Emptiness and the Tetralemma

Many people not raised as Buddhists have nonetheless heard of the Four Noble Truths.  It is often the only central topic of Buddhism that they know: (1) suffering is the state of existence, (2) suffering is caused by desire, (3) the path to the cessation of suffering is the elimination of desire, and (4) that path is composed of eight components (the Eightfold Path).  These truths are recorded in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta which is an account of the Buddha's first lecture following his enlightenment.

The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta also recounts the Buddha's explanation of "dependent arising."  Its place in his first lecture suggests that it is equally important to understanding the Buddha's teaching.  Dependent arising is, however, a much more difficult concept.  While the Four Noble Truths provide a clear and simple account of basic human psychology, dependent arising refers to a puzzling metaphyiscal view.  On the surface, it describes a repeating sequence of changes to a person across successive reincarnated lives, but it also refers to the infinitely complex character of the objects of our experience, each moment in time.  It was this latter, metaphysical account of dependent arising that most attracted me to a more serious study of Buddhism.  

I had very little understanding of dependent arising until I read T.R.V. Murti's The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhymika System. Madhyamaka Buddhism was the first of the Mahayana Buddhist schools.  It broke from early Buddhism by recognizing "new" sutras, not in the original Buddhist canon.  The new sutras centered on two important ideas: the bodhisattva and sunyata (emptiness).  I found that by understanding emptiness, the metaphysical aspect of dependent arising made much greater sense.

The first and possibly most authoritative explanation of emptiness was advanced by the Madhyamaka's founding author, Nagarjuna.  Nagarjuna lived in the first and second century A.D.  He is sometimes refered to as the second Buddha.  His most import work, the Mulamadhyamakakarika sets up his account of emptiness by discussing a "tetralemma," which examines four possible states of affairs describing the basic facts of reality.  (1) The fundamental elements of reality exist (existence).  (2)  The fundamental elements of reality don't exist (nihilism).  (3) The fundamenatl elements of reality both exist and do not exist.  (4) The fundamental elements of reality neither exist nor do not exist.  Western logic tends to focus on only two ontological states: existence and non-existence.  Consequently, it seems a little odd to expand the options to four, particularly when the additional two are built upon existence and non-existence, but there's no harm done by considering all four.

Nagarjuna examined each of these possibilities and concluded that none of them stood up to criticism.  If that's true, then a clear understanding of reality is not possible, at least through rational investigation alone.  To begin, we can easily dispense with possibilities (3) and (4).  Consistent with Western analyses, (3) violates the Law of Noncontradiction:  no statement and its negation can be true at the same time.  (4) violates the Law of Excluded Middle:  for any statement, either it or its negation must be true.  This leaves us with options (1) or (2) as possibly describing the basic facts of reality.

We can dispense with (2) pretty quickly too.  The simple fact of consciousness tells us that the non-existence of the world is untenable.  Just as Descartes argued that thinking was sufficient to establish a thinker, consciousness establishes that there is some sort of reality.  Indeed, the argument for the existence of the world seems more certain than Descartes's argument for the existence of a thinker.  One might conclude then, that option (1) must be true, but Nagarjuna rejects (1) as well.  By doing so, he establishes that all things we might posit as composing reality are "empty."

So let's turn from the tetralemma to emptiness.  I understand the concept in two ways which I'll call "compositional" and "temporal."  Regarding the composition of reality:  what we take to be real is in fact constructed out of things that are ontologically more fundamental than what we perceive as real.  Consider any ordinary object, say, a coffee cup.  We think of it as an object, a thing, that exists in and of itself, but upon reflection informed by scientific examination, we know it not to be a thing, but instead, a collection of things -- atoms which in a sense are "more real" than any collection they might be a part of.  After all, the collection can only exist dependently upon its components.  We think of the atoms as having an existence in and of themselves, while the collection of atoms is just a lot of actual objects adhering in rather close proximity to one another.  

But we should recognize that the atoms that compose the cup are themselves a collection of smaller objects and don't really exist in and of themselves.  They are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.  Furthermore, protons and neutrons are composed of smaller particles still.  To get to what are the genuinely basic elements of the reality, we need to look deeper and deeper.  Modern science postulates fundamental elements (elementary particles), but only if they are part of a good explanation of our experience.  Currently, no physical theory can do that perfectly well.  So elementary particles, like quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons, are our best guess at the foundations of the physical world.  They are basically just practical conjectures.  

