One thing that the current primary season seems to be revealing is that far too many of us are not recognizing that the United States of today is not remotely the country of 18 months ago. Despite the reports that the United States has slid into competitive authoritarianism, far too many of us seem not to grasp what that means for us.
After all, the country looks much the same, albeit that many are impacted quite negatively of late by the economic decisions coming from the administration. We still have the illusion of rights and freedoms even as the administration ramps up attacks on marginalized people and protestors, which are increasingly being accepted as our new normal. Yet nothing that is happening is normal.
As such, our approach to surviving should not be rooted in old ways of being that reflect a country and system that is no longer functioning properly.
A few days ago, several physicians and researchers who attended the annual American Diabetes Association meeting were removed from the event for attempting to distribute copies of an editorial criticizing the administration’s attacks on scientific research. The editorial, according to The New York Times, detailed the effects of NIH (National Institutes of Health) cuts and other Trump administration actions on diabetes research and outcomes and it had been previously published in the association’s flagship journal.
On the surface, it seems the attendees were simply breaking the rules a bit by attempting to distribute the editorial, which the association had forbidden. When they refused to stop distributing the materials, the event planners requested police assistance to remove a professor of pediatrics from the University of Minnesota, along with several other researchers from prominent institutions.
On the surface, it is easy to think they should have just followed the rules.
But should they?
And furthermore, why were police needed? And why was the ADA unwilling to let a journal-published editorial be distributed for free?
See, here is the thing: the Trump administration’s policies are rocking the scientific community in a whole lot of awful and damaging way, and now institutions and organizations don’t want to run afoul of the administration. They don’t want to rock the boat and draw attention to themselves. They want to hunker down until it all blows over.
After all, we have seen this administration target powerful universities and others with financial, legal, and other inane attacks when they don’t immediately obey the regime’s inane policies. Pharmaceutical companies don’t want to support medical associations whose members are openly defiant and, well, this is authoritarianism. It silences critics and increasingly it is silencing people in ways that the average citizen isn’t picking up on.
Our country is literally being run by people with little or no experience in the areas they oversee (pretty much describes almost the entire Cabinet) and they are making decisions that impact all of us. As people with the actual experience speak up, they will be silenced—if we just default to believing they should simply follow the rules, we are accepting the authoritarian rule.
Even our media outlets are complicit with this when they report a story such as this without connecting the dots, because we know the Times understands reporting, bigger pictures, and investigative journalism. This story is far bigger than a rules infraction and some kind of disturbing the peace—it’s about silencing voices.
Why shouldn’t these scientists and physicians be able to ensure fellow ADA members know the full extent of harm this administration is inflicting on their patients and research? It is believed that one in eight Americans is living with diabetes, and diabetes is disproportionately represented in certain communities like Black communities. Oh, but in today’s world under Trump, you can’t get your funding approved if you say things like this. No special privileges for marginalized diabetics or even the acknowledgement of the systemic issues that create those disparities, like food deserts.
It is a shame The New York Times couldn’t be troubled to dive a little deeper, though, since they spent an inordinate amount of time in Maine (weeks actually) investigating Senate candidate Graham Platner, culminating in a recently released piece based on speaking with several of his ex-partners—some of whom described him quite positively and some of whom described their time with him as toxic at times and maybe abusive though not in an extreme manner. Basically, a set of mixed messages to begin with, which feels a lot like muckraking and gossip, and on top of that, the most damning claims came from an ex-girlfriend that the Times merely vaguely described as having been involved with conservative groups when in fact she actually worked for the Heritage Foundation in a prominent position; she’s a literal right-wing operative. A rather big thing to gloss over if you’re trying to do real journalism.
Like a number of writers, I knew the piece was coming several days before it was published. And though none of us knew what it might say beforehand, there was rampant speculation. I read the piece within minutes of it being published and, in many ways, there was no significantly new information in it. There was very little, it seemed to me, that either he hasn’t already shared openly or that couldn’t be extrapolated from what he has told us. He went through a phase in life that left him as a less-than-desirable partner. Having dated several men who served in the military, it is not an unfamiliar story; it doesn’t excuse the behavior, mind you, but it’s not a surprise. Several of the women who spoke to the Times shared their truths and said that the man they dated wasn’t always kind, wasn’t always faithful and, from those accounts, he was a misogynistic mess of a man.
In the era before Trumpism, I think these revelations would have absolutely ended his campaign, especially given the earlier revelations of the tattoo and old Reddit posts. In a bygone era, there was an expectation of a certain level of decorum expected from our leaders and aspiring leaders—or at least the illusion that they had lots of decorum and a lack of proof to the contrary. But today, we face a different reality: We are a country run by a felon who is governing as if this country is his own personal crime syndicate and as if he literally owns Washington, D.C. He is enriching himself and his people with our tax dollars and aside from a few brave federal judges who are doing the right thing, no one seems to know what to do or is too afraid to do anything. In statehouses across the country, they have been stacked with people who support this disgusting and dangerous administration and that impacts what we now see on the state level.
During 47’s first term, I and many others said one way to fight the rise of Trumpism was for people to run for office. Flood the local city councils, school boards and state houses. Instead, we saw Trump people doing what we should have been doing in far too many states.
Too many of us who aren’t on the right seem to have magical thinking. We want good, moral candidates who align perfectly with our morality, values, and political interests and then all we have to do is vote for them. I am sorry, but that type of thinking has no place in the middle of an autocratic takeover. Are we trying to stop things before they get worse or not?
