THE NEW GILDED AGE IN AMERICA

 

“Get rich, dishonestly if we can, honestly if we must,” The Gilded Age by Mark Twain

Many students of history were surprised when Donald Trump promised at his second inauguration to usher America into a new “Golden Age.” As he spoke, he was surrounded by a cadre of tech billionaires. Their combined net worth was one trillion dollars. Trump’s spectacle looked more like the beginning of a new “Gilded Age,” not a golden one.

What exactly was the original gilded age in American History, the period from the 1870s to the late 1890s? What can we learn from those years that may be useful in understanding Trump’s second term? What is different in America’s mood today, compared to the time following the Civil War through the beginning of industrialization?

According to Wikipedia, the term Gilded Age was first coined by writers who borrowed the concept from one of Mark Twain’s lesser-known novels, The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873).  The book satirized a federally promised “golden age” after the Civil War, identical to the promise made in Trump’s speech. The pejorative term gilded age described what became an era of serious social problems (disorder, corruption, inequality). It was masked by a “gold gilding of economic expansion that only benefited the wealthy few.”  

The original gilded age is associated with the rise of powerful industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. It marked the transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial one. At that time, the federal government was confined and there was no system to regulate abuses.

Following the Civil War, America experienced industrial expansion in railroads, steel production, and oil industries. A small elite accumulated vast wealth. The labor class faced poor working conditions and low wages. Large numbers of immigrants arrived in the US, contributed to the workforce but also faced the challenges of nativist rejection. Powerful labor unions began to form in response to stifling working conditions and child labor.

Analyzing the political and economic history of the original gilded age gives us some examples to compare with Trump’s recent initiatives. Following the Civil War, a Republican Congress enacted the Pacific Railroad Act, which granted railroad companies 6,400 acres of federal land. Today, Trump’s “gifts” to private companies include drilling rights on federal lands and favorable regulations for businesses including cryptocurrency.

In 1872, a scandal implicated 30 sitting members of Congress, as well as the sitting Vice President, Schuyler Colfax in an elaborate double-billing and securities fraud scheme. Three years later, the Whiskey Ring Affair exposed dozens of corrupt federal revenue collectors. City mayors, like the NYC political machine Tammany Hall, made an art form of corruption during the gilded age.

In the present gilded age, Trump has terminated Inspector Generals, regulatory agencies, and reorganized the Justice Department with loyal supporters. As a result, many abuses and illegal acts in government and business will easily escape detection.

During the first gilded age, the close relationship between the executive branch, Congress, and the new industrialists resulted in a massive concentration of wealth into the hands of a small number of companies. Today, the corporate “magnificent seven” (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla) is a group of major tech companies that are in a similar position.

Elon Musk, the primary owner of Tesla, X, and other tech companies has been tasked by Trump with shrinking the government and removing regulatory impediments to billionaire growth.  Altogether, Trump has appointed an unprecedented 13 billionaires into his administration.

What can be done to slow the advance of the Trump inspired second gilded age? To study the problem, the analysis and conclusions from a book released in 2017 was worth a second look. The Age of Acquiesce by Steve Fraser tackles the issue of “American resistance to wealth and power” from the founding of our country until recently.

Fraser finds that following the Civil War, many Americans were still part of the agrarian economy and distrusted modern capitalism. The new industrial movement threatened their views on work, family, community, and religion.

Americans were angry, and they often fought hard against the abuses of the gilded age. As late as 1912, nearly a million Americans, or six percent of the electorate, cast ballots for a socialist president, Eugene Debs. Mass labor movements were common and would not accept a world where a few wealthy men controlled the country.

Fraser documents how, over time, the political will to challenge great wealth disappeared. In the grand bargain of 1950, unions in the steel and auto industries traded in their control over shop-floor rules for job security and steady employment. An ethos of individual accumulation replaced what was left of labor solidarity. Fraser concludes that in today’s world, there is waning American dissent to a society governed by the wealthy.  We have somehow lost the ability to imagine an alternative.