Madhyamaka Buddhism holds that everything that we might consider to be an object existing in and of itself, no matter how small, is in fact a compilation of yet smaller objects.  There are no elementary particles.  As the joke goes, "it's turtles all the way down."  Consequently, reality is not composed of anything that has permanent, independent existence.  Instead, realtiy is an ephemeral construction of infinitely smaller and smaller elements. Reality, as we see it, is sunyata or "empty" of true existence. 

It is quite reasonable to say that thinking that the world is composed of an infinite regress of smaller and smaller compound objects is a leap of faith.  In all likelihood, it's a non-falsifiable claim.  At the same time, it is also a leap of faith to say that reality is ultimately composed of elementary (uncuttable) particles.  We simply are attracted to this atomist view because we are used to thinking about the objects around us which we now understand are collections of infered objects and don't exist in and of themselves.  Upon closer reflection, there is no telling what the basic substructure of the universe is or if there even is a basic substructure.  

This is how we understand emptiness through an examination of the composition of objects.  We can also understand it temporally, through causal relationships.  Without going into much detail, the Madhyamaka concept of emptiness is based also on the notion that no object can be said to be either completely separate from or joined with its causes or its effects.  The temporal boundaries of apparent objects do not actually exist, despite the seemingly discrete existence of moments in time.  Reality is not a sequence of distinct states of affairs.  It is a smear of constant change, without objects in causal relations to one another.  Ultimately, the world is one, ever changing, effervescent phenomenon.  We cannot pin it down at any point in time and assert that what we have pinned down exists.

In short, Madhyamaka Buddhism asserts that there is no metaphysical theory that can conclusively establish anything as existing in and of itself, either compositionally or temporally.  So a full analysis of the tetralemma tells us that each of the four possible states of reality cannot be confidently asserted.  The examiniation of the tetralemma and the concept of emptiness leave us with a theoretical blank slate, upon which nothing can be written.  

So how does this help us understand dependent arising?  The answer is imbedded in those two words.  "Arising" refers to the fact that a world is undeniably present to us. "Dependent" refers to its character as empty. 

Madhyamaka Buddhists meditate on emptiness in order to become better disposed toward gaining enlightenment, i.e., freedom from delusion, desire (attraction), and hatred (aversion).  These three "poisons" are the causes of suffering.  Understanding that the world we experience is empty (devoid of objects that have an existence in and of themselves) holds the key to avoiding the delusions we naturally fall prey to.  Reflecting on emptiness also mitigates our desires and our hatreds for any specific thing or state of affairs, since we recognize that the objects of our desires and hatreds do not inherently exist.  This allows us to maintain a calm equinimity in difficult circumstances.  

On a personal note, I have found that by meditating on emptiness, I am -- as the Madhyamika suggests -- able to cope much better with whatever trial I face.  Additionally, the simple observation that my surroundings are rationally unintelligible and that they are in constant, effervescent flux, imbues the world with profound beauty.  There's no wonder to me that dependent arising was among the Buddha's most fundamental teachings.

The Dog Log 4

We had quite the ordeal yesterday.  Loki was due for his follow up ear medication.  Last week, we sedated him and had the vet apply the ointment.  This time, it was up to us.  There are three sedatives we are to use.  The first two are given in pill form.  We found an easy way to get him to take those.  The third ointment is applied to his gums and is more difficult to administer.  Loki does not like it when we try to lift his lip.  Last week, Becky was able to administer the third sedative.  As you might recall from Dog Log 3, the three sedatives made him completely limp.  

Since we were able to apply all the sedatives last time, I was pretty confident we could do it again -- fool that I am.  Loki put up quite a fuss.  He eventually fled from us whenever we approached him.  It was clear that the third sedative was not going to happen.  Since there was no way we would be able to apply his ear ointment unless he was completely knocked out, we gave up the effort.    

About an hour later, I noticed he was sleeping quite peacefully.  In fact, the first two sedatives had finally taken their full effect.  He was limp as a rag doll.  That allowed us to get the ear ointment in him with only a little difficulty.  From start to finish, it was nearly a five hour ordeal -- one we hope we won't have to repeat for a long time to come.  It's promising, though, that we might not need the third sedative in the future.  We have another appointment with his vet in two weeks for another round of vaccines, but the prescribed treatment for his ear infection is now complete, and his hotspot appears fully healed.  

