The richest person in the world couldn’t buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court election, which was won by liberal Susan Crawford, who defeated Elon Musk’s favored candidate and Trump toadie, Brad Schimel. She will serve a ten-year term, cementing liberal dominance for some time. Vested interests poured $100 million into the race, a record for a state Supreme Court contest. This orgy of big money in politics was unleashed in large part by John Roberts’s wretched Citizens United ruling in 2010, which solidified America’s march to (further) plutocracy.

This election may signal the beginnings of a backlash against the Trump regime. Since his inauguration, Trump has acted more lawlessly than any president in history, even Tricky Dick Nixon, willfully thwarting the legislative intention of Congress in funding government agencies to do jobs Congress wanted them to do. Trump has undermined the basic parliamentary principle that the people’s elected representatives have the power of the purse, a principle that goes back to Britain hundreds of years ago.

At the same time, the Trump regime has exalted toxic masculinity and signaled its intent to liquidate workers’ unions. The problem for Trump is that a majority of Americans are women or workers or both.

Moreover, Trump’s surrender of such fiscal decisions to Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency has resulted in mass firings of government personnel and the gutting of America’s health services, scientific research and threats to the solvency of the country’s preeminent research universities. The attack on Social Security — removing the ability of recipients to do business by phone, the firing of 7,000 Social Security employees (14% of the workforce), the breaking of the agency’s website — has alarmed the elderly nationwide.

American democracy is stronger today because voters in one Midwest state stood up to the richest man in the world.

Trump won Wisconsin last fall by less than a percentage point, with a margin of only 29,000 votes. Trump’s full court press against the institutions Americans depend on has made a bad impression. In early March, Savannah Kuchar explained in USA Today, a Marquette poll found that 51% of the voters in Wisconsin viewed Trump’s initial weeks in office negatively. He had frittered away his slight advantage in the state. Of course, Republicans supported him and Democrats despised him. But the key is the independents, and of those 60% disapproved of the initial Trump record and only 39% approved.

As for Elon Musk, the same poll found that 53% of Wisconsin voters viewed him negatively, and only 41% saw Musk positively. Someone with such high negatives and so few supporters in a relatively conservative “purple” state likely made a mistake by taking a high profile, pouring $20 million into the Supreme Court race, and offering a million dollars to select voters to vote for the conservative candidate.

Elon may have defeated himself, just as Trump did.

Of course, there were other issues. Schimel as attorney general of Wisconsin a decade ago attempted to defend a restrictive abortion law that Federal judge William Conley in Madison struck down as unconstitutional in 2015. More recently, Republicans have argued that a nineteenth-century law banning abortion came back into effect once the US Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade. A liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court is likely to find that the freedoms enshrined in the state constitution take precedence over Victorian era legislation.

Abortion rights activists came out to vote in large numbers in an off-year election of a sort that often sees low turnout in the state. Abortion rights helped drive the blue wave of 2018 and the return of the Democrats to the White House in 2021.

Union issues also brought out workers. The far right wing Gov. Scott Walker had in 2011 gutted teachers’ unions, which resulted in a precipitous fall in pay and in high turnover, which disadvantages schoolchildren. Late last fall a state judge found the 2011 law to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, since Walter had actually favored police and fireman unions that supported him politically but had placed disabilities on teachers’ unions. Republican attempts to overturn this ruling by taking it to the Supreme Court have now been dealt a substantial blow.

Finally, Wisconsin’s congressional delegation is skewed 6 to 2 for Republicans, even though the two parties are neck and neck in the state. The current districts for federal elections disadvantage Democrats concentrated in Madison and Milwaukee. Districts for the state legislature, however, were made fairer in 2022 by legislation.

In 2020, as well, the Trump campaign demanded that 200,000 votes in the presidential contest be thrown out in Wisconsin. Any further such scurrilous demands will clearly be rebuffed in the state.

American democracy is stronger today because voters in one Midwest state stood up to the richest man in the world. The people of Wisconsin and of the United States have more rights today because of Wisconsin voters. Trump’s catastrophic policies, which threaten the health of the Republic both literally and figuratively, may produce not so much a blue wave as a blue tsunami as people realize that they are the ox to be gored.

Another moment of truth for Gaza has arrived.

Any day now, the Senate will vote on Senator Bernie Sanders' resolutions to block $8.8 billion in U.S. arms sales to Israel – and every single American who believes in human rights needs to flood Senate phone lines demanding support for these resolutions.

Let's be crystal clear about what's happening: Since Israel unilaterally shattered the ceasefire on March 17, over 600 Palestinians have been killed, disproportionately women and children in just the initial wave of strikes. These aren't just statistics—these are human beings, families, entire communities being obliterated with American-made weapons, paid for with our tax dollars.

Whether you just believe in following U.S. and international law when it comes to human rights, or you see this as part of a broader struggle against U.S. imperialism and militarism—or both—this is your moment to act.

The humanitarian catastrophe has reached unimaginable levels. According to the UN, Israel imposed a complete blockade on all aid into Gaza for several weeks, despite desperate daily efforts by UN agencies to deliver essential supplies. Think about that – 40 out of 49 aid movements coordinated with Israeli authorities were denied in just one week in March. Tom Fletcher, the UN relief chief, warned that food is “rotting, medicine expiring, and vital medical equipment stuck” while children are sick and starving. This isn't just a policy failure – it's a moral catastrophe of historic proportions.

What's at stake in Sanders' resolutions? We're talking about 35,000 MK84 2,000-pound bombs—massive weapons that have already been used to demolish Gaza's hospitals, schools, and refugee camps. The death toll has now surpassed 50,000 Palestinians. And the Trump administration wants to send more of these weapons, bypassing congressional oversight through cynical abuse of "emergency" authorities.

Trump’s Gaza policies are part and parcel of his authoritarian drift: In February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked “national security emergency” waiver provisions to ram through these weapons transfers—despite the fact that many won't even be delivered for years. Some "emergency." This is nothing but a transparent attempt to avoid public scrutiny and democratic oversight of our role in this catastrophe.

Simultaneously, Trump’s bizarre “Riviera of the Middle East” plan for Gaza has been repeatedly endorsed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The plan would involve forcibly relocating Palestinians under the guise of voluntary migration, a move widely condemned as ethnic cleansing. Netanyahu affirmed his support for Trump’s vision, describing it as a coordinated effort between their governments. This approach not only violates international law but also exemplifies Trump’s authoritarian tendencies: consolidating executive power to implement policies that prioritize militarism and demographic engineering over human rights and democratic accountability. Together, these actions reflect a pattern of governance rooted in unilateralism.

Whether you just believe in following U.S. and international law when it comes to human rights, or you see this as part of a broader struggle against U.S. imperialism and militarism—or both—this is your moment to act. We cannot let weapons paid for with our tax dollars continue to devastate civilian populations. We cannot allow a wannabe dictator to bypass democratic oversight through bogus "emergency" declarations.

Here's what you need to do right now (the vote is expected any day):

1. Call your senators’ offices immediately at (202) 224-3121. Demand they vote YES on Sanders' Resolutions of Disapproval on U.S. arms transfers to Israel – S.J.Res 26 and S.J.Res 33.

2. Remind them that these are the exact weapons used to destroy Gaza’s schools, hospitals, and homes.

3. Remind them that U.S. law requires U.S. weapons sales to cease when the weapons are being used in exactly these kinds of violations of human rights.

4. Spread the word – share this article, organize call-in campaigns, make your voice heard.

The vote could come any day. UN human rights experts have warned that Israel's recent actions have opened "the gates of hell" in Gaza. Will the United States continue to supply the weapons that keep those gates open? That depends on what we do right now.

So... Pick up your phone. Call your senators. Demand they vote YES on Sanders' resolutions to block these arms sales. Countless Palestinian lives hang in the balance, and history will judge all of us by what we do in this moment.