What is needed for the present gilded age is a new coalition of resistance and solidarity. Ironically, both Steve Bannon, a populist leader in the Republican MAGA movement and Bernie Sanders, a socialist Senator from Vermont take similar positions. They both vehemently attack the influence of the new gilded age billionaires.

Is it possible that a bottom-up coalition will emerge from these sworn political enemies and others to challenge the entrenched “one percent?” If it does, the social energy and creativity of ordinary people could again prevail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

THE ASSAULT ON PA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

 

Last Feb. I was privileged to interview Washington School District Superintendent, George Lammay. He explained how this small city “Prexie Pride” district with a low tax base was doing, surrounded by large suburban school districts. On one subject Lammay pulled no punches. He said that cyber schools have been a disaster for school budgets. He was concerned that the $1.5 million that Washington must spend on cyber schools leaves the district with tough choices on providing education for its students.

A year later, three events have brought Pennsylvania cyber schools (and other private schools receiving public funding) back into focus. First, Donald Trump was elected President. His administration has begun dismantling the Department of Education and has promised to make public funds available to private as well as religious schools in every state. Republicans have assailed America’s public schools by supporting vouchers. School choice is now the law in thirty-three states.

In 2024, over one million students in the United States used school choice programs, as reported by Ed Choice, an organization supporting these alternatives to public education. This is a significant increase from 2019, when only 540,000 students participated. 

According to a citation from MIT Press Direct, Education Finance and Policy, “Pennsylvania cyber charters enrolled over 175,000 students or 2.1 percent of the total public-school population, second only to California in terms of total cyber charter school enrollments. It is also second only to Oklahoma in terms of the percentage of public-school students enrolled in cyber charter schools.” In addition, Education Voters of Pennsylvania, an advocacy group for public schools, reports that “more than one billion property tax dollars are taken out of classrooms in our local public schools annually to pay for cyber charter tuition costs that are not tied to the actual expenses of online education.”

The second event centering attention on school choice occurred when Republican Pennsylvania Auditor General Timothy DeFoor, recently released the findings of his audit on the funding of five of the fourteen cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. These online charter schools receive taxpayer funding from the school districts where the students live. However, cyber schools are not accountable to the school districts that fund them. 

DeFoor concluded that the state funding formula for cyber schools, based on per-pupil budgets rather than actual educational expenses for cyber students, created “uncommon” savings rates and spending practices. The cyber schools he examined were awash in so much excess funding, they simply could not spend the money. He urged Pennsylvania to make major reforms to the state’s nearly 25-year-old funding formula.

The audit found that the five cyber schools have increased their savings accounts by 144%. DeFoor pointed out that “reserves are meant to assure there is no interruption in a child’s education – and not meant to sit in a bank account of a cyber charter school year after year.”

These large savings accounts were not accumulated because the cyber schools were frugal. On the contrary, all five schools spent tax payer dollars liberally if not irresponsibly on staff bonuses, gift cards, vehicle payments and fuel stipends. In one eye-opening discovery, Commonwealth Charter Academy spent $196 million to buy and renovate 21 buildings.  DeFoor’s comment on the buying spree, “this seems a bit out of the ordinary for a private school that is based on online instruction” was a pointed understatement.

In his Feb. 4 budget discussions Governor Shapiro noted that “the amount school districts send to cyber charters per student is inconsistent, ranging from $7,659 to $28,960.” His budget proposal is to set a flat rate of $8,000. That would save the state’s public-school districts and its tax payers $378 million a year.

As to the cyber schools’ questionable spending practices uncovered in the audit, only the Pennsylvania Department of Education can authorize and reform charter agreements. The Department must review the Charter School Law and its current regulations to further clarify the appropriate use of taxpayer monies.

