The Clare Spark Blog

August 14, 2015

The Trump Phenomenon: a triumph or a disaster?

Trump on the stump in Iowa

Trump on the stump in Iowa

[Update 1/9/18: I now view Trump as a moderate who, in some respects, appeals to conservatives, but definitely not a full-blown fascist, despite the efforts of many (authoritarian) liberals to pin that label on him; their “psychiatric” efforts to make him “unstable” and hence unfit for office, echo postwar diagnoses of Hitler-the-madman.]

[Update 3-16-16: Read this carefully. Trump’s position on Israel has been distorted by his rivals. He has said that he would like to see peace in the Middle East but that it would be the “toughest negotiation” ever. No signs of anti-Semitism in my view, but rather unrealistic views of “Palestinian” objectives.]

[Update 3-10-16: I didn’t compare Trump to Hitler here, but as a populist and nationalist, his campaign did resonate in some respects with the Strasser brothers. I want to distance myself from liberals and even conservatives who are calling him a Nazi. I  have thought of taking this down owing to inevitable mis-readings; I am now supporting him because I believe that the system is terminally corrupt, and that he will be an improvement over Hillary. A reminder: I am an Independent and a scholar, not an ideologue.]

[Update 12-12-15: I agree with David Horowitz that if Trump’s ban on all Muslims entering the US  (temporarily) is unconstitutional, the GOP should find a Constitutional proposal to prevent more terror. (I hope I got that right.]

[Update 10-15-15: I would be very unhappy if this blog was used by anarchists or lefties for anti-Trump propaganda. After seeing the Democrat debate 10-13, it is that party that more closely resembles fascism (for the S. A. was always populistic, hence anti-Semitic). Trump has since been less vague about his policy objectives, and, in my view, is clearly superior to any Democrat, especially Hillary Clinton, the most likely to win the Donkey nomination.]

[Update 9-19-15]: Since writing this, several arguments might be added to my  argument that Trump’s followers resemble the populist members of the S.A. under Hitler. 1. The appeal to national greatness was deployed by Hitler after the defeat in WW1. His followers, many of them humble and feeling crowded out by other rising groups, may long for vicarious “greatness”; 2. Hitler was a Pan-Germanist, calling for an all German-speaking unity. Trump’s nativism echoes such grandiloquent notions; 3. Hitler lifted Germany out of the Depression by remilitarizing, defying the terms of the Versailles settlement. Similarly, Trump calls for a massive military expenditure, which can only raise the fantasy of more jobs for the unemployed and semi-employed; and 4. Trump lies a lot. His mob followers are as cynical as he is. (End update)].

Even Fox News Channel can’t make up its collective mind over Donald Trump’s candidacy. Hannity loves him and O’Reilly subtly pushes him, while Charles Krauthammer, their most respected pundit, doesn’t take him all that seriously (though that may change).

I do.

For most of my adult life I have studied the influence of fascism in Europe and America, in all its manifestations. While others castigate Trump as a bully, a fraud, a celebrity tied to mass culture, a narcissistic businessman allied with dubious companies (such as ACN, see page one story in WSJ (8-14-15), I agree with my son-in-law who nailed him as a street fighter and a primitive. I go even further, for he reminds me of a parody of masculinity, but more, the S.A., Hitler’s populist Brownshirts, led by the Strasser brothers, who made trouble throughout the 1920s and early 30s until they were [partially] purged in The Night of the Long Knives, June 30, 1934, an event that led William E. Dodd, the US Ambassador to Hitler’s Germany, resign his post. (

Although propagandists and even historians emphasize “the Nazi seizure of power” the better scholars emphasize Hitler’s coalition with monarchists and conservatives opposed to the social democratic Weimar Republic. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg in order to destroy communism (a communism that today’s Right frequently associates with the Democratic Party), and the 1933 elections were no Nazi landslide, but garnered only 43.91% of the vote (almost the same plurality that elected Bill Clinton). For my blog on how the Democratic Party has absorbed ideas originally associated with Marxist practice, see

Sturmabteilung poster

Sturmabteilung poster

As for big lying to the public, Trump has already delivered some whoppers. For instance, he takes credit for introducing the subject of illegal immigration, when anyone following the records of other Republican candidates is familiar with how and when the views of Bush and Rubio have been modified regarding amnesty. Similarly, in an interview with Sean Hannity, Trump mentioned “health savings accounts” as if he had just dreamed it up. (Both Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan have supported such accounts, but see the idea’s origins here:

I have my own suspicions of why so many voters are wowed by The Donald. Noting the popularity of The Godfather, The Sopranos, and lately, the wealthy can-do, know-it-all killer played by James Spader on NBC’s The Blacklist, it is not surprising that another larger-than-life character would suddenly capture the imaginations of many populist voters.

So we now have a choice: creeping fascist/populism on the Left with Hillary Clinton/Sanders/Warren/, or creepy populism on the Right with Donald Trump, our latest Knight in Shining, Glitzy, Armor.