U.S. President Donald Trump is trashing the world trade system over a basic economic fallacy. He wrongly claims that America’s trade deficit is caused by the rest of the world ripping off the U.S., repeatedly stating things such as, "Over the decades, they ripped us off like no country has never been ripped off in history…”

Trump aims to close the trade deficit by imposing tariffs, thereby impeding imports and restoring trade balance (or inducing other countries to end their rip-offs of America). Yet Trump’s tariffs will not close the trade deficit but will instead impoverish Americans and harm the rest of the world.

A country’s trade deficit (or more precisely, its current account deficit) does not indicate unfair trade practices by the surplus countries. It indicates something completely different. A current account deficit signifies that the deficit country is spending more than it is producing. Equivalently, it is saving less than it is investing.

America’s trade deficit is a measure of the profligacy of America’s corporate ruling class, more specifically the result of chronically large budget deficits resulting from tax cuts for the rich combined with trillions of dollars wasted on useless wars. The deficits are not the perfidy of Canada, Mexico, and other countries that sell more to the U.S. than the U.S. sells to them.

Trump blames the rest of the world for America’s deficit, but that’s absurd. It is America that is spending more than it earns.

To close the trade deficit, the U.S. should close the budget deficit. Putting on tariffs will raise prices (such as for automobiles) but not close the trade or budget deficit, especially since Trump plans to offset tariff revenues with vastly larger tax cuts for his rich donors. Moreover, as Trump raises tariffs, the U.S. will face counter-tariffs that will directly impede U.S. exports. The result will be lose-lose for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Let’s look at the numbers. In 2024, the U.S. exported $4.8 trillion in goods and services, and imported $5.9 trillion of goods and services, leading to a current account deficit of $1.1 trillion. That $1.1 trillion deficit is the difference between America’s total spending in 2024 ($30.1 trillion) and America’s national income ($29.0 trillion). America spends more than it earns and borrows the difference from the rest of the world.

Trump blames the rest of the world for America’s deficit, but that’s absurd. It is America that is spending more than it earns. Consider this. If you are an employee, you run a current account surplus with your employer and a deficit with the companies from which you buy goods and services. If you spend exactly what you earn, you are in current account balance. Suppose that you go on a shopping binge, spending more than your earnings by running up credit-card debt. You will now be running a current account deficit. Are the shops ripping you off, or is your profligacy driving you into debt?

Tariffs will not close the trade deficit so long as the fiscal irresponsibility of the corporate raiders and tax evaders that dominate Washington continues. Suppose, for example, that Trump’s tariffs slash the imports of automobiles and other goods from abroad. Americans will then buy U.S.-produced cars and other merchandise that would have been exported. Imports will fall, but so too will exports. Moreover, new tariffs imposed by other countries in response to Trump’s tariffs will reinforce the decline in U.S. exports. The U.S. trade imbalance will remain.

While the tariffs will not eliminate the trade deficit, they will force Americans to buy high-priced U.S.-produced goods that could have obtained at lower cost from foreign producers. The tariffs will squander what economists call the gains from trade: the ability to buy goods based on the comparative advantage of domestic and foreign producers.

The budget deficit is not due to the salaries of civil servants, who are being wantonly fired, or to the government’s R&D spending, on which our future prosperity depends, but rather to the combination of tax cuts for the rich, and reckless spending on America’s perpetual wars...

The tariffs will raise prices for automobiles and wages of automotive workers, but those wage hikes will be paid by lower living standards of Americans across the economy, not by a boost of national income. The real way to support American workers is through federal measures opposite to those favored by Trump, including universal health coverage, support for unionization, and budget support for modern infrastructure, including green energy, all financed with higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthiest Americans and corporate sector.

The federal government does not cover its overall spending with tax revenues because wealthy campaign donors promote tax cuts, tax avoidance (through tax havens) and tax evasion. Remember that DOGE has gutted the audit capacity of the IRS. The budget deficit is currently around $2 trillion dollars, or roughly 6 percent of U.S. national income. With a chronically high budget gap, the U.S. trade balance will remain in chronic deficit.

Trump says that he will cut the budget deficit by slashing waste and abuse through DOGE. The problem is that DOGE mispresents the real cause of the fiscal profligacy. The budget deficit is not due to the salaries of civil servants, who are being wantonly fired, or to the government’s R&D spending, on which our future prosperity depends, but rather to the combination of tax cuts for the rich, and reckless spending on America’s perpetual wars, U.S. funding for Israel’s non-stop wars, America’s 750 overseas military bases, the bloated CIA and other intelligence agencies, and interest payments on the soaring federal debt.

Trump and the Congressional Republicans are reportedly taking aim at Medicaid—that is, at the poorest and most vulnerable Americans—to make way for yet another tax cut for the richest Americans. They may soon go after Social Security and Medicare too.

Trump’s tariffs will fail to close the trade and budget deficits, raise prices, and make America and the world poorer by squandering the gains from trade. The U.S. will be the enemy of the world for the harm that it is causing to itself and the rest of the world.

In a genocidal war that has spiraled into a struggle for political survival, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition and the global powers supporting him continue to sacrifice Palestinian lives for political gain.

The sordid career of Israel’s extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir epitomizes this tragic reality.

Ben-Gvir joined Netanyahu’s government coalition following the December 2022 elections. He remained in the coalition after the October 7, 2023 war and genocide, with the understanding that any cease-fire in Gaza would force his departure.

Though “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” as Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz once surmised, in Israel’s case, the “politics” behind the war is not about Israel as a state but about Netanyahu’s own political survival.

As long as the killing of Palestinians and the destruction of their cities continued, Ben-Gvir stayed on board—though neither he nor Netanyahu had any real “next-day” plan, other than to carry out some of the most heinous massacres against a civilian population in recent history.

On January 19, Ben-Gvir left the government immediately following a cease-fire agreement, which many argued would not last. Netanyahu’s untrustworthiness, along with the collapse of his government if the war ended completely, made the cease-fire unfeasible.

Ben-Gvir returned when the genocide resumed on March 18. “We are back, with all our might and power!” he wrote in a tweet on the day of his return.

Israel lacks a clear plan because it cannot defeat the Palestinians. While the Israeli army has inflicted suffering on the Palestinian people like no other force has against a civilian population in modern history, the war endures because the Palestinians refuse to surrender.

Yet, Israel’s military planners know that a military victory is no longer possible. Former Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon recently added his voice to the growing chorus, stating during an interview on March 15 that “revenge is not a war plan.”

The Americans, who supported Netanyahu’s violation of the cease-fire—thus resuming the killings—also understand that the war is almost entirely a political struggle, designed to keep figures like Ben-Gvir and extremist Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in Netanyahu’s coalition.

Though “war is the continuation of politics by other means,” as Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz once surmised, in Israel’s case, the “politics” behind the war is not about Israel as a state but about Netanyahu’s own political survival. He is sacrificing Palestinian children to stay in power, while his extremist ministers do the same to expand their support among right-wing, religious, and ultra-nationalist constituencies.

This logic—that Israel’s war on Gaza reflects internal politics, ideological warfare, and class infighting—extends to other political players as well.

The Trump administration supports Israel as payback for the financial backing it received from Netanyahu’s supporters in the U.S. during the last elections. On the other hand, Britain remains steadfast in its commitment to Tel Aviv, despite the political shifts in Westminster, thus continuing to align with U.S.-Israeli interests while disregarding the wishes of its own population. Meanwhile, Germany, it’s said, is driven by the guilt of its past crimes, while other Western governments pay lip service to human rights, all the while acting in ways that contradict their stated foreign policies.

This mirrors the dystopian world of George Orwell’s 1984, where perpetual war is waged based on cynical and false assumptions, where “war is peace… freedom is slavery… and ignorance is strength.”

Indeed, these elements are reflected in today’s equally dystopian reality. However, Israel substitutes “peace” with “security,” the U.S. is motivated by dominance and “stability,” and Europe continues to speak of “democracy.”

Another key difference is that Palestinians do not belong to any of these “superstates.” They are treated as mere pawns, their deaths and enduring of injustice used to create the illusion of “conflict” and to justify the ongoing prolongation of the war.

