Albaby, I agree with you on so much, but the way you frame your question suggests that you don’t quite get it, or if you do- that you believe it’s irrelevant.

So I’m going to answer you in the only way I know how- as the longtime clergyman that I am- by quoting two other longtime clergy type folk with whom you may be acquainted.

I appreciate the sentiment. But I would respond by saying that if you have to respond in metaphor and allusions, rather than directly, then that suggests that you might not be able to point to anything concrete that is actually affecting you in a material way.

I'm not sure what it is you think I don't quite get. Trump is doing what he's doing, and is able to do what he's doing, because he's a lame duck President who has immense power and popularity within his party without having had to form any alliances or partnerships to get it. So he's able to do tons of things that would normally be unthinkable for a President, because they have longstanding ramifications for the people that will come after him, but he doesn't have to care about it. He has no power base within the party other than himself, so he can be a free agent within the Presidency.

While that yields outcomes I find completely atrocious, he's generally exercising powers that we've given the President, and following the rules that govern what happens when there are disputes about what the limits of those powers are. Presidents have always had immense power to cause chaos in the Executive Branch - the reason they haven't done so in the past is not because causing chaos in the Executive is illegal, but because it's a very bad practice to engage in if you want the agencies to do the things they're meant to do. Having a President who doesn't care about that isn't the end of democracy - it's maladministration. That doesn't mean it's not damaging, even irreparably catastrophic - but that's different than being a dictator.