The next hurdle is to give him a bath.  Becky ordered a "Wondurdog Dog Wash Kit," designed to divert water from our shower head to a hose with a flexible plastic shower head, essentially a handheld shower head.  My hope is that by slowly introducing Loki to water in this way, he'll tolerate bathing.  Installing the kit was not difficult, though it might need some adjustment in case it begins to leak.  Loki's discomfort in confined spaces complictes desensitizing him to all that will go into bathing.  We'll need to rely on patience and persistence.   

Loki no longer seems to have much of a desire to scratch himself.  It's nice to see him lurking around our unit without the collar cone, though he still wears it at night.  He's very compliant about donning the cone.  Speaking of the night, he again suddenly and very loudly barked in the middle of the night.  We've also seen him begin to softly bark/whimper while he is napping in the evening.  It makes me wonder whether dogs can tell the difference between their dreams and their waking life.

The Dog Log 3

Loki had his third visit to the vet yesterday.  More on that below, but let me first catch you up on the past week or so.  

The last major event in Loki's medical care was his ear cleaning.  We were able to super-sedate him to the point that he allowed (with some resistence) a liquid to be poured into his ear canals.  We then wiped up the accumulated wax and debris with a cotton ball.  Having completed that task, we decided to stop torturing him until we could get him to the vet nine days later.  She would apply a "longer lasting" treatment for his ear infection.  

In the mean time he showed a few unusual behaviors.  He twice refused to climb into our car.  The first time was when we were taking him home from his Saturday obedience training.  Eventually, I had to pick him up and put him in the back seat.  I thought he would struggle during the process, but he didn't.  He was completely compliant.  A few days later we wanted to drive him to a local park so that he had some good experiences following a car ride, but again, he refused to get in the car.  We abandoned the effort.  There are only so many stressful things one should do to anyone, and Loki was having more than his share.

One night, Loki decided to sleep downstairs.  Normally, he sleeps in our bedroom; however, an hour after the lights went out, we were awakend by his very loud, agressive barking.  Loki very, very seldom barks, so something quite unique set him off.  He might have been awakened by someone dumping recycling in a bin outside our open kitchen window.  He might have awakend simply to an unfamiliar place or he might have been having a bad dream.  He barked in the middle of the night once before, shortly after he came to live with us, and I have seen him barking softly in his sleep.  So any of the three explanations for his barking fit are plausible.  Hopefully, whatever sets him off will no longer be an issue as he settles in with us.

Anyway, on to the big news: Loki had his third visit to the vet yesterday.  The whole process started with us beginning his sedation at 1:00.  We gave him 1,800 mg of gabapentin and 300 mg of trazodone.  At first, he refused to swallow them, spitting them out from the "pill pockets" in which we hid them.  Later he swallowed them eagerly when we smeared them with a pepperoni flavored cream.  Two hours later we dosed him with 0.7 ml of dexmedetomidine which we applied to his gums.  He was more compliant with this than he had been when we cleaned his ears nine days earlier.  Once that was done, it was time to drive him to the vet.

When we took him to the car, he was barely able to stand.  That he could was critical as otherwise I wouldn't be able to lift him from the floor.  He's a pretty big dog.  But I did manage to load him into the car.  Once inside the vet's clinic, it was as if he had been given a general anasthetic.  He posed no resistence to anything done to him.  The vet applied the "longer lasting" medication into his ears and took his sedated state as an opportunity to draw blood for further tests and to trim his nails.  Throughout all the procedures, he didn't flinch.  Finally, the vet gave him a medication designed to help him recover from the dexmedetomidine.  We managed to get him into a position that allowed me to pick him up and carry him to the car.  It was 5:30.  He had been with the vet since 4:00.

Once home, it was a bit of a struggle to unload him out of the car, but we managed.  He was finally, safely home.  We were extremely pleased that we were able to pull all this off and get so much done for him, but as the evening wore on, he showed no signs of recovery.  We began to worry.  He was able to raise his head around 10:00 PM when we could feed him, but that was about it for any sign of voluntary movement.  We went bed at 11:00 with him inert on the floor downstairs, but at midnight, I heard him come into our bedroom.  It was a reassuring sign that all would be well.  

The next day, he was still pretty lethargic on his morning walk, but perked up just fine by afternoon.  His hotspot is healed, so we've taken his collar cone off which means he's now able to "investigate" more of our unit than before.  We'll need to monitor him as he might try to get into things he shouldn't.  Of coure, we are putting the cone back on over night when we can't watch him, but he hasn't shown any signs of wanting to scratch or bite at his skin enough to worry about.