The deaths of Palestinians—now numbering over 50,000—are widely reported by mainstream media outlets, yet rarely do they mention that this is not a war in the traditional sense, but a genocide, carried out, financed, and defended by Israel and Western powers for domestic political reasons. Palestinians continue to resist because it is their only option in the face of utter destruction and extermination.

Netanyahu’s war, however, is not sustainable in the Orwellian sense, either. For it to be sustainable, it would need infinite economic resources, which Israel, despite U.S. generosity, cannot afford. It would also need an endless supply of soldiers, but reports indicate that at least half of Israel’s reserves are not rejoining the army.

Furthermore, Netanyahu does not merely seek to sustain the war; he aims to expand it. This could shift regional and international dynamics in ways that neither Israeli leaders nor their allies fully understand.

Aware of this, Arab leaders met in Cairo on March 4 to propose an alternative to Netanyahu-Trump’s plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza. However, they have yet to take meaningful action to hold Israel accountable if it continues to defy international and humanitarian laws—as it has since the Arab summit.

The Arab world must escalate beyond mere statements, or the Middle East may endure further war, all to prolong Netanyahu’s coalition of extremists a little longer.

As for the West, the crisis lies in its moral contradictions. The situation in Gaza embodies Orwell’s concept of “doublethink”—the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both. Western powers claim to support human rights while simultaneously backing genocide. Until this dilemma is resolved, the Middle East will continue to endure suffering for years to come.

On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could fundamentally reshape public education: Oklahoma’s controversial approval of the nation’s first religious charter school, St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual Charter School. The case forces a critical question to the forefront—should taxpayers be compelled to finance religious schools while having no authority to regulate them?

The court’s decision could continue a pattern of rulings that have chipped away at the traditional separation between church and state, transforming the landscape of public education and public funding. If the justices side with St. Isidore, the ruling could mark a turning point in American schooling—one that may erode public accountability, alter funding priorities, and blur the constitutional boundaries that have long defined the relationship between religion and government.

This case builds on a series of decisions from the Roberts Court that have steadily eroded the wall between church and state. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the court allowed public funds to be used for secular purposes by religious institutions. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue expanded this principle, ruling that states cannot exclude religious schools from publicly funded programs. And in Carson v. Makin, the court went further, mandating that state voucher programs include religious schools, arguing that exclusion constitutes discrimination against religion.

As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in Carson, stated, “[i]n particular, we have repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.” On its face, this reasoning frames the issue as one of fairness—ensuring religious entities are not treated unequally. But the deeper implications of this logic are far more radical.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned in her dissent, this interpretation fundamentally redefines the Free Exercise Clause, equating a government’s refusal to fund religious institutions with unconstitutional religious discrimination. Justice Stephen Breyer took this concern a step further, pointing to the court’s own precedent to highlight the dangerous trajectory of its rulings:

We have previously found, as the majority points out, that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious schools through a general public funding program if the “government aid… reach[es] religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of… individual [aid] recipients.”

Breyer then underscored the significance of this distinction:

But the key word is “may.” We have never previously held what the court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education.

Finally, he distilled the implications into a warning: “What happens once ‘may’ becomes ‘must’?”

That shift—from allowance to obligation—could force states not only to permit religious education in publicly funded programs, but to actively finance it, eroding any semblance of neutrality between public and religious schooling. This transformation threatens to unravel the Establishment Clause’s core protection: that government does not privilege or compel religious exercise.

Now, the Oklahoma case brings Breyer’s warning into sharp focus. The petitioners are asking the court to declare that charter schools are not state actors—meaning they would be free from public accountability and regulations, including those related to discrimination or special education. At the same time, they argue that public funds must be made available to religious charters. The implications of such a ruling could reverberate across the country, reshaping education in profound and troubling ways.

The May-to-Must Transformation and Its Far-Reaching Consequences

If the Court sides with St. Isidore, the ripple effects could be seismic, triggering a wave of religious charter school applications and fundamentally altering the landscape of public education. Here’s how:

1. A Surge in Religious Charter Schools

Religious institutions, particularly those struggling to sustain traditional parochial schools, would have a financial lifeline. Charter subsidies, which often surpass voucher amounts, would incentivize religious organizations to enter the charter school market. For years, leaders in some religious communities have sought public funding to buoy their schools, and a decision in favor of St. Isidore could provide the legal green light. The result? A proliferation of religious charters, funded by taxpayers but largely free from public oversight.

2. Erosion of Protections for Students with Disabilities

The implications for students with disabilities are especially concerning. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s implementing regulations, a student with disabilities who is “placed in or referred to a private school or facility by a public agency…[h]as all of the rights of a child with a disability who is served by a public agency.” Yet, a ruling in favor of St. Isidore risks undermining these guarantees by creating a loophole for private religious charters to skirt IDEA’s requirements.

This concern is not just theoretical. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the hybrid nature of charter schools already complicates questions of accountability and state action, particularly when it comes to safeguarding student rights. Allowing religious charters to operate free from IDEA’s obligations would further erode the fragile legal protections students with disabilities rely on—protections that are already too often disregarded in practice.

3. Undermining Public Health and Safety Policies

The pandemic underscored the challenges of balancing public health mandates with constitutional protections for religious freedom. In 2020, a federal judge in Kentucky struck down the state’s attempt to close religious schools during a Covid-19 spike, even as public and secular private schools complied. Extending public funding to religious charters could further erode the state’s ability to enforce neutral regulations, from health measures to curriculum standards. Such decisions privilege religious institutions over secular ones, creating a patchwork of inconsistent rules that could undermine public safety and equity.

Toward Transparency and Accountability

Can these challenges be mitigated? Some experts argue for stricter regulations to preserve the public nature of charter schools. Bruce Baker, a professor of education finance, suggests limiting charter authorization to government agencies and requiring boards and employees to be public officials. Such reforms could ensure that charters remain accountable to taxpayers and subject to the same constitutional constraints as public schools.

Other scholars, like Preston Green and Suzanne Eckes, propose requiring religious charters to forgo certain exemptions if they wish to receive public funding. Specifically, they recommend restructuring charter school boards as government-created and controlled entities to ensure they are unequivocally recognized as state actors subject to constitutional obligations. For example, this would require religious charters to comply fully with anti-discrimination laws and other public mandates, maintaining the balance between religious freedom and public accountability.

The Larger Threat to Public Education

Even with these potential safeguards, the broader implications are sobering. If the court rules in favor of religious charters, states will face difficult choices: increase taxes to fund an expanding universe of religious and secular schools, divert money away from public schools, or create new bureaucracies to regulate religious institutions. Taxpayers could find themselves funding schools tied to a bewildering array of faiths, from mainstream denominations to fringe sects.

As the justices deliberate, they would do well to consider not just the legal arguments, but also the practical and moral consequences of their decision. What happens to a society when its public institutions are splintered along religious lines? And what happens to the students and families who depend on those institutions for equity, opportunity, and inclusion?

The answers to these questions will shape the future of American education—and the values we choose to uphold.

As a self-confessed polling nerd, I have studied polling for decades. One of the more interesting things I have done in my life is worked as an analyst for a prominent Democratic polling firm. There is no organization with a better reputation than Gallup. Founded way back in 1935, Gallup is truly the gold standard. Their nonpartisan reputation is without question. However, Gallup has not been perfect: It predicted New York Gov. Thomas Dewey would beat President Harry Truman back in 1948 and it had Gerald Ford edging out Jimmy Carter back in 1976. Despite these misses, you could always depend on Gallup to uphold the strictest methodological ethics and, even more importantly, they would report their data without any spin. Sometimes I liked what the Gallup reported, other times I did not.

So, when Gallup released new polling data last Thursday, I eagerly clicked on the link. I was wondering if President Donald Trump’s job approval was trending up or down. The headline of the Gallup press release was “Republicans, Men Push Trump Approval Higher in Second Term.” I was perplexed by the sub-header which said “Black, Hispanic adults more approving of Trump in second term, but still disapprove of him overall.”