The last item to focus on the issue of school choice was an excellent 2024 book on the subject, The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers by Josh Cowen. Cowen was a former evaluator of state and local school voucher programs.  He explains how these programs have expanded. He then presents a detailed evidence-based case against voucher programs.

Cowen points out that traditionally, most Americans were not in favor of the government underwriting the cost of private or religious schooling. The practice started in the South as a racist response to school integration in the late 1950s. Eventually conservative billionaires “invented a rationale for school privatization largely from nothing and out of nowhere.” They funded Republican candidates and spent millions spreading the message that “school choice would heal American education.”

In fact, Cowen points out in study after study, school choice has failed students and exacerbated income inequality. Voucher programs returned poorer academic outcomes, including lower test scores on state exams. Cowen concludes that the continued advancement of school choice is an unwarranted assault on public education.

Pennsylvania’s public schools are struggling to provide essential resources for its students. Property tax payers face increasing financial pressure. The diversion of public money to cyber and private schools has undermined the integrity of the public school system on which America was built.

It is time for concerned citizens and stressed taxpayers to take note and to speak up for public education.

 

AN UNCOMMON ORGANIZATION

 

Since the 2024 election of Donald Trump, it has been difficult to find an uplifting story that addresses the issues that divide us as a nation, a state, and as a community. One local concerned citizen and her “uncommon” organization have given me hope that there may be a way forward.

Several years ago, I worked with Emily Holmes and other local citizens on a project to reform Washington County’s form of government. I was impressed with Holmes’ ideas to improve local government and with her years of service as a North Strabane Supervisor.

When Holmes appeared on the front page of the Dec. 20, 2024 Observer Reporter at a townhall meeting in Charleroi in her role as Senior State Program Officer for Common Ground USA (CGUSA), I knew there was an important story to be told. Holmes recently sat down with me to explain the mission of CGUSA and its uncommon approach to foster community healing from political violence.

Holmes’ previous work as a consultant serendipitously made her aware of CGUSA and its domestic projects at a roundtable she attended. When an opening in Pennsylvania was posted by the organization, she eagerly applied and was accepted for the position.

CGUSA initiated a “Resilient States Project,” focusing on Pennsylvania and Texas. The aim in the Commonwealth was to “pull together diverse society leaders to prevent, defuse, and respond to political violence.” The broad definition of political violence was “threats, harassment, intimidation, and physical actions used to limit who participates in public life.” The goal was that “over the long term, this prevention work would allow us to strengthen social cohesion and build collective resilience throughout the Commonwealth.”

Why focus on Pennsylvania? CGUSA had determined that political violence tied to elections and elected officials was “especially acute” in our state. Moreover, recent events placed Southwestern Pennsylvania at the epicenter of political violence. First, on July 13, 2024, the assassination attempt on then former President Trump occurred at the Butler County Fairgrounds, while he was campaigning. Second, in Charleroi, Washington County during and after the election, scapegoating of the Haitian immigrant population became a national issue and caused major disruption to the community. CGUSA believed that it had the proven formulae and resources to tap down the political violence. It could “bring people together across dividing lines to transform conflict into collaboration.”

The parent organization of CGUSA, Search for Common Ground, has over four decades of international experience in conflict zones across the world. It has been successful in humanizing neighbors and in addressing misconceptions that tear communities apart. Its experience in applying tested evidence-based interventions was introduced in Pennsylvania. Working in the background, out of the limelight, CGUSA provides “resources, connection, and thought partnership for communities experiencing the effects of political violence but who were unsure on how to move forward.”

In connection with the assassination attempt at the Butler County Fairgrounds, CGUSA supported a public vigil of local faith leaders to “come together to cleanse and reclaim the farm show grounds for its intended purpose.” 

At the Charleroi townhall meeting on Dec. 18, 2024, CGUSA joined with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to offer support for the under siege Haitian community. Holmes explained at the meeting that, “Local leaders should foster opportunities for community cohesion. It’s a lot harder for a person to say they hate someone or a group of people if they meet that person or someone in that group personally.”

