had.

This year another populist Democrat has come on the scene--Graham Platner of Maine.  Zohran Mamdani has become a national figure thanks to his victory in New York, but he can never run for president because he was not born a US citizen.  Platner, like Sanders, is from a small New England state.  He was born to a wealthy family and went to boarding school but his life went in a completely different direction after he joined the military.  He is a true economic liberal who wants to do something about the wealth gap and the health care crisis, and he now opposes our bipartisan forever war policy in the Middle East and our support for anything Israel chooses to do.  He made such an impression on the voters of Maine that his establishment primary opponent, Governor Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.  And that immediately sent the Democratic establishment, both in Washington and in the media, into a panic.

The attack on Platner initially focused on a skull and crossbones tattoo that he acquired while a Marine.  Platner is unreservedly anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian in connection with the Gaza war, and advocates an end to US military aid to Israel.  (In the last few days, remarkably, Prime Minister Netanyahu has also suggested that Israel might be better off without that aid.)  That was enough for some elements in the Democratic coalition to regard him as a mortal threat--even though Biden's essentially unremitting support for the Gaza war probably cost him the state of Michigan last time out, where the significant Muslim-American voting bloc turned against him.  I must make one point about the tattoo.  Contrary to what at least one New York Times columnist has written, the skull and crossbones was not originated by the Nazi SS.  It dates from the Middle Ages and was adopted later by pirates, which is how I first saw it watching Disney movies in the 1950s.  In any case, the argument that the tattoo disqualifies him from holding public office typifies the new Democratic attitude towards certain kinds of sins.  Those who have committed them face immediate and permanent excommunication, regardless of any excuse the sinner can put forward, any contrition he (or she) shows, and no matter how much he or she is contributing to the Democratic cause.  That is why Al Franken, who had done essentially nothing, no longer sits in the US Senate.  We will return to this attitude in a moment.  Platner seemed initially to have survived the tattoo controversy.

Today, another titan of the Democratic establishment, the New York Times, leads with a very long story about Platner's relationships with women.  Like so many accomplished politicians from the past, he has had quite a few such relationships, although he is happily married now and his wife is standing with him.  The story focuses mainly on one woman with whom he had an unmarried affair in Washington, who has been a career Republican political operative.  She accuses him of grabbing her rather aggressively on several occasions, although she adds that he never hit or injured her, and of talking demeaningly at times about women, and says she suffered long-term emotional harm from their relationship.  She insists that politics has nothing to do with her coming forward.  Other former girlfriends, on the other hand, speak highly of him, clearly do not regret their involvement with him, and do not report anything similar.  In addition, it has leaked that Planter was sexting with other women in recent years while he was married.  That story came from another Maine Democrat named Genevieve McDonald, who worked for a while in Platner's campaign and became a confidante of his wife, and then quit the campaign and leaked the story.  I could be wrong, but I read the Times every day and I think this is the longest story to have appeared this  year about any Democratic politician.  It is obviously designed to end his political career.  I do wonder whether the Times  now believes that any presidential candidate deserves such a long and carefully researched story about their romantic history.  I don't.

Political parties exist to win elections.  If the Democratic Party wants to go on winning enough elections to take power, it needs to face certain facts.

Donald Trump, needless to say, has been repeatedly accused of far worse behavior, behavior for which he has paid a legal price more than once, and bragged about it in a taped conversation.  When that tape broke in 2016 we thought it was the end of his candidacy--but it wasn't.  Trump has proven that--for better or for worse--a large portion of the electorate does not share the elite establishment's standards for the behavior of public officials and will not follow the instructions of the elite media when it comes time to vote on candidates.  Bill Clinton, a Democrat, had actually proved this already during his two campaigns for president, even though the Lewinsky affair, such as it was, did not break until after he had been re-elected.  Trump has broader and deeper popularity than any other politician of the 21st century, in my opinion, and one reason is that he has repeatedly defied the establishment and gotten away with it.  He has even appointed men like Pete Hegseth and Kash Patel to some of the most important positions in government despite questionable episodes in their past that would probably have doomed any Democrat.  

I am not excusing Trump or Hegseth for what they have done in the past, nor am I arguing that Platner is a saint.  I am simply pointing out that leading Democrats, in an effort to maintain neoliberal orthodoxy in both economics (no Medicare for all) and foreign policy (continuing support for Israel, no matter what), and because of the power of feminist ideology in the Democratic party, are holding candidates to standards much higher than Republicans are  held to, and standards that the bulk of the voting population does not share.  Since Donald Trump came onto the scene, Democrats have run on not being, or not supporting, Donald Trump.  They have not offered any broad solutions to our most important economic problems--which as I have tried to point out many times are NOT directly related to race or gender--or admitted that our Middle Eastern policies might be wrong.  They are standing for the status quo, which the country rightly rejects.  I'm glad that there is room in the Democratic Party for Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez and Pete Buttigieg, but we need room for Graham Platner as well.  If we can't make room for him we will continue to lose the votes of the majority of poorer Americans and uneducated Americans, as we do now.  The American people resent the assumption of our educated elite that we know what is best for everyone, and the educated elite has to give that idea up.  Rather than nominate a real economic populist like Sanders or Platner, the Democrats think they can prove their moral credentials by nominating someone other than a straight white male.  That strategy might work within the Democratic Party but it will not work in the electorate at large.