The point that Gallup is making is that in 2017, 22% of Hispanics approved of Trump’s job performance while now it is 37%. Similarly, Black voters are more positive about Trump now than they were in 2017 (13% vs. 22%). This is a notable trend and one that political analysts need to watch. However, Gallup is missing the bigger point that if Trump wants to make inroads in the Black and Hispanic communities, he has a lot of work to do.

The only problem for Democrats, and it is a big one, is that the party needs to come up with an economic message.

The more important story in Gallup’s findings is that Independent voters have soured on Donald Trump. Fully 61% of Independents disapprove of Trump’s job performance. Independent voters’ feelings about Trump’s job as president are intense—fully 46% strongly disapprove of his performance.

When asked about Trump’s handling of the economy, two-thirds (66%) of Independents disapprove of Trump’s performance.

CNN 2024 exit polling showed that Trump lost Independent voters by 3 percentage points to Harris (49% Harris, 46% Trump). So, if we take voters’ perceptions of Trump’s handling of the economy as a proxy for their intention to vote for the GOP 2028 presidential candidate, it is evident that Republicans have some work to do to win over Independents.

Granted, the 2028 presidential election is years away. However, next year are the midterm elections. Historically, midterm elections go against the party in the White House. Furthermore, the polling that Gallup did does not measure the impact of Trump’s tariffs that will go into effect on April 2. Even the Trump administration has admitted that the president’s economic policies will cause problems in the short-term.

All of this is good news for Democrats. The only problem for Democrats, and it is a big one, is that the party needs to come up with an economic message. They have a real opportunity to take back the economy as an issue among Independents (34% of the 2024 electorate). For all our sake, I hope the party does not miss this opportunity.

Though this column comes to you on April Fool’s Day, it’s no joke. By now, it’s likely that many of you reading this piece have seen enough of our de facto president’s behavior to wonder if he’s in his right mind.

On January 6 last year, The Wall Street Journal ran this headline:

Elon Musk Has Used Illegal Drugs, Worrying Leaders at Tesla and Space X

In this case, the drug in question is ketamine, a powerful anesthetic and hallucinogen known to be addictive. In answer to questions about his drug use, Musk has stated that he uses the drug under medical supervision to treat chronic depression, adding that he’s “almost always sober” when he writes posts on social media during the pre-dawn hours, and that he makes sure his drug use doesn’t get in the way of his 16-hour work days.

This is the man whom President Donald Trump has chosen to advise him and to oversee the workings of the federal government, nuclear weapons included. Is he “almost always sober” when he does it? This is the man who spoke at greater length than anyone else at Trump’s first Cabinet meeting, where the barely confirmed secretary of defense was present, and where neither he nor his newly concocted department of government efficiency (no capital letters for its title, please) has Congress’ blessing. Somehow he and Trump pulled it out of the thin air of an executive order. Never mind that the Constitution places the power to create federal departments in the hands of Congress. Apparently the Constitution is nothing but a silly formality as far as he and Trump are concerned.

Then there was that little infomercial party he threw with Trump’s approval when he turned the White House into a Tesla dealership. Maybe Trump collected a commission. As for his values, this is the man who refused to say whether he would allow hate speech on his social media platform. This is the man who made his sense of right and wrong plain when he said, “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.”

Now ask yourself: Would you allow this fellow to provide official cover and excuse for Trump’s tariffs, which are increasing the price of your food, fuel, and housing? Would you allow him to ignore or defy court orders whenever he wants, as he has already done? Would you allow him to rip apart Medicare and Social Security, on which many of you depend? Would you allow him to undo the effort to control the nationwide damage which climate change has done? Would you let him pry into your personal information? Would you allow him access to our nuclear arsenal, at a very time when the nuclear arms race has reached what the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has called its most dangerous point ever?

Evidently most of our resident billionaires would, as long as the money rolls in, now that the world’s richest man is in charge.

Maybe Mr. Musk is taking ketamine under medical supervision to treat chronic depression. For the moment, let us suspend disbelief and grant that point. Does it follow that he should be running the federal show at the expense of badly needed social programs, while Mr. Trump offers us his special brand of strange entertainment?

Meanwhile, those in charge of Congress are compliant, while those in charge of the opposition cave in and pray meekly for some sort of deliverance in 2026.

Such is the prank our leaders play on us on this year’s Feast of Fools.

If you live in Wisconsin or in the 6th congressional district of Florida, you’ll have a chance to do something today the rest of us only dream about doing—tell President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to go to hell.

In Florida’s 6th, House Republicans had expected an easy win to replace Rep. Michael Waltz, who became Trump’s national security adviser (but may not be much longer, given his role in Signalgate). Trump won the district by 30 percentage points last November.

But Democratic candidate Josh Weil has a real chance of winning there. If he does, the Republicans’ margin in the House shrinks to just two.

If there was ever a symbol of why we need to get big money out of politics, reform campaign financing, stop conflicts of interest, and tax great wealth, Musk is it.

In Wisconsin, the race is for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Democrat Judge Susan Crawford is clearly more qualified and more, well, judge-like than her opponent Brad Shimel, but their temperaments and characters are not the largest issues.

The winner in Wisconsin could well determine voting districts and, hence, the likelihood that the state provides more Democratic or Republican representatives in the 2026 midterms and swings Republican or Democrat in the 2028 presidential race.

Musk is a big factor. He’s already sunk a small fortune into backing the Republican candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court—along with the same kind of million-dollar giveaway stunt he used in the presidential race.

Last night, Musk gave out two $1 million checks. One of the two recipients? The head of the Wisconsin College Republicans.

A new video released by Musk’s America PAC is further evidence that Musk’s massive cash giveaways are illegal vote buying. In the clip, a Wisconsin woman named Ekaterina Deistler, who won a $1 million prize, explicitly links her financial windfall to following Musk’s instructions—including voting.

The richest man in the world has no compunctions about throwing his wealth behind the worst possible candidates in America—as when he plunked down over a quarter trillion dollars to get Trump elected.

He has also used—or threatened to use—his wealth to back anyone who runs in a primary election against any Republican member of Congress who doesn’t totally support Trump. It’s an extortion racket that is not only helping to keep congressional Republicans silent and pliable, but has no legitimate place in our democracy.

If there was ever a symbol of why we need to get big money out of politics, reform campaign financing, stop conflicts of interest, and tax great wealth, Musk is it.

Not incidentally (speaking of conflicts of interest) Musk’s auto company, Tesla, has a case against Wisconsin pending in the state’s courts.

Polls opened in Wisconsin at 7:00 am CT and will close at 8:00 pm CT. If the margin of victory is large, the race could be called early. If close, it could come down to absentee ballots in Milwaukee, which are likely heavily Democratic and might not be fully counted until midnight or later.

The early vote appears more favorable to Judge Crawford than it was to Harris in 2024—which is good news for Crawford, although the GOP early vote has shot up relative to previous Wisconsin Supreme Court races.

One final and more general thought about these two elections today.

They’re extraordinary expensive and prominent. That’s because they’re both viewed as potential harbingers of what’s in store for Republicans or Democrats in future elections, both special elections and the 2026 midterms.

No one knows which direction the political winds are blowing and how hard, because America has never been in the place it’s in right now—with a tyrannical president aided by the richest person in the world.

Democrats have had reason to crow recently about flipping Republican-held state legislative seats in recent special elections in Iowa and Pennsylvania. On Saturday, voters in Louisiana rejected four proposed constitutional amendments backed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry that would have overhauled parts of the state’s tax codes and toughened penalties for juvenile offenders.

A victory by Josh Weil in Florida and/or Judge Crawford in Wisconsin could put wind in the sails of the Trump resistance. Let’s all hope that Floridians in the 6th district and the good people of Wisconsin do what the nation needs them to do.

The news of Rodrigo Duterte’s arrest surprised me.

It’s not that I doubted the former leader of the Philippines was guilty of the horrific crimes detailed in his International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant. Duterte himself boasted quite openly of the mass killings he’s been accused of. But I always thought that the prospects of bringing that brutal, outspoken politician to justice were remote indeed.

