I have learned something important about the United States since Donald Trump took office for the second time. I have learned that most people most of the time will choose to believe in the existence of certain eternal rules that powerful figures must obey, even as those same powerful figures break those same rules over and over again. 

Consider the rule about Social Security. It used to be seen as the “third rail” of American politics. If anyone touched it, they got zapped. The last time was in 2005, after George W. Bush’s victory. The backlash against attempts by the Republicans to privatize it contributed to the blue wave of 2006. It might have affected the 2008 election, as well.

This rule is flimsier than anyone realized, though. 

Instead of going through the Congress, the Trump regime is doing what it can to discredit the program in the eyes of the public. (Elon Musk infamously called it “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”) Or it is doing what it can to make it harder for elders to get their money, which in turn further discredits the program in the eyes of the public.

The regime is cutting the Social Security workforce by the thousands. According to the Post, staffers who would normally fix run-of-the-mill problems, like computer “glitches that can stop payments,” are no longer going to be around to fix them. The Post said this could mean cases “get stuck” and “people could be out of benefits for months.”

Where do you go if payments don’t come?

You used to be able to call the Social Security Administration when there was a problem. Recently, however, the regime has put in place “anti-fraud” measures. These require elders to file online or in person. That wouldn’t be so bad if elders were computer-savvy (they are not) or if the regime were not also closing field offices around the country. 

The result has been entirely predictable chaos and disorder. It’s gotten so bad that the Post said, in a different report published last week, that “Social Security is breaking down amid long waits, waves of calls and web crashes. A flood of cuts … has sent the agency into meltdown.” 

Fortune asked the White House to comment on the Post story. A spokeswoman said Trump’s “resounding mandate from the American people” means he’s “moving quickly to fulfill his promise of making the federal government more efficient. He has promised to protect Social Security, and every recipient will continue to receive their benefits.” 

But is the Social Security Administration really more efficient? The Post said phone lines are so jammed up that a field office told people to fax in their questions. “There is just no time to breathe or get anything else done,” the employee told the Post. “We used to be efficient.”

---

Hiya! Today’s edition goes out to everyone. But please, pretty please, if you can afford to, subscribe ($6/mo.) and support my work! Just click here. Many thanks! —JS

---

It used to be that if the Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security, and they did want that for decades, they had to persuade enough Americans that doing so was in their and the country’s best interest. Time and again, they failed – they got zapped – and in that failure arose the belief that even powerful people had to obey certain eternal rules.

The Trump regime isn’t doing that.

Instead of persuading people to change Social Security, the regime is undermining the program itself under the guise of cutting “waste, fraud and abuse.” A likely consequence of the damage done will be a loss of public faith in the program. At that point, the Republicans may be able to do whatever they want, even privatizing it in the name of efficiency.

If the rules are stopping you, don’t obey them. 

Break them.

I would like you to consider another rule that most people most of the time believe is so certain and eternal that even Donald Trump must obey it. That’s the rule found in the US Constitution, in the 22nd Amendment. No president can serve more than two terms.

In an interview Sunday, Trump said he’s considering ways to run for a third. According to the Associated Press, he “elaborated later to reporters on Air Force One from Florida to Washington that ‘I have had more people ask me to have a third term, which in a way is a fourth term, because the other election, the 2020 election was totally rigged.”

The AP: “Any attempt to remain in office would be legally suspect and it is unclear how seriously Trump might pursue the idea. The comments nonetheless were an extraordinary reflection of the desire to maintain power by a president who had violated democratic traditions four years ago when he tried to overturn the election he lost to Biden.”

This is not the first time Trump has talked about breaking the law and violating the Constitution, nor will it be the last, but everytime, someone somewhere tsk-tsks: what about that certain eternal rule? The AP quoted a constitutional law professor at Northeastern. He said “there are no credible legal arguments for him to run for a third term.”

That’s right!

---

Click here to leave a tip. $10? Thanks!

---

There is no credible legal argument for serving more than two terms, just as there is no credible democratic argument for sabotaging Social Security so that 68 million elders become so desperate that they will accept any replacement, even if owned and operated by Wall Street. 

The question isn’t whether it’s legal or constitutional to run again. We know it’s not. The question is whether there’s anything powerful enough to stop a president whose mindset tells him there’s no act that can’t be justified by the fact that no one is going to stand in the way.

In this, I’m talking about more than the congressional Republicans and the federal courts. I’m also talking about 68 million sick and elderly who are right now being forced to jump through hoops to get what’s rightfully theirs. Everyone presumes he’s gonna get zapped for touching the third rail. What few admit is he’s holding for ransom their literal security – be nice or I’ll make you jump through higher hoops. 

And even if there is a backlash next year in the same way there was a backlash in the 2006 midterms, who’s going to suffer? Not Trump. He doesn’t care about his party. The House Republicans are not going to pressure him to obey rules about third terms and third rails. They might suffer a wipeout, but that’s not going to affect a president who’s already led one insurrection and is capable of leading another. In the context of a criminal president, “third rail” loses its usual meaning.

In saying this, I might be accused of losing hope, as if I’m suggesting Trump is all-powerful and there’s nothing we can do democratically. 

I’m not saying that. 

What I am saying is there is no hope if we continue believing, as most of us do, most of the time, that there are certain eternal rules that are going to stop Donald Trump from doing what he wants, as if a criminal mindset like his would ever honor the rules. The rules are only as valuable as the people who are willing to use them to fight back. 

It’s not that he can’t do something. 

It’s that good people will try to stop him from doing it.