[Update: I now believe that our biggest threat of fascism comes from (welfare statist) social democrats. I still don’t like glitz, but understand its appeal to the child in all of us.]

Trump Tower Atrium, NYC

Trump Tower Atrium, NYC

June 26, 2015

Another Missed Opportunity: James Pagano M.D. on SCOTUS’s bad decision

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 7:09 pm
Tags: , , ,
James Pagano, M.D.

James Pagano, M.D.

[This is Dr. Pagano’s fourth guest blog: see links at the bottom of the page]

Twice now the Roberts court has reinterpreted the plain language of the ACA in order to keep it in force.  The first slight of mind was the bizarre decision that a tax wasn’t really a tax.  Now we learn that when congress specifically stated that  subsidies should go only to those buying insurance from an exchange set up by a state, what it really meant was the subsidies were available to everyone, regardless of whether the exchange was established by the state or the Feds.  As daft as our politicians may be, I’m fairly certain they have the intellectual wherewithal to have said as much had that been what they meant.

One of the duties of the Supreme Court is to protect the people from congressional malpractice.  The ACA is a clear case.  Thousands of pages, unread by most who voted for it, written in language intended to confuse, excluding from its reach those who wrote it, and sold to a gullible public through a series of bold-faced lies.  Rather than protect the people from this atrocity the Court has chosen instead to protect congress from itself.

The majority decision, written by the same logical contortionist who declared a tax wasn’t a tax, stated that the duty of the Court is to find ways to protect the actions of congress, not ways to un-do them.  This is frightening, implying as it does that an out of control, single party congress, like the one that passed the ACA, can do pretty much whatever it wants and get legal cover from the Supreme Court.

But enough of the whining.  You’ve heard all this before and you either agree or don’t and nothing much is going to change your opinion.  Instead let’s consider what might have been.  Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe in which the price of something is closely tied to its cost.  Those of you in business will recognize this as one of the fundamental relationships in life.  Those of you working for the government, try to hang on for a few minutes longer.  I think you’ll have some fun.

So, in this alternate world people pay for things they want or need with money.  Actual cash.  Soap, apples, cars, homes, you name it.  Even health care.  And because people are paying with real money, they expect the prices they pay to be closely tied to the cost of providing whatever goods or services they are purchasing.

In this world the government has wisely noticed that of all the things people want or need, healthcare is one of the most important and should be available to all its citizens.  It has also noticed that healthcare can be expensive.  The politicians in this world thought long and hard.  Finally, they devised a plan.  What they came up with was this:

All citizens would be allowed to create special savings accounts where money could be put aside to cover health care costs.  This money would be tax-exempt, and the accounts would be generous—say ten thousand dollars a year per person.  Those who could afford this would do so unassisted.  Those who could not would get help from the government.  These people would get health care credit cards, for an annual amount means-tested to bridge the gap between what they can afford and the ten thousand dollar maximum.

To supplement these accounts people would also be able to buy insurance.  If, for instance, someone suffers a bank-breaking illness or injury the supplemental insurance will pick up where the ten grand leaves off.  For those without the money to buy supplemental insurance the government will provide Medicaid.  While the choices of providers accepting Medicaid might be limited, care would nevertheless be available through a network of providers and through hospital ER’s.  Kind of like it was in this world before the ACA.  Come January 1st new health care credit cards are issued and those who found themselves on Medicaid at year’s end can once again have control of their health care lives.

If you are lucky enough to have money left over at the end of the year, guess what?  You get to keep it!  It stays in the bank, drawing interest.  (In this world interest rates actually reflect the real cost of money…).  And, since the maximum amount you are required to spend out of pocket each year is ten thousand dollars, that left over money becomes a retirement account.  When you reach retirement age you can roll it over into an IRA.

A world in which people make their own choices and spend their own money, with a government there to support the truly needy.  Insurance companies relegated to actually providing insurance against catastrophic losses.  Prices set by providers, drug makers, imaging centers and hospitals to reflect cost plus a modest profit.  Why?  Because they are all in competition for the same customers.  Imagine ads in the paper offering an MRI for $350, (about what it’s really worth, as opposed to the $9000 charged by hospitals, to be negotiated by various insurers), followed the next day for an ad by another imaging center for the same MRI, but for $325.  But that’s in the other universe.

Back in this world we are now saddled with a system wherein government and insurance companies set prices and ration care, the newly ‘insured’ are turning to Emergency Departments in ever-increasing numbers for their primary care needs, (patient volume in my ER is up about 35% almost entirely due to Obamacare patients with Medi-Cal managed care insurance and nowhere else to go), where the treatment options will be limited and innovation stifled.

We have lowest common denominator health care and will be paying Cadillac prices for it.  We have patients disconnected from their healthcare choices who will remain blissfully ignorant in the arms of a bloated federal government.  And the worst is yet to come.  Still, there are people seemingly ecstatic that the law was allowed to stand.  ‘The ACA is now embedded in our society!’, or something to that effect.

It’s about as absurd as my telling a patient, “Congratulations, the cancer is now inoperable.”  What a shame.

Create a free website or blog at