Holmes pointed to the efforts of Washington’s Republican State Senator, Camera Bartolotta, in encouraging cooperation. The Senator pushed back against members of her own party to offer her support for the Haitian community. Bartolotta criticized those who would “disparage these hard-working people who have escaped atrocities and who are here legally to work, and pay taxes, and raise their children, and be part of the community.” Bartolotta’s words were important because research shows that individuals who distrust national leaders still respect local officials.

Following the election, CGUSA sponsored “Love Anyway Feasts,” a campaign to remind Americans of the power of community and “to offer an alternative to ‘us and them’ politics.” The vision was “to see people walk away from this political season and still love their families, friends, and neighbors: especially ones who voted differently than them.”

In January, such an event, supported by CGUSA, took place in Charleroi. As reported by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “On a recent Saturday evening, about 75 people crowded into a small room at an event center, where a local performer sang an original song he titled, ‘Better Together.’ After they piled their plates with pizza, Haitian and Liberian cuisine, the attendees sat down next to strangers they, on a surface level, had little in common with. And then they talked.”

Holmes attended the event and offered some sage advice on why such events are important. “Local leaders already have experience working across dividing lines to get things done – I mean, you don’t need to be associated with a certain party to agree to fix a pothole.” Clearly, her years of experience as a North Strabane Supervisor are serving Holmes well as an ambassador for CGUSA.

Those of us who closely follow politics are unfortunately drawn to social media and our favorite cable news station. Confirmation bias reinforces our distrust and polarization, even in our own communities. As an alternative, Holmes’ uncommon organization can lead us to some common ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON COUNTY LAWYERS JOURNEY THROUGH MOROCCO

 

“As the wind changed direction and the temple band took five, the crowd caught a whiff of that crazy casbah jive.” Rock the Casbah, The Clash

Following our visit to Egypt, my spouse and I boarded a plane for the five-hour flight to Casablanca, Morocco.  We had two days on our own to explore the city made famous by Humphrey Bogart before joining our group. 

This is the third trip we have taken with the Washington County Bar Association, sponsored by Travel De Novo. The company organizes continuing legal education opportunities to exotic locations. Our expectations were high, and all were surpassed on this wonderful excursion.

It was impossible not to compare first impressions of Morocco with Egypt. This small country in North Africa along both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean was cleaner, more modern, with fewer signs of the abject poverty that we witnessed throughout Egypt. However, Morocco is far from a western nation. The illiteracy rate in the villages is 38 per cent. Male dominance proliferates among three distinct cultures, Arab, Berber, and European.

Morocco’s coming out party will be as co-host for the 2030 FIFA World Cup.  Major construction and infrastructure projects are already being rolled out across the country. Morocco will join Spain and Portugal welcoming the world to a celebration of soccer, diversity, and heritage.

On our first night of the tour, we were treated to a welcome dinner at Rick’s Cafe, a restaurant inspired by the famous eatery in the 1942 film Casablanca. The next morning a visit to the famous Hassan II Mosque was on the schedule. Artisans from all over Morocco worked to cover the building in a facade of grandeur that can accommodate 100,000 worshippers.

Our next destination was Fes. On the way we stopped for lunch at a thriving winery, a real surprise in a Muslem country. Our evening meal in Fes featured the former president of the local Bar Association.

In the morning, we took off on foot to explore the thousand-year-old Fes Medina (old walled city) and its souks (marketplaces). Pungent smells, unusual sounds, and colorful sights of artisan goods and handmade crafts overloaded our senses. The guides helped us with the bartering for rugs, leather goods, pottery, intricately detailed clothing, and delicate metal work. A tour of the large open-air tannery and leather emporium was a highlight. Lunch featured street food in the middle of the chaotic bazaar. For dinner we divided into small groups and were welcomed into the homes of several Moroccan families. They were eager to hear about America and to enlighten us on local culture.