After all, Duterte’s daughter Sara is currently the vice president of the Philippines and that country is no longer a member of the ICC. On top of that, Duterte himself was so sure of his immunity that he was running for mayor of the city of Davao. In mid-March, after returning from campaigning in the Filipino community in Hong Kong, he suffered the indignity of being arrested in his own country.

The International Criminal Court’s arrest of Rodrigo Duterte should be a powerful reminder that justice is possible even in the most unjust of times.

Forgive me for saying this, but I just hadn’t thought the ICC was still truly functioning, given that the leaders of the most powerful countries on this planet—the United States, China, and Russia—don’t give a fig about human rights or international law. Sure, the ICC did issue high-profile arrest warrants for Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on war crimes charges, but no one expects those rogues to be taken into custody anytime soon. And the impunity for the powerful has only become more entrenched now that a convicted felon squats in the White House.

The specialty of the ICC has, of course, been arresting human-rights abusers in truly weak or failed states like Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire, and Hashim Thaçi, former president of Kosovo. With the world’s 31st largest economy, however, the Philippines is no failed state. Still, without nuclear weapons or a huge army, it’s no powerhouse either. Indeed, it was only when the Philippines became ever weaker—because of a feud between President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte (accused of threatening to assassinate him)—that the ICC had a chance to grab its target and spirit him away to The Hague to stand trial.

The arrest of Rodrigo Duterte might, in fact, seem like the exception that proves the (new) rule. After all, the international community and its institutions are currently facing a crisis of global proportions with violations of international law becoming ever more commonplace in this era of ascendant right-wing rogue states.

In 2014, Russia first grabbed Ukrainian territory, launching an all-out invasion in 2022. Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, sent troops into southern Lebanon, and expanded its footprint in Syria. U.S. President Donald Trump has spoken repeatedly of seizing Greenland, absorbing Canada as the 51st state, and retaking the Panama Canal, among other things. Small countries like Taiwan can’t sleep for fear of a late-night visit from jackbooted thugs.

But then there’s Europe.

Transatlantic Divergence

In the wake of Donald Trump’s dramatic return to the stage as a bull in the global china shop, European leaders have hastened to replace the United States as the voice of liberal internationalist institutions like the ICC. Of course, the U.S. was never actually a member of the ICC, which suggests that Europe has always been more connected to the rule of law than most American politicians. After all, if Duterte had been sent to Washington today—not to mention Beijing, Buenos Aires, Cairo, Moscow, or New Delhi—he would undoubtedly have been feted as an exemplary law-and-order politico rather than, as in The Hague, placed behind bars and put on trial.

This transatlantic divergence was only sharpened in mid-February when Vice President JD Vance berated an audience of Europeans at the Munich Security Conference, singling out for criticism Europe’s support of feminism and pro-choice policies, its rejection of Russian election interference (by overturning a Kremlin-manipulated presidential election in Romania), and its refusal to tolerate fascist and neo-fascist parties (shunning, among others, Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland, or AfD). By urging them to worry more about internal challenges to “democracy” in Europe than the challenges presented by either Russia or China, Vance was effectively siding with illiberal adversaries against liberal allies.

In a certain sense, however, he was also eerily on target: Europe does indeed face all-too-many internal challenges to democracy. But they come from his ideological compatriots there like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, and far-right political parties like Germany’s AfD, as well as ultra-conservative cultural movements that target immigrants, the LGBTQ community, and secular multiculturalists.

Vance opposes mainstream European opinion, which has directly or indirectly challenged Donald Trump’s MAGA proposals and policies, as well as his rejection of the reality of climate change. Europe has, of course, been stepping up its defense of Ukraine, remains committed to promoting human rights, and adheres to democratic principles in the form of regular electoral checks and balances, as well as safeguards for civil society. Above all, unlike the Trump administration, it continues to move forward on the European Green Deal and a program to leave behind fossil fuels.

These were, of course, fairly uncontroversial positions until Trump reentered the White House.

Can Europe sustain that fragile plant of liberalism during this harsh winter of right-wing populism? Much depends on some risky bets. Will U.S. foreign policy swing back in favor of democracy, human rights, and transatlantic relations in four years? Will the weight of a never-ending war, in the end, dislodge Vladimir Putin from the Kremlin? Will Ukraine overcome its own internal divisions to become part of a newly enlarged European Union (EU)? Will Bibi Netanyahu someday become Duterte’s cellmate?

At the moment, unfortunately, it seems more likely that Europe will be the last powerful holdout in a world entering a new political Dark Age. A dismal scenario lurks on the horizon in which democracy and human rights cling to existence somewhere within the walls of the European Union, much as monasteries managed to preserve classical learning a millennium ago.

Europe Steps Forward

After Trump and Vance humiliated Volodymyr Zelenskyy during his White House visit in February, an ideologically diverse range of European leaders raced to support the Ukrainian leader and his country. But defending democracy means all too little if that defense remains largely verbal.

So, no longer being able to count on U.S. power or NATO security guarantees in the age of Trump, European Union leaders have decided to visit the gym and muscle up. Shortly after Zelenskyy’s meeting, the E.U. readied a large military spending bill meant to contribute to the “security of Europe as a whole, in particular as regards the E.U.’s eastern border, considering the threats posed by Russia and Belarus.” About $150 billion more would be invested in the military budgets of member states. The E.U. will also relax debt limits to allow nearly $700 billion in such additional spending over the next four years.

Semi-socialist, DEI-loving, human-rights-supporting, Israel-skeptical, Europe is everything Donald Trump hates. Think of the E.U., in fact, as the global equivalent of his worst nightmare, a giant liberal arts campus.

Of course, in the past, Europe’s vaunted social democracy was largely built on low defense spending and a reliance on Washington’s security umbrella. That “peace dividend” saved E.U. member states a huge chunk of money—nearly $400 billion every year since the end of the Cold War—that could be applied to social welfare and infrastructure expenses. Forcing NATO members to spend a higher percentage of their gross domestic product on their militaries is a dagger that both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are holding to the throat of Europe’s social democracy. Germany can still afford to engage in deficit spending for both guns and butter, but it presents a distinct problem for countries like Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, and Spain with high levels of government debt.

And when it comes to Europe’s future, it’s not just a military affair. While some European leaders have used intelligence assessments to focus on Putin’s territorial ambitions, others are more anxious about Russia’s assault on their values. Fearful of the way the illiberal values of Putin and Trump seem to overlap, Europeans have cast the fate of Ukraine in the loftiest of terms: the defense of democracy against fascism. However, given the connections between the European far-right and the Kremlin—thanks to Germany’s AfD, the two French far-right parties (National Rally and Reconquest), and Bulgaria’s Revival among others—the fight against fascism is now taking place on the home front as well.

Europe is also defending democratic values in other ways. It has long promoted DEI-like programs, beginning with France’s diversity charter in 2004, while the European Commission is committed to equality for the LGBTQ community. In 2021, to promote universal values, the E.U. even launched a program called Global Europe Human Rights and Democracy, which was meant to support human rights defenders, the rule of law, and election monitors across the planet. Typically, on the controversial topic of Israel-Palestine, European countries have condemned the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza and several have even recognized the (still-to-be-created) state of Palestine.

Semi-socialist, DEI-loving, human-rights-supporting, Israel-skeptical, Europe is everything Donald Trump hates. Think of the E.U., in fact, as the global equivalent of his worst nightmare, a giant liberal arts campus.

No wonder the MAGA crowd has the urge to cut the transatlantic cable as a way of targeting its opponents both at home and abroad.

Europe Divided

But wait: The MAGA crowd doesn’t hate Europe quite as thoroughly as it does Columbia University. After all, not all European leaders are on board with social democracy, DEI, human rights, and Palestine. In fact, in some parts of the continent, Trump and Vance are heroes, not zeros.