Having dealt with his most pressing medical issue, the vet has now pointed out that he has some inflamed spots on his elbows.  They need to be treated with the same topical antibiotic that we used on his hotspot.  The inflamed elbows aren't severe problems.  I expect they'll clear up quickly.   

All in all, Loki is doing fine.  He's even become playful at times, though he remains pretty skittish on his walks. 

The Dog Log 2

On July 16th, Loki got his first visit to a local vet.  It went surprisingly well, probably because she gave him lots of treats through the early stages of the exam.  We were particularly interested in the progess of his hotspot which was deemed to be still enflamed.  The vet was able to clear away the remains of the scab on his hotspot without him objecting much.  That was a big surprise.  Since it's still enflamed, he'll need to stay in his collar cone for about a week or so.  Becky continues to treat it, but with some procedures she hadn't been doing previously.  

He also has an infection in both ears.  That will take some daily treatment which dogs generally don't like.  If he doesn't tolerate it, we might need to use a less effective, but "long lasting," medication.  His conditions led the vet to declare that he is indeed allergic to something.  It could be environmental or it could be ticks or fleas.  The ear infection suggests an environmental allergy.  His hotspot and that ticks were found on him in the Solano County shelter would implacte ticks.  She said that food allergies are rare. He also has gingivitis.  

During the visit, Loki spontaneously volunteered a stool sample which we're having examined to learn more about his condition.  We were pleased to learn that because his current dose of seditive is quite mild, we shouldn't expect significantly new behaviors when he comes off them.  All in all, there might be a good deal of daily care we'll need to give him for the time being to overcome these conditions.  We were glad to have a thorough exam done, and we look forward to getting him in good, healthy shape.  

The vet gave us the task of cleaning his ears and administering an ointment to clear up the ear infection.  Unfortunately, Loki strongly objected to the ear cleaning, even as he had 1,200mg of sedative in him.  Per the vet's instruction, we took him back to the vet to have them try to clean his ears.  They too were unsuccessful.  Today, however, we succeeded after upping the dose of sedative to 18,000mg and adding two more additional sedatives.  He was pretty much a rag doll when we administered the ear cleaner, objecting a bit at first, but allowing us to get the job done.  He was completely compliant when we administered the ear infection ointment.  We're very happy to have got that done.  We'll have to clean his ears periodically from now on, so hopefully we'll get him to tolerate it without the sedatives.  His hotspot continues to show progress healing, but he still needs his collar cone.  

He's also gaining some confidence being near other dogs.  Yesterday, we took him to his first day of obedience school where he was around ten other dogs.  He was quit apprehensive at first, but eventually calmed down a bit.  The trainer believes he'll do fine in the class.  We have "homework" for him to do before his second training session next week.  It amounts to a few simple behaviors: getting his attention, sitting, lying down, controlled walking, and recognizing his name.  We'll start his homework tomorrow after he has recovered from today's sedatives.  

Right now he's sleeping quite soundly, and we understand it's best to let a sleeping dog lie.  I'm hoping he's having a good dream.

The Dog Log

On July 8, Becky and I adopted a dog: Loki.  He has a sketchy history and probably some neuroses.  So I thought I'd make a record of how he adjusts to his new home.  Here's a little background on him.  

The Sonoma County police found him on April 16th abandoned in a crate without water along Highway 680, between the towns of Benicia and Cordelia.   Loki was estimated to be 5 years old.  At 55 pounds, he was very underweight and his fur was extremely matted.  Clearly, he had been badly treated or at least badly neglected.  He was taken to the Solano County animal shelter.  While there, he underwent a umbilical hernia operation.  He was neutered and vaccinated.  At one point, large ticks were found dropping from his coat.  Beyond his recent traumatic experiences, there's no telling just how hard his life was before being abandoned. 

On June 6th, Loki was rescued by CalPaws, a dog rescue group that looks out for German Shepherds in particular.  Loki is by no means a pure bread shepherd, but he's enough shepherd that CalPaws found him a foster home in Sacramento.  He had reached an adequate weight of 67 pounds.

When we first visited Loki on June 29th, he had healed from his surgeries, but a "hotspot" had reappeared on his rump, something that was an issue earlier during his care at the shelter.  It was about the size of a quarter -- not so serious as to change our decision to adopt him, but a few days later it expanded to at least 3 inches in diameter.  Apparently, he aggravated it overnight.  A vet in Sacramento put him on antibiotics, an anti-inflamatory, and a sedative to keep him healthy and comfortable.  The spot was now a more serious problem, but still not enough to change our minds about adopting him; so we brought him home.