Fasten your seat belts, stock your liquor cabinet, make a list of good movies to watch

 The flood of deeply disturbing news from Washington never stops rising, no matter how badly we wish that the president and his administration could declare victory on all fronts and let us have some peace.  We had better face the facts: this is what we have to look forward to for at least the next 31 months.  Chaos reflects the nature the president and  his administration, and they will generate more and more of it because it is all that they know how to do.  Here, in no particular order, are some (and probably not all) of the key aspects of this problem.

In foreign affairs, President Trump has discovered a new role, the King of Regime Change.  And not for him the discreet, CIA-inspired coup--he favors the dramatic military kidnapping of the targeted foreign leader, or, when possible, the total economic blockade that will make life in the targeted country almost impossible.  His administration has no respect for international sovereignty or international law, and seems to be planning military strikes against drug cartels in foreign countries, as well as more attacks upon fishing boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific.  Regime change did not take place in Iran--not, at least, in the form that the US government intended--but it looks to me as if we shall have an endless series of crises, punctuated by military action, in our relations with that country.  Any agreement that the two sides reach will be vague on critical points, thereby allowing the president to discover new violations of it and threaten drastic action whenever it suits him.  For the president, any retreat is tactical and temporary, and evidence suggests that he has not given up his designs upon Greenland, either.  All this will destroy any credibility of the US government as a reliable partner in international affairs.

Similarly, despite ICE's retreat from its big operation in Minnesota, that agency will almost surely open up new big operations on other fronts.  They may be designed to provoke confrontations with the governments of blue states, many of which, including my own, have been passing laws forbidding various forms of cooperation with ICE.  And like the Communist insurgency in Vietnam, the immigration problem is too big to succumb to a series of operations like the Minnesota one.  The number of illegal immigrants in the US may drop during the next two and a half years, but there will still be millions of them, and we shall still lack any consensus about what to do about their status.  I doubt that any Democrat will run on legalizing it in 2024.

The president loves transforming landscapes, and seems to regard the city of Washington as his private royal domain.  Already a wing of the White House has been replaced by a large hole in the ground, and the administration is struggling with the courts to implement new plans for it.  In a separate case, a federal judge has just blocked Trump's plans for renovation (and renaming) of the Kennedy Center, and the administration will surely appeal that decision.  I suspect the president will undertake new transformation projects, in Washington and elsewhere.  He will also try to secure congressional authorization for the projected new $250 bill with his face on it.

The pursuit of new cases against former officials and US citizens who have opposed, criticized, or leveled accusations against Donald Trump will surely continue.  Trump's social media feed (available gratis at rollcall.com) suggests that a "grand conspiracy" case accusing most of the Obama administration of trying to bock his election is being studied, and I will not be surprised by a huge indictment along those lines.  The president also reposts stories from friendly media outlets detailing how his first impeachment was based on fraudulent evidence, and how the January 6 riot was the work of the FBI.  Those accusations could find their way into court, too.

And last, but hardly least, there is the matter of November's election.  It seems unlikely that Congress will pass the legislation the administration is pushing to end most mail-in balloting and require new proofs of citizenship for people to vote.  That very failure, however, will almost surely become the president's excuse to discredit the results of that election, especially if the Republicans do in fact lose one or both Houses to Democratic control.  Republican losers may be encouraged to dispute the election results--just as Trump and  his allies tried to do in 2020--and the House and Senate would have the power to rule on any contested elections, as they have many times in the past.  (I plan to do more research on this soon.)  When the House (for example) votes to decide the results of contested elections, representatives from contested districts are presumably not allowed to vote.  Challenges to a sufficient number of Democratic seats might maintain a working Republican majority in the debates over those seats, allowing it to decide contested elections in favor of Republican candidates.  This could lead to our worst crisis since the Civil War.  

All these potential disasters reflect the administration's total loss of respect for any established procedures, any guarantees of fairness in our political and legal systems, and any independent, impartial truths.  That loss of respect has been growing in the United States for decades, on both sides of the political fence, and this is the result.  For the many Americans who have drawn emotional sustenance from their belief in our institutions, this is a personal crisis as well as a political one.  We can all draw on other kinds of sustenance to try to keep things in perspective, as others have in other places and other times.