The featured attraction on day four was the impressive Jewish cemetery in Fes, along with its associated synagogue, now a museum. We were given a detailed explanation of religious rights in Morocco. Moroccans are among the most liberal in the Arab world. Community and togetherness are stressed over simply toleration which can lead to conflict. After lunch at a Moroccan Grill featuring piles of aromatic meats, we spent several hours at a ceramic factory where we made many purchases.

Day five saw us on the bus to the capital of Morocco, Rabat. On the way we stopped at the well-preserved Roman ruins, a UNESCO world heritage site in the small town of Volubilis. Finally, on a bright, sunny day, we admired the Rabat skyline while lunching at a superior seafood restaurant along the waterfront.

Our final day in Rabat focused on the Moroccan Parliament where we learned how the government is organized. The system would receive Donald Trump’s stamp of approval. It features a King for life with unchallenged executive powers. The king’s son sits at his side, and the family owns large palaces throughout the country.  The elected Parliament can be dissolved at the King’s pleasure. 

Day seven put us back on the bus for a long bus ride to the tourist mecca of Morocco, Marrakech. Our hungry group was treated to a picnic lunch at the Amal Women’s Training Center. This foundation trains young Moroccan women with culinary skills and helps place them in the workforce.  

Refueled, we tackled the world-famous Jemma el-Fna-Square. The space was packed with tourists observing an outdoor circus of snake charmers, Berber musicians, barking vendors and exotic food stalls.

 

On our last day, we toured two of Marrakech’s main attractions, the Bahia Palace, a showcase of Moroccan artisan skills and the beautiful Majorelle Gardens.

The numerous legal seminars spaced throughout the trip were well received by lawyers and lay persons alike. Two discussions stood out for me. First, a journalist reporting to a large audience on Instagram (owned by Meta) was recently denied access to the service after reporting on the conflict in Gaza. Despite numerous attempts to learn why, no answer has been provided. 

Second, an American expat attorney, now the head of a non-governmental charity, gave a robust presentation on her efforts to improve women’s rights and to address domestic violence in Morocco.  Our group was stunned and saddened to learn that only days earlier, the Trump executive order canceling all foreign aid, had terminated her small but life affirming grant from the State Department.

What will I remember most about Morocco? High on my list was talking to my waiter in Rabat before lunch about football, soccer, and his brother in Boston. It felt close to home. Then, napping on the hotel veranda, I heard Islam’s most holy Islamic Friday prayer over the sound of the pool waterfall. A prayer revered by 25 per cent of the world’s population. These back-to-back occurrences reminded me that while our cultures are diverse, we are all more alike than most are willing to admit.

 

 

 

REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS THROW A TEMPER TANTRUM

The two articles that appeared on the front page of the February 21 Observer Reporter need to be read together. The first, was featured in large 24-point type and announced, Seeking Stability. Washington Co. economy topic at annual event. The second, below the fold, was titled, Republican commissioners slam Chamber. Sherman, Janis upset by lack of speaking role at ‘State of the Economy’ event’.

The first piece reported on the sold-out 13^th annual State of the Economy forum at the Hilton Garden Inn, attended by 300 participants. Local corporate and business entities sponsored the event.

Three programs important to the economic health of Washington County were scheduled at the gathering.  First, an overview of the national, regional, and local economic outlook was presented by Russell Mills, Senior Principal and Senior Regional Officer of the Cleveland-Pittsburgh branch of the Federal Reserve Bank. Second, a regional and local energy update was offered by Jim Welty, the President of the Marcellus Shale Coalition. Third, the three university/college Presidents most important to Washington County (Pennsylvania Western University, Washington & Jefferson College, Waynesburg University) hosted a roundtable discussion on the future of higher education.

This affair was clearly not one in which local elected officials would be expected to participate. The focus was on providing in-depth information from knowledgeable experts, important to county business leaders. The three commissioners were given honorary invitations to meet with the business community and participate as attendees. Which brings us to the second article, where Sherman and Janis “slammed the Chamber.”