We've had him in a recovery collar cone for over a week now to keep him from further aggravating the hotspot, and thankfully, it's healing nicely.  He continues to get twice daily doses of his meds which we feed him by hand, powderized and wrapped in treats at each meal.  I expect he'll be healed soon.  

He was extremely anxious during his first day with us.  He paced about our condominium unit.  On walks, he was cautious, if not frightened of every dog or human he saw.  Happily, he has calmed down and is more comfortable on walks; however today he actively opposed going for a walk.  He backed away from the open door and bit at the leash, trying to pull it from me.  When I got on my hands and knees to comfort him and remove the leash, he pinned my hands to the carpet with his paws, clearly trying to prevent me from getting up.  It was a very puzzling encounter.

We've convinced him that his bed is a good place to be, but he'll lie down just about anywhere.  He's not too particular.  He generally sleeps through the night at the foot of our bed, but on three occasions he woke and started barking in the darkness.  Sometimes he craves attention; other times, he avoids us.  He sometimes gets exuberant, but he wimpers a lot, especially when Becky leaves the house.  Separation anxiety is certainly one of his challenges, but he wasn't destructive when we both left him during a 90 minute trial separation.  It will be interesting to see how he behaves after his hotspot heals and he's off his sedative.  

Loki has a lot to learn and much more to teach.

Project 2025: The Roadmap to a Unitary Executive

In April of 2023, The Heritage Foundation, along with a number of other conservative think tanks, published Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a compendium of policy recommendations for a the next conservative president.  It is popularly known as Project 2025. Commentators have suggested that Project 2025 is an attempt to avoid repeating the dysfunctional presidential transition of 2016, when Donald Trump unexpectedly won the White House.  At that time, no serious transition plans were in place.  This delayed any attempt by the new administration to affect public policy changes.  Conservatives saw it as a missed opportunity -- one they would not repeat.  I read much of Project 2025 on an 11 hour flight to Copenhagen.  I doubt I would have read so much of it were I not trapped on that flight, but what I read was quite revealing.   

Project 2025 is composed of 30 chapters detailing policy recommendations for a long list of executive departments and regulatory agencies.  Its authors include former Trump Administration staff members, advisors, and allies across a galaxy of conservative organizations.  Many of the recommendations call for the reinstatement of the Trump Administration's policies that were reversed by the Biden Administration.  Other recommendations call for policies the Trump Administration was unable to implement.  Some even go well-beyond what the Trump Administration envisioned.  In nearly every respect, it is undoubtedly an extraodinarily conservative manifesto.  Democrats have successfully exposed it for what it is.  Enough so that Trump and his campaign are insisting that it does not represent a blueprint for their agenda, but the extent to which the report advocates core Trump Administration policies reveals their disingenuousness.  

At the same time, the Trump campaign is establishing closer relations with another, less-prominent conservative policy shop: The America First Policy Institute (AFPI).  The Trump team has appointed the chair of the AFPI, Linda McMahon, to the Trump transition team.  I understand that the AFPI has authored its own policy report for a new conservative president.  Reporting suggests that the Heritage Foundation and the AFPI are on quite unfriendly terms.  Whether this means their policy prescriptions are significantly different or that they are simply separately ambitious policy advisors isn't clear to me, but the best evidence is that their recommendations are quiet similar, if not all but identical in the most important aspects.

Project 2025 is divided into five sections titled, (1) Taking the Reigns of Government, (2) The Common Defense, (3) The General Welfare, (4) The Economy, and (5) Independent Regulatory Agencies.  The first section is perhaps the most significant.  

In "Taking the Reigns of Government," Project 2025's authors believe that staff members hired in non-political, professional positions (career civil servants) have become entrenched in their offices and wield authority over policy that reflects only their own interests.  Consequently, career civil servants are thought to constitute an unelected fourth branch of government.  This is particularly worrying for the authors in that they believe career civil servants are overwhelmingly liberal and will not conscientiously implement the policies of a conservative president.   

Following the maxim, "personnel is policy," the authors recommend instituting rules that will allow the president to replace career civil servants in a host of departments and agencies with political appointees dedicated to the conservative president's policy agenda.  In the final months of his term in office, Trump signed an executive order (known as "Schedule F") which would reclassify many career civil servants and bring them under the direct control of the President.  Notably, Schedule F was the brainchild of James Sherk who later came to work for the AFPI.  Shortly after his election, Biden rescinded Trump's executive order.  