Hungary’s leader Viktor Orbán, for instance, has long been a friend and inspiration for Donald Trump. After all, he’s managed to translate the illiberalism of Vladimir Putin—anti-democratic, anti-LGBT, uber-nationalist—into a semi-democratic vernacular of great appeal to an American far-right that must negotiate a significantly more complex political landscape than the one that surrounds the Kremlin.

As Putin’s greatest acolyte, Orbán has worked overtime to undermine a common European approach to Ukraine. He initially opposed aid to Ukraine, a stance ultimately overcome by the pressure tactics of other European leaders. He pushed for a watered-down version of the most recent E.U. statement in support of that country, only to watch the other 26 E.U. members pass it without him. And he’s rejected Ukrainian membership in the E.U. Still, with elections scheduled for 2026 and the opposition now outpolling Orbán’s Fidesz party, the days of one man holding the E.U. hostage may soon be over.

While Orbán does have allies, most of them—like AUR in Romania and the National Alliance in Latvia—are sniping from the sidelines as part of the opposition. Several other far-right parties like the ruling Fratelli d’Italia in Italy don’t share Orbán’s odd affection for Putin. But if the AfD in Germany or the National Rally in France were to win enough votes to take over their respective governments, Europe’s political center of gravity could indeed shift.

Such divisions extend to the question of E.U. expansion. Serbia’s pro-Russian slant makes such a move unlikely in the near term and Turkey is too autocratic to qualify, while both Bosnia and Georgia, like Ukraine, are divided. It’s hard to imagine Ukraine itself overcoming its internal divisions—or its war-ravaged economy—to meet Europe’s membership requirements, no matter the general enthusiasm inside that country and elsewhere in Europe for bringing it in from the cold.

Nonetheless, E.U. expansion is what Putin fears the most: a democratic, prosperous union that expands its border with his country and inspires Russian activists with its proclamations of universal values. No small surprise, then, that he’s tried to undermine the E.U. by supporting far-right and Euroskeptical movements. Yet the combination of the war in Ukraine and the reelection of Donald Trump may be undoing all his efforts.

The experience of feeling trapped between two illiberal superpowers has only solidified popular support for the E.U. and its institutions. In a December 2024 poll, trust in the E.U. was at its highest level in 17 years, particularly in countries that are on the waiting list like Albania and Montenegro. Moreover, around 60% of Europeans support providing military aid to Kyiv and future membership for Ukraine.

For increasing numbers of those outside its borders, Europe seems like a beacon of hope: prosperous democracies pushing back against the onslaught of Trump and Putin. And yet, even if Europe manages to stave off the challenges of its home-grown far-right, it may not, in the end, prove to be quite such a beacon. After all, it has its own anti-migrant policies and uses trade agreements to secure access to critical raw materials and punish countries like Indonesia that have the temerity to employ their own mineral wealth to rise higher in the global value chain. Although, unlike Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America, it’s doing its best to shift to a clean-energy economy, it’s done so all too often by dirtying the nests of other countries to get the materials it needs for that shift.

Whatever its resemblance to a liberal arts college, Europe is anything but a non-profit institution and can sometimes seem more like a fortress than a beacon. As was true of those medieval monasteries that preserved the classical learning of the ages but also owned land and serfs, supplied markets with addictive products like chartreuse, and subjected their members to torture and imprisonment, saving civilization can have a darker side.

Exiting the Dark Age

The International Criminal Court’s arrest of Rodrigo Duterte should be a powerful reminder that justice is possible even in the most unjust of times. Brutal leaders almost always sow the seeds of their own demise. Putin’s risky moves have mobilized virtually all of Europe against him. In antagonizing country after country, Trump is similarly reinforcing liberal sentiment in Canada, in Mexico, and throughout Europe.

If the world had the luxury of time, holing up in the modern equivalent of monasteries and waiting out the barbarians would be a viable strategy. But climate change cares little for extended timelines. And don’t forget the nuclear doomsday clock or the likelihood of another pandemic sweeping across the globe. Meanwhile, Trump and his allies are destroying things at such a pace that the bill for “reconstruction” grows more astronomical by the day.

The gap between the fall of the Roman Empire and the first glimmers of the Renaissance was about 1,000 years. No one has that kind of time anymore. So, while long-term strategies to fight the right are good, those standing up to the bullies also need to act fast and forcefully. The world can’t afford a European retreat into a fortress and the equivalent of monastic solitude. The E.U. must unite with all like-minded countries against the illiberal nationalists who are challenging universal values and international law.

The ICC set a good example with its successful seizure of Duterte. Let’s all hope, for the good of the world, that The Hague will have more global scofflaws in its jail cells—and soon.

Each day the Democrats are outraged about another outrage coming from Trump and his enablers—stomping on immigrants, undermining the courts, attacking Canada, claiming Ukraine started the war, violating campus free speech, destroying the EPA, firing forest rangers—and on and on and on.

But why the surprise? Did anyone doubt that Trump would act on his anger and his resentment, and then follow through executing the detailed plans laid out in Project 2025? Did anyone believe he would turn the other cheek at those who tried to impeach him and send him to jail? Surely every single elected Democrat knew that Trump’s election would be a disaster for everything the party claimed to stand for.

Nevertheless, the Democrats handed Trump the election on a bitcoin-plated platter. They stuck with Biden—make that sucked up to Biden—until it was too late to run primaries and find the strongest Democratic candidate. (I’m not saying Kamala Harris necessarily was the weakest one, but four years earlier she flunked out before the first presidential primary. Just saying.)

Why the hell did they do that?

I’m no political genius, but nearing Biden’s 81st birthday, in November of 2023, I begged him not to run again. It was clear to me, based on polling, his lack of energy, and my own intuition, that he had no business running again.

I was alone, but not entirely so. Obama’s campaign maestro, David Axelrod was pounded for suggesting Biden wasn’t the best candidate. That so successfully quelled any dissent that it wasn’t until six months later (July 2, 2024) that Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) became the first sitting Democratic congressman to ask Biden to withdraw. Profiles in courage, the Democrats were not, including all the governors lining up for 2028.

If I could see the trainwreck coming why couldn’t the Democrats?

I think I know why. They didn’t get upset about it because they were blinded by power and wealth.

Biden represented power. You cross him and you lose access to that power even while his grip on reality is diminishing. You become a target for party loyalists, and risk losing credibility in the party if you call for him to step down. You become an outsider. Even Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) didn’t want to lose their influence over Biden’s pro-worker agenda as they continued to support his candidacy until the bitter end.

The Democrats today are imploding, and that’s exactly what they deserve. They blew it.

The attraction to wealth is an even bigger problem. Far too many Democrats are enamored by the rich and famous. They went to school with them. They lean on them for campaign funds. They plan to join them when they leave public office. The wizards on Wall Street and in corporate America form the class they see themselves as part of, or in the class they aspire to.

It is not a coincidence, therefore, that the Democratic Party has become the representatives of the managerial class. Too many party members with working-class roots tore them out long ago.

Many probably discounted their worries about Trump, thinking that the rich and powerful would tame him. Because that’s where the Democratic Party thinks real power lies. The financial class wouldn’t let Trump wreck the economy, would it? Surely, the corporate class wouldn’t back down on DEI programs or forgo their access to inexpensive immigrant labor. The wealthiest Democratic law firms aren’t going to cave, right? Wouldn’t the elites prevent Trump’s excesses the way they did last time? Hmmm.

Along the way, most Democrats lost their anger. They lost their fight. They lost their connection to the working people who have seen their way of life crushed after 40 years of neoliberalism. Which is why many modern Democrats found it easy to cavalierly go along with the worst political decision since Nixon taped himself committing crimes during the Watergate scandal. (Please see Wall Street’s War on Workers for why working people abandoned the Democrats, and visa vera.)

Along the way, most Democrats lost their anger. They lost their fight. They lost their connection to the working people who have seen their way of life crushed after 40 years of neoliberalism.