Democrat, Larry Maggi attended the conference. He told the Observer Reporter “We’ve had good relations with the Chamber for years and years. We’ve worked with the business community.”

The two Republican Commissioners, Sherman and Janis did not attend. Instead of networking with business leaders, they huddled together and prepared a scathing statement accusing the Chamber of Commerce of excluding them from the speakers’ platform for political reasons. Janis wrote, “It is hard not to conclude that politics had somehow influenced the decision-making process, which is not in line with the responsibilities and practices that the Chamber should uphold.”

It is difficult to determine exactly what is going on behind the scenes. The two Republican Commissioners and the head of the Chamber, Democrat Jeff Kotula, are not best of friends. However, playing the political card makes no sense when the Democratic Commissioner was also not invited to the head table. Moreover, in my many years in observing local governments, I have never seen elected Republican officials not support the local Chamber of Commerce.

I can only draw one conclusion from this Republican Commissioners’ temper tantrum and over the top response in not being invited to the dais. Since assuming office, Sherman and Janis have colored every issue through a political lens. This immature reaction is the latest example.

Responsible governance is not at the top of the Sherman/Janis agenda. Throwing red meat to local MAGA Republicans is important. (For example, praise Trump and Immigration/Customs Enforcement for picking up a local migrant prisoner. Criticize liberal Allegheny County. Refuse to support the scapegoated local Haitian community in Charleroi.) Getting a pat on the back from state and national Republican leaders is important. (So, change election procedures guaranteeing that technical mistakes on ballot envelopes invalidate the vote.) Rewarding campaign contributors is important. (Invalidate an expensive contract already being implemented to reward campaign contributor Motorola Systems at a cost of millions.)

Giving political hacks plumb county management positions is important. Writing op-ed articles to this newspaper puffing up their MAGA accomplishments is important. Refusing to discuss mismanagement and failed projects that are costing taxpayers is important. (Including decision making on the Russian cyberattack and failure to disclose terms of the Motorola radio contract) Seeking retribution against political opponents is important. (Such as interference with the “non-political” LSA award process to deny funding to the City Mission and its new President, Diana Irey Vaughn.) 

When the above political calculations are considered, the decision to assail the Chamber of Commerce is not such a head scratcher. Sherman and Janis are running a government based on getting MAGA votes, rewarding supporters and attacking those with whom they disagree.

The irony of the present kerfuffle is that when Sherman and Janis were invited to speak at a more critical event last year they refused to attend. On May 14, 2024 the Washington County Bar Association, along with several other organizations, sponsored a public forum at the Southpointe Hilton Garden Inn. The program focused on the contentious national election and voting rights. Sherman and Janis were in important leadership positions to explain election procedures in Washington County, ensure the integrity of the election process and to permit the Elections Office to answer the public’s questions. Instead, they made a political calculation to avoid the forum.

The year before, when Sherman and Janis were running for office, they were invited to participate in the annual election forum sponsored by the League of Women’s Voters. Traditionally, all candidates attend to answer voter questions. Instead, the two were spotted having dinner together at a local church.

There is talk in Republican circles of auditing county operations in which Chamber President, Jeff Kotula is involved. This should prove interesting in that the Republican controller’s office, responsible for audits, has been racked by scandal and still appears in disarray. Stay tuned for the next retribution inspired shoe to drop.

 

 

 

DICIPHERING TRUMP’S UNACCOUNTABLE WRECKING BALL

Only a month ago, I wrote that the marriage between Elon Musk and MAGA could not last long. My reasoning was that for Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to succeed, cuts in the federal budget would also affect Trump supporters.  I was wrong, at least in the short term.

Trump and Musk have unleashed a tsunami against government employees that has so-far caused little economic burden on those who voted for the President. Most of the hardship is being inflicted on those who live inside or around the Washington D.C. beltway or on families associated with federal government elsewhere in the country. Of course, cuts to important agencies including the FAA, FEMA, NOAA, the Parks Service, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and the removal of Federal Inspector Generals will eventually have dangerous, negative consequences for all Americans.