The authors of Project 2025 also propose the elimination or consolidation of a number of agencies and offices along with a drastic reduction in funding and staff in those that remain.  Together, these strategies are aimed at disempowering regulatory agencies by depriving them of resources and ensuring that they are staffed by people hostile to government regulation.  It is ironic that these proposals are described as an effort to de-politicize the civil service, as though promoting a conservative policy agenda under the direct control of a conservative president is apolitical.

Were the recommendations in "Taking the Reigns of Government" put in place, the power of the president would significantly increase.  The role of the president would become that of a "unitary executive," wielding more or less direct authority over every agency in the executive branch, regardless of the charge those agency received upon their creation by Congress.  In most instances, the work of regulatory agencies is to implement the will of Congress as expressed in necessarily vague legislation.  This often requires technical expertise that would be undermined by the political agenda of the sitting president's political appointees.  

According to Project 2025, presidential control over the executive branch should extend even to the Department of Justice which historically has maintained a degree of independence from the White House.  The loss of that independence would turn our justice system into a tool for political power and erode the basic rule of law.  In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. the United States which has made the president immune from prosecution when exercising "core powers" of the presidency, direct control over the Justice Department would be an extraordinary expansion of presidential power.  It would provide presidents with a legal sword to complement their recently acquired legal shield and would create extraordinary powers no president has ever had.

The main thrust of "Taking the Reigns of Government" is the expansion and consolidation of power in the hands of the president.  Given the weakness of Congress over the last sixty years, it's hard to argue that the balance of power would be improved by a stronger executive.  Of course, the authors of Project 2025 argue that their prescriptions have less to do with division of power between branches of government and more to do with the un-elected fourth branch of government: "the deep state;" but in light of the rise of authoritarian movements in the U.S. and in Europe, a stronger executive is precisely the tool that these movements would use to undermine our democratic traditions.  

The latter four sections of Project 2025 drill down to offer specific proposals for the restructure and even the elimination of Cabinet departments and agencies.  Furthermore, they go beyond making structural recommendations to propose specific public policies commonly advocated by the extreme rightwing of our body politic.  

Much of the content here is deep, deep, deep in the weeds of government and would require highly specialized, professional expertise to assess its consequences, but some things do stand out even for lay readers.  My own interest in the climate crisis prompted me to read the chapters on the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency.  It is clear that the main thrust of these chapters is to promote the production of fossil fuel energy in whatever way possible.  Lip service is given to alternative energy sources, but Project 2025 comes just barely shy of baldly asserting the slogan "drill, baby, drill."  Primary goals are to expand the production and export of liquid natural gas (liquid methane), to open up additional federal lands for oil and gas exploration, and to weaken regulations protecting against environmental harms from fossil fuel production and the extraction industries. 

The last of these goals deserves special attention.  Project 2025 envisions a significantly reduced role for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The EPA would, at most, become a junior partner to state environmental protection offices.  By giving state environmental offices the primary decision making authority in regulatory environmental matters, the fossil fuel industry and other extraction industries would be in a strong position to ensure that specific states would accommodate their interests.  

Weakening the EPA in this manner dovetails with two recent Supreme Court rulings.  In 2023, the Court ruled in Ohio v. EPA to block an air emission requirement known as "the Good Neighbor Rule," which protects downwind states from pollutants originating from upwind states.  Later, in 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo to sharply reduce the authority of regulatory agencies under the "Chevron deference" doctrine, named after the landmark court case Chevron v. NRDC.  Chevron deference recognized the expertise of regulatory agencies in interpreting legislation.  Loper gutted deference to the agencies and elevated the standing of industry plaintiffs.  Consequently, decision making that often requires highly technical expertise now lies in the hands of judges who often are not equipped to adjudicate the facts.  

Between blocking the Good Neighbor Rule and enfeebling the Chevron deference, the Court has significantly weakened the EPA.  It would be a final, fatal blow to environmental protection were a unitary executive to make the EPA a junior partner to state environmental offices.  Opponents of the EPA have long sought these policies.  Some have even suggested eliminating the EPA out right.  In 2017, freshman Congressmember Matt Gaetz introduced a bill to do just that.  Indeed, the extent to which Project 2025 intends to limit the authority of the EPA, along with proposed significant budget and personnel cuts, amounts to the Agency's near elimination.