Biden clearly did not have the capacity to run again. The Democrats knew that even before he proved it to the world during his disastrous June 2024 debate with Trump. But they didn’t care enough to oppose his decision, publicly, where it would matter. He told his advisors during the 2020 race that he wouldn’t run for a second term, he would be 82 years old by his second inauguration, but the party refused to hold him to it when he changed his mind.

The Democrats today are imploding, and that’s exactly what they deserve. They blew it. They can’t be reformed into a working-class party, because that’s not who they are or what they want to be. From my perspective, reforming them is an utter waste of time and energy, an exercise in window dressing and spin. Instead, we need a new party, an Independence Party that comes with the slogan: The billionaires have two parties, we need one of our own!

Stop with the Spoiler Argument

All I hear from friend and foe is that third parties are impossible in America, that they only serve as spoilers and can never succeed.

Ralph Nader’s run, they tell me, elected Bush. We can argue about whether that’s true, it might be, but there’s very little argument against the idea that Biden’s run in 2024 elected Trump—for the second time!

So, we start with identifiable targets. There is nothing to spoil if we concentrate on running independent working-class candidates in one-party Congressional districts of which there are many!

In 2022, five out of every six races were decided by more than 10 percentage points, according to FairVote.org. One out of every 13 races went entirely uncontested! These districts are where the battle should be joined. The call for a new Independence Party is a call for a vibrant second party, not a third!

Dan Osborn, a former local labor leader, was surprisingly competitive in the 2024 Senate race in Nebraska, running against an unopposed Republican and far ahead of Kamala Harris. Bernie Sanders always runs as an independent as well, and he has now come out urging others to do the same.

The need for a new party could never be clearer. The time could never be more urgent.

There’s a hunger out there for something new, but it will take courage and guts to create it. That can only happen when key labor unions decide to do what their membership has been telling them to do for a generation – get away from the corporate Democrats!

Private sector unions, diminished as they may be, are still the seat of worker power in the U.S. And they can galvanize the working class around an agenda that enhances the well-being of all working people. They are key to building a new political formation that protects us all from Wall Street-driven job destruction.

The need for a new party could never be clearer. The time could never be more urgent. The opportunity is there staring us in the face, if only we have the nerve to grab it.

On March 7th the Trump administration announced the immediate cancellation of $400 million in government grants and contracts to Columbia University. Less than a week later, his administration followed up with a letter to Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, outlining the steps the university would have to take before negotiations to restore funding could even begin.

Although largely without precedent, Trump’s demands are entirely in line with an evolving authoritarianism that seeks to destroy possible sites of political opposition. The demands included suspending or expelling some of those who participated in pro-Palestinian protests; centralizing disciplinary power within the hands of the university president; banning mask wearing on campus; increasing the numbers and powers of campus police; and putting the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department under “academic receivership” (a rare move that places a department under external/administrative control, typically because it has become dysfunctional, but in this case because it was not sufficiently pro-Israel).

On March 21st, Columbia’s interim president agreed to the demands. Columbia would not put up a fight. Armstrong’s actions were widely condemned by advocates of higher education, academic freedom, and free speech—most of whom seemed genuinely surprised, even shocked, by Columbia’s decision to simply accept Trump’s terms. On March 28th Armstrong lost her job.

Trump is coming for us because so much of the best that university faculty, staff, and students represent—science, education, reason, knowledge, and informed political engagement—poses a real threat to his project.

It is tempting, as most commentators have, to understand the quick, total, and passive submission of Columbia and other university administrations to Trump’s assault through the lens of “capitulation,” “caving,” or “appeasement.” I get the impulse. Surely liberal institutions of higher learning, with time-honored commitments to free speech and academic freedom, would not possibly agree to Trump’s outrageous demands unless they had a financial gun pointed directly at them? Campus leaders must—so the logic goes—be churning on the inside, desperately wanting to fight back even as they reluctantly recognize that capitulation is the only alternative. Fighting back poses too great a risk.

Capitulation as an explanation, however, is far too generous and rests on the false premise that—when faced with a profound threat to democracy—core institutions such as universities have, currently are, or will fight to protect our basic political norms.

The question we should be asking ourselves—especially those of us who live in academia and should know better—is why would we expect universities, or more accurately the administrators who run them, to protect free speech, academic freedom, and dissent at all, especially during moments of crisis when doing so entails taking real risks? University administrations, from the 1960s through the present, have a very thin track record of doing so. The reality is that most have worked overtime, often at the behest of the trustees that control them, to limit or crush our freedoms with such consistency, and over such a long period of time, that it is baffling that anyone would expect anything different as we race towards authoritarianism.

Complicity gets us far closer to a useful explanation of recent actions by campus leaders than capitulation. We need only listen to Columbia’s interim president. In explaining the university’s acceptance of the Trump administration’s demands for restoring the flow of federal dollars, Armstrong noted in an open letter to the campus community that the university’s actions were in line with the path it had been following in the past year and were “guided by our values, putting academic freedom, free expression, open inquiry, and respect for all at the fore of every decision we make.” Armstrong is correct when she suggests that Trump’s demands coincide with university values as defined by top campus leaders. It’s just that those values do not include, and never really did, academic freedom and free expression.

Understood this way, it seems quite likely that Columbia’s leaders accepted Trump’s demands not so much because they were forced to (capitulate), or because they saw fighting as either futile or potentially disastrous, but because they welcomed the opportunity and political cover that Trump’s order provided—to get rid of “unruly” students, increase the university’s capacity to limit protest and discipline students, staff, and faculty, and (bonus!) gain control over a department that by its very subject matter might prove troublesome. That’s complicity, not capitulation. It’s also right in line with what we have seen from university administrations, including Columbia’s, in the recent and not so recent past. Indeed, the current era of complicity started under Biden with the draconian response to pro-Palestine protests from universities throughout the country in 2024 (and of course has a much longer history dating at least to the 1950s).

The speed with which university administrations have abandoned DEI policies and practices must be seen in this light as well. The administrative commitment to very limited sets of DEI policies was always paper thin, or about as deep as their commitment to academic freedom. It’s more a marketing ploy and opportunity for virtue signaling than any sort of real political commitment. The fact that many universities scrubbed websites and academic units, in some cases overnight, of almost any mention of DEI when the political winds shifted is hardly surprising.

This is not to say that most campus leaders like or fully embrace Trump’s gestapo-like tactics (though some seem to be getting quite comfortable with it). But it is also the case—especially after the 2024 campus protests around Palestine—that most were on board with some sort of “course correction,” not unlike the position one finds on the opinion pages of the New York Times, which essentially argues that student protests went too far, faculty are too liberal, universities need to rein it in, and Trump has a point (for a good example of this “commonsense” drivel, see Greg Weiner’s piece).

To be sure, we should not downplay the distinction between Trump’s authoritarianism, which tends to see those on college campuses as dangerous radicals who need to be removed, from the liberal “course correction” that pushes reforms to “take politics out” of higher education. And yet, as soon as one starts to accept Trump’s fascist tactics for getting there, which increasingly embraces a grab-them-off-the-streets approach reminiscent of Central America paramilitaries in the 1980s, the distinction probably feels a bit like splitting hairs to those on the wrong end of it. Complicity, not capitulation.

The silver lining, if there is one, is that although highly paid administrators officially speak for universities, and have considerable power over university policies, they are not “universities” any more than are the boards of trustees that control them. Katrina Armstrong, or whoever replaces her, is not Columbia University. The students, faculty, and staff who make up the institution, as well as the communities they serve, are “the university.”

Put another way, to suggest that there is no reason to expect university administrators to be natural defenders of free speech and political dissent, and that history tells us that many of them will in fact be complicit with Trump’s brand of fascism, is not to say that we should not try to hold them accountable or that the fight is over and universities have been politically neutered. It is to say that we—“the university”—have to continue the fight that so many of us are already engaged in. Trump is coming for us because so much of the best that university faculty, staff, and students represent—science, education, reason, knowledge, and informed political engagement—poses a real threat to his project. Campus leaders may opt for complicity. Let’s make sure we are neither complicit nor capitulate.

Anyone who remembered Donald Trump's first-term as president knew what to expect.