I decided to take a closer look at the unusual partnership between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The image of Trump and Musk, addressing the media in the oval office on February 11, was a bizarre spectacle.  Musk appeared in a black MAGA hat, long dark coat with his son perched on his shoulders. He did most of the talking while Trump sat silently, glowering at the assembled reporters.

The impromptu press conference was called for Musk to defend DOGE and its blitzkrieg of activities. This was the first time since the President gave him broad authority to terminate over 10 percent of the federal workforce (300,000+) that the world’s wealthiest man answered questions about the project.

Many political observers thought that Trump looked weak while Musk was basking in the media limelight. I thought this conclusion was ridiculous. Trump knew exactly what he was doing by signing an executive order requiring federal agency heads to coordinate with DOGE and fire employees. If Musk’s efforts succeed in bringing the deficit under control, the President will take the credit. If Musk fails, most of the blame will fall on him.

In support of my position, consider that Musk took the heavy fire from the media during the press conference. Ironically, Musk called the federal bureaucracy the “unelected” fourth branch of government, the exact description of his role with DOGE.

Musk was asked about his personal and business conflicts of interest. After all, his companies have billions of dollars’ worth of contracts with the federal government. His pat answer was that the media would keep a close eye on him and his network of businesses.  Since the press conference, Democrats and the media have attacked Musk as the unaccountable wrecking ball more than the President who has executive authority.

What I witnessed was not a weak President and a controlling, unelected genius. Instead, Catherine the Great of Russia, the reigning Emperess from 1762 through 1796 came to mind. Catherine, like Trump, was ruthless with uncommon political instincts. She was considered egotistical, pretentious, and domineering.

Catherine made Grigory Potemkin, her lover with proven military and administrative skills, the chief architect of Russian imperial policies. Potemkin was successful in the annexation of Crimea and in the second Russo-Turkish war. He failed in other areas like liberating the serfs. After the romantic liaison waned, Potemkin lost administrative power and was blamed for plans that failed.

Catherine remains an iconic Russian leader in the eyes of many Russians. Other than Russian historians, few remember Potemkin. Trump is following the same script as Catherine in letting a brilliant henchman perform much of his dirty work.

Many people are asking themselves, why would Musk, a former Democrat, agree to take on the hateful task of shrinking the bureaucracy, terminating valuable services, and causing unfathomable torment to thousands of federal employees. Musk has publicly spoken about his experience in growing up with Asperger's syndrome, a developmental disorder that falls under the autism spectrum. He has explained that he thinks analytically about the future.  He is driven by a strong desire to solve large scale problems. He has a “maniacal” sense of urgency to push projects forward.

Walter Issacson recently wrote the definitive biography on Elon Musk. He concluded that, “Sometimes great innovators are risk-seeking man-children who resist potty training. They can be reckless, cringeworthy, sometimes even toxic. They can also be crazy. Crazy enough to think they can change the world."

Musk is not concerned with the shattered lives of tens of thousands of federal employees in this country or with the plight of starving US aid recipients across the globe. He is laser-focused on reigning in the deficit at any cost. He performed similar cuts and ruined the lives of many Twitter employees after purchasing the company in 2022.

Musk wants to develop a new paradigm for how limited government can work in a modern western democracy. Trump could not have chosen a better wrecking ball in an attempt to achieve this goal. Republican elected officials are willing to go along with the experiment, at least until their own voters are affected.

Musk is not afraid of taking the heat for mistakes. Dramatic failures have paralleled his remarkable successes throughout his career. He takes both in stride. 

Trump is delighted to assign the details for shrinking the government to Musk. The President’s focus is darker and much easier to understand: reward those who supported him in his quest to remain in the White House; seek retribution against anyone who sought to bring him to justice.