Despite his denials, a future Trump administration is likely to adopt, at very least, the main thrust Project 2025.  Much of Project 2025 is critical of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the executive branch.  It calls for eliminating the Department of Education, reversing FDA approval of mifepristone used in medical abortions, prohibiting the mail delivery of abortion medication, equipment, and other materials, ending birthright citizenship, deporting millions of immigrants, and numerous other extreme policies.  Trump can be expected to follow through on those plans. 

In a recent speech in Wisconsin, Trump expressly proposed reforms that would bring the Department of Justice under the direct control of the President and firing civil servants charged with carrying out policies he disagrees with.  Trump also announce that he would appoint Elon Musk to head a new government efficiency commission "tasked with conducting a complete financial and performance audit of the entire federal government and making recommendations for drastic reforms."  He went on to criticize federal agencies of committing fraud and making costly improper payments.  His criticism of waste in government (without identifying specific examples) are consistent with Project 2025's justification for merging separate executive office, reducing their funding and staffs, and in many cases eliminating offices entirely.  

While the aims of Project 2025 are consistent with -- even identical to -- Trump's aims, the document should not be read simply as Donald Trump's platform.  The Heritage Foundation and the galaxy of conservative think tanks and academics who authored Project 2025 have given us the clearest picture of the rightwing agenda in American politics.  Furthermore, the close alignment of Trump's policies with Project 2025 and his embrace of the AFPI, suggest that America's rightwing is broadly unified around this agenda.  It would behoove political analysts to dig deep into the weeds in Project 2025 to understand the political terrain of the decade ahead, regardless of the results of November's election. 

Democracy, Plutocracy, and Oligarchy

Democrats have been sounding the alarm that Donald Trump and the movement behind him poses a threat to democracy.  The concern is real, of course, but we should note that it threatens an already flawed democracy -- a democracy more accurately called a "plutocracy."  Our plutocracy is a result of public elections being funded through virtually unlimited private contributions.  Unlike our school districts, our police departments, our fire departments, and other public sector institutions, our electoral system lies squarely in the private sector and is subject to all the inequities in that sector.

The intrusion of vast sums of private money into our elections privileges the wealthiest individuals among us.  When campaigns rely on private funding, a candidate must gain the support of those people in control of significant wealth to run an effective campaign.  Candidates who cannot, simply can't compete.  Privately funded electoral systems undermine ostensibly equal political liberties in which each person's political preferences weigh equally.  They inevitably produces a plutocracy:  a system in which the wealthy political donor class collectively guarantees the viability of candidates that protect their class interests.  In a plutocracy, a person's potential political power is equal to their wealth.  This is bad enough, but recently, our plutocracy has begun devolving into an even more undemocratic system:  an oligarchy:  a system in which not a broad, wealthy social class, but super-wealthy individuals exercise extreme influence on political campaigns.  

According to OpenSecrets, up through the 2010 election cycle, no individual or couple made contributions to federal elections of more than $20 million in a single election cycle; however, as a result of the 2010 ruling in Citizens United, the American oligarchy got underway.  In the 2012 election cycle, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson made political contributions amounting to $93.1 million, Harold and Annette Simmons contributed more than $27 million, and Bob and Doylene Perry contributed $24.5 million -- all to Republican candidates or Republican causes.  Democratic oligarchs responded in the following election cycle.  Tom Steyer contributed $75.4 million and Michael Bloomberg contributed $28.5 million -- all to Democratic candidates and Democratic causes.  After that, well, Katie bar the door.

The U.S. private system of campaign finance has given super-wealthy individuals the power to affect elections that no ordinary citizen has ever had.  Since Citizens United, 33 individuals or couples contributed more than $20 million to candidates and political causes in a single election cycle.  In the 2020 cycle, 15 individuals or couples contributed a combined total of $912 million.  In the 2022 cycle, 19 individuals or couples contributed $861.9 million.  Based on data released by the Federal Elections Commission on Feb. 2, 2024, in the 2024 cycle, 12 individuals or couples had already contributed $542.2 million.  Since Citizens United, people donating $20 million or more in a single cycle have contributed over $3.3 billion to candidates and political causes.