While we argue over what character trait or flaw should disqualify someone and knock down candidates over things that aren’t anywhere nearly as bad as what the Republicans are doing, the right wing is digging itself deeper and growing its power and overreach—literally threatening our future ability to vote.
As I write this, we are three days away from the primary in Maine and all eyes are on the state, with many outside the state declaring Platner too morally compromised to be taken seriously and suggesting that he step down. In a different time, maybe that would have been a good call but I don’t think it is now. I fear we are losing sight of the goal. We need to win this Senate seat in the fall. Susan Collins has far too often cast votes that have aided in creating the conditions we are living in, including voting for Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and voting to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr as the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
As flawed as Platner is, in many ways I think he can still be the perfect “imperfect tool” for pushing back against the administration. Despite the ongoing chatter that he is a John Fetterman in disguise or a secret MAGA, there is nothing in his past that supports those claims. While the Reddit posts on women and Black people are the ones that have stayed in the public eye (and been quite overblown, I might add), the fact is that he also posted that “white rural Americans are racist and stupid” as well as saying “cops are bastards and that he didn’t trust any of them.” If anything, his now-deleted posts don’t speak to a clear ideology back then, though a high school yearbook photo shows he was considered most likely to start a revolution. It seems he has always had a range of views even as a teenager.
A recent report revealed that one in two Mainers are struggling to make ends meet. The numbers are even worse for BIPOC Mainers. I think part of Platner’s continued popularity within Maine is that he is listening to people—and people want to be heard, especially when so many in Maine are struggling to survive and our current leaders have proven to be tone-deaf on the struggles of Maine people.
Aside from Collins and Janet Mills (who reminded us that she is still on the primary ballot even though she suspended her campaign), none of the candidates in this race have a legislative track record that we can look at. We are taking in their words. Living in Maine, though, I can say that looking at how a candidate has run their campaign matters to me.
Outsiders constantly keep asking why David Costello and write-in candidate Andrea LaFlamme aren’t getting traction in the Senate primary. Part of it is the media and part of it is the decisions they have made in running their campaigns. LaFlamme was told a write-in candidacy would be an uphill battle because in not obtaining the minimum number of signatures to be on the ballot, she would encounter people who wouldn’t take her candidacy seriously. I think that has played out in terms of the exposure she is getting and why few Mainers outside of those online know who she is.
As for David Costello, he ran in 2024 and lost and seems to be suffering from the same issues he has in 2024: lack of money and exposure. Which for me brings up the question of why didn’t he create a different strategy? Why wasn’t he building a community of support between 2024 and 2026? On paper, he is the most attractive of the newcomers due to his experience with USAID and other positions, yet he isn’t getting traction. In our interview when I asked why he didn’t run for the state legislature, he said it was because he thought his decades of experience were more than equal to the Maine legislature—yet it seems that a few years in the legislature might have served him well in building support for a U.S. Senate run.
Having met all the candidates, for me—despite the stream of scandals—I have decided that Platner is still my first-choice ranking with Costello most likely being my second ranking. I won’t be ranking anyone else.
In some ways, given our current political climate, his baggage isn’t the crisis it might have been years ago. These are not normal times and I am not looking to date the man. My standards in a personal relationship aren’t the standards for a politician in a country that has moved to competitive authoritarianism. I am taking his wife’s words that he continues to be in therapy—and yes, in an ideal world, maybe he could have done a little more interpersonal growth before running but time is of the essence as we see the material conditions deteriorate for both Mainers and Americans as a whole. We are seeing people silenced and disappeared by our government and corruption is openly rampant.
Candidates in the world of social media and non-stop coverage face challenges that candidates of yesterday didn’t. In many ways, choosing to run for office is to turn your life upside down and face ongoing scrutiny to a degree that didn’t used to exist. So much so that I can’t help wondering about the impact on who actually decides to run. People speak of wanting more women and BIPOC folks in office, but have we really built the conditions to support such candidates without tearing them apart? Marginalized folks have gone through enough already even before the rise of this nasty regime; are we going to uplift and support them or dig through their garbage looking for every piece of dirt so that we can ruin them even before the opposition does.
As I’ve seen here in Maine, the answer is that no, we don’t have the conditions to support such candidates. In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, we saw a surge of BIPOC candidates enter into politics, including yours truly. From the night I won to the end of my term on the Portland Charter Commission, I saw nonstop attacks as a Black woman. Many of the same BIPOC folks who won races in Maine after 2020 chose not to run again due to the attacks on them, and in Trump’s second term—as local politics have turned into national affairs—the racist attacks have only intensified.
In many ways, the conditions we have create the candidates we get.
No doubt there are some who will read this and take offense that I am still choosing to support Platner. This is where my belief that multiple things can be true at the same time comes into play. I can accept that I believe he is the best candidate for this moment and probably the only person with a real chance to beat Susan Collins, and also hold the uncomfortable truth that he has engaged in some shitty behavior in his past.
None of us knows what the future holds but seeing how low our nation has sunk and continues to sink, I am not averse to taking a risk to move the needle.
PS: As an independent writer, as much as l love your comments and sharing, your financial support is what keeps my writing viable. Become a Substack subscriber today, or if you are interested in my more deeper and personal writing with an anti racism lens, become a Patreon patron. Or if you just want to show your gratitude for this piece, consider Buying Me a Coffee.
Image by Nijwam Swargiary, obtained via Unsplash