The partisan breakdown of donations is also revealing.  After Citizens United, Republican donors contributed over $1.95 billion.  Democratic donors contributed $1.42 billion.  One might conclude from this that while the Republicans have an edge, the rough equality of these numbers means that our system is not especially skewed against either political party; but that overlooks the bias against candidates who aren't popular among wealthy donors.  There can be vigorous disagreement between Republicans and Democrats regarding many issues, but there will never be serious threats to the wealth of oligarchs or the system that created it.  According to the Pew Research Center, roughly a third of Americans have a favorable view of socialism.  It's unlikely that a third of our oligarchs have a similarly favorable view.  

Only a few politicians will succeed by taking positions that are critical of the private interests that fund our elections.  Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are notable here.  Their success, however, is due to the size and demographics of their constituencies.  Ocasio-Cortez represents a single, urban congressional district, populated by an electorate that is unlike the wider U.S. population.  As such, she is more able to defeat the influence of big money.  The same is true for Sanders.  After all, Vermont's population is no larger than a single congressional district.  Consequently, Sanders is able overcome the interference of outside, big money; but the general political economy of campaign finance ensures that Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders will be rare exceptions. 

Opensecrets.org has done a good job of examining campaign finance records to identify the most prominent oligarchs.  To make the short list, I have set a bar of contributions of at least $20 million in a single election cycle going back to 2010 -- the earliest data published by OpenSecrets.   Here are the 33 campaign finance oligarchs that make the cut and their total individual contributions since Citizens United:

1. Sheldon & Miriam Adelson (Rep.)  $542,711,025 
2. Michael Bloomberg (Dem.)  $350,224,779
3. Tom & Kathryn Steyer (Dem.)  $312,394,765
4. Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein (Rep.)  $293,341,633
5. George Soros (Dem.)  $221,066,069
6. Timothy Mellon (Rep.)  $216,884,270
7. Kenneth Griffin (Rep.)  $215,446,668
8. Jeffrey & Janine Yass (Rep.) $157,449,281
9. Fred Eychaner (Dem.) $97,154,090
10. James & Marilyn Simons (Dem.)  $97,067,551
11. Donald Sussman (Dem.)  $95,845,250
12. Paul Singer (Dem.) $87,383,278
13. Dustin & Cari Moskovitz (Rep.) $77,569,612
14. Stephen & Christine Schwarzman (Rep.) $72,857,142
15. Karla Jurvetson (Dem.) $58,905,366
16. Laura Perlmutter (Rep.)  $44,461,791
17. Sam Bankman-Fried (Dem.) $40,743,790
18. Peter Thiel (Rep.) $35,373,342
19. Lawrence Ellison (Rep.) $31,007,943
20. Rob Bigelow (Rep.) $29,641,500
21. Shirley Ryan (Rep.)  $28,206,300
22. Harold & Annette Simmons (Rep.)  $27,066,900
23. Diane Hendricks (Rep.)  $25,742,500
24. Reid Garrett Hoffman (Dem.)  $25,701,401
25. Robert & Diane Mercer (Rep.)  $25,620,300
26. Bernard & Billi Wilma Marcs (Rep.)  $24,736,435
27. Felicia Horowitz (Both)  $24,529,147
28. Bob & Doylene Perry (Rep.)  $24,509,200
29. Marc Andreessen (Both)  $24,452,665
30. Ryan Salame (Rep.)  $24,053,000
31. James & Mary Pritzker (Dem.)  $22,305,000
32. John & Marlene Ricketts (Rep.)  $21,555,750
33. Deborah Simon (Dem.)  $20,006,173

As mentioned before, the total amount donated by these 33 oligarchs exceeds $3.3 billion, but these totals do not include the vast amount of money that the oligarchs might well be channeling through "dark money" committees that are not required to disclose their donors.  Nor do these totals include donations to state and local elections; so, for example, the $323.6 million J.B. Pritzker spent of his own money on his two campaigns for governor of Illinois are not included.

One way to support democracy and mitigate the power of oligarchs is to remove political campaign funding from the private sphere and establish a workable system of publicly financed elections.  The best method I know of for doing this was suggested by Lawrence Lessig in his 2011 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and How to Stop It.  See my review of it at books, etc.

Briefly, Lessig proposes that each voter be granted a $50 voucher they can use to contribute to any candidate or candidates they choose.  Additionally, any voter may contribute an additional $100 of their own money as long as they make no other, political donations.  This would ensure that candidates that are genuinely popular are able to run effective campaigns.  Assuming every registered voter made use of their voucher, it would cost the Treasury about $8.4 billion which is about 58% of the total expenditures for all federal elections in 2020.  Under this system, elections would be funded by voters, not oligarchs.