So it's no surprise to them that virtually every day brings a new outrage, another crisis and unabated turmoil. If you're a federal employee or a private firm worker with a government contract, no matter how competent, you worry that come tomorrow you won't have a job to support your family.

If you're on Social Security or Medicare you fret opening your emails. If you're a farmer who invested money in a Department of Agriculture program, you may be out of luck. If you're a parent with a child in special education or a dependent with a disability you worry about losing any government assistance.

You might say that on Nov. 5, 2024, we asked for all this and now we must live with it.

Come this Tuesday, though, Wisconsin has a chance to send a message to those causing all the angst and pain that is visiting the American people.

Perhaps it's hard to understand how a state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin could send that message. But Donald Trump himself and his co-president Elon Musk have made that easy. They're in effect betting the farm on candidate Brad Schimel to triumph over Susan Crawford and send the message that voters actually like the chaos that the Trump-Musk tag team has brought to America.

Waukesha County Judge Schimel has gleefully invited them to participate. He has gone out of his way to demonstrate how closely he's linked to the MAGA crowd. Last Halloween he dressed in a Trump costume. Earlier this month he posed for a photo in front of a towering inflatable balloon of Trump at a GOP dinner.

Trump reciprocated with a full-throated endorsement of Schimel's candidacy, an unprecedented involvement of a sitting president in a state court race that's presumably nonpartisan.

“All Voters who believe in Common Sense should GET OUT TO VOTE EARLY for Brad Schimel,” Trump posted on his social media site. “By turning out and VOTING EARLY, you will be helping to Uphold the Rule of Law, Protect our Incredible Police, Secure our Beloved Constitution, Safeguard our Inalienable Rights, and PRESERVE LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.”

Not to mention, of course, banning a woman's choice, making sure the anti-union Act 10 of his friend Scott Walker remains on the books and squelching future attempts to eliminate the gerrymanders of the state's political boundaries.

Meanwhile, the world's richest man is pumping millions into the Wisconsin court race, just like he did in last fall's presidential race. He believes that extravagant campaign spending to buy overly vicious attack ads works. Just this past week, a new set of ads focused on fomenting fear of transgender men in women's locker rooms.

As far as Musk is concerned, this Wisconsin court race is the perfect place to prove his thesis that money and outlandish attack ads work. He used the same tactics against Kamala Harris last fall.

They work, unless, of course, Wisconsin voters say otherwise.

Donald Trump has already put America's richest people in charge of dismantling the U.S. government, exacting supposed savings from programs that mostly benefit those most in need to help extend the tax cuts for the rich that are expiring later this year.

Thwarting this duo's brazen attempt to use Wisconsin to sanction their methods would go a long way to signal the people's disgust — and maybe, just maybe, wake up some Republicans.

When the Israeli Knesset passed its 2025 budget this past week, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breathed a sigh of relief. Had the budget not been approved by March 31, the Knesset would have been automatically disbanded, and new elections would have been called. Polls indicate that Netanyahu and his coalition would have decisively lost.

What saved Netanyahu was his renewed war in Gaza.

The negotiations over a ceasefire in Gaza had resulted in the desertion of one of his coalition partners and the alienation of some members of his own party, putting his government at risk. Once the ceasefire was announced, Netanyahu’s problems grew. His trial on charges of corruption and abuse of his office was once again centerstage as were his Trump-like theatrics in response to the grilling he received from the prosecutors. Also plaguing Netanyahu were reports of his government’s failures emanating from the ongoing investigation into the October 7th Hamas attack.

With his coalition hemorrhaging and his personal position weakening, renewing the war in Gaza provided Netanyahu with a way out. His coalition was restored. His budget was passed. He had a distraction from his trial. His cabinet approved his decision to remove the head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency who was faulting him for the October 7th attack. And he was in a position to once again advance his legislative efforts to “reform” what he views as the obstacles presented by Israel’s pesky judiciary.

Further compounding Netanyahu’s dilemma were the expectations created once the implementation of the ceasefire agreement began. The world witnessed the powerfully moving scenes of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians trekking northward to return to their demolished homes and communities in the north of Gaza. Compassion grew for Palestinians as did revulsion for the gratuitous devastation wrought by Israel’s bombardments.

There were other factors that weighed heavily on Netanyahu in this period.

Hamas, as expected, overplayed their hand with disgraceful scenes of bravado during each of the hostage releases. Most likely done out of a need to demonstrate control, their behavior was stupid and provocative, especially in the face of the enormity of the suffering endured by their people. One might reasonably ask Hamas’ leadership, “How many times can you foolishly kick the hornets’ nest before you understand the consequences of your actions?”

Gaza’s Palestinians, who our polling establishes have long had unfavorable views toward Hamas, are now demonstrating their anger at both Israel and Hamas. But the last thing Netanyahu wants is an alternative Palestinian leadership in Gaza, as that would threaten his continuation of the conflict and his rule.

The ceasefire agreement of January 19th included three phases, with the second and third phases ultimately leading to an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war. As the negotiations themselves had already cost Netanyahu coalition partners, he promised his allies that he would never allow the process to get to phase two. As a result, early in the implementation of phase one, Netanyahu began seeking an escape, claiming that Hamas was violating the terms of the agreement and pressing unacceptable demands that he sought to add to the first phase.

Then came the Arab peace plan to end the conflict. The plan, which would fulfill phase three of the ceasefire agreement, called for an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the positioning of an Arab/international peacekeeping force, the establishment of Palestinian governance linked to the Palestinian Authority, and a plan to reconstruct Gaza. This Arab plan has won broad international support and, if adopted, would have spelled the end of Netanyahu’s reign in Israel.

In the face of all these challenges, Netanyahu felt compelled to break the ceasefire. The renewed campaign has been a ruthless continuation of genocide. For one month now, Israel has withheld entry of all aid and medical personnel from the north of Gaza, implementing what was once termed “the General’s plan” of starving the Palestinians in that area, forcing them to leave. The Israelis have also continued their bombing campaign, taking the lives of hundreds. They have retaken areas of Gaza, promising to annex them to Israel, and are exploring plans to forcibly evict Palestinians from Gaza to both sabotage any effort to allow for Palestinian governance and facilitate Israel’s conquest and annexation of more of Gaza’s land.

While Netanyahu claims that his goal is the elimination of Hamas, the evidence is clear that his real intention is to save himself and his government—and in this he has had a willing accomplice. The Trump administration has supported Israel’s trashing the very ceasefire agreement Trump once boasted as his personal diplomatic victory.

And so here we are, a little over two months after the announced ceasefire and Palestinians are once again victims of slaughter and mass starvation. Instead of being an agreement that would lead to an end of the conflict, the ceasefire, as I feared, turned out to be nothing more than a pause or a cruel ruse that was sacrificed on the altar of Netanyahu’s political survival.

There are no good guys to this story, only Palestinian victims. As tens of thousands of Israelis are demonstrating in opposition to Netanyahu because he is risking the lives of Israeli hostages still held in Gaza, it is time for Arabs to unite in defense of the Palestinian people and their own peace plan to end the genocide.

An education group makes plans to hold a workshop for its community on antisemitism from a framework of collective liberation; publicity goes out; and, before you know it, a right-wing organization (that has never actually seen the curriculum) is determined to get it cancelled. The firestorm is so intense that it’s hard to imagine that it’s about one workshop. The workshop in discussion is one we offer and facilitate at PARCEO, a resource and education center that works with a range of institutions to strengthen their work for justice. The scenario is one we have encountered on multiple occasions.

The accusations hurled at the workshop, its organizers, and those endorsing it: “I knew it would be antisemitic once I saw the word ‘collective.’” “The facilitators are pro-Palestine.” “The organization believes that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.” “They are antisemites.” “They are antisemites.” “They are antisemites.”

To reiterate: The workshop being offered is on antisemitism! The topics cover what antisemitism is—historically and currently—and how it manifests in the U.S. today. Sections are included on Christian hegemony; on white nationalist antisemitism; on tropes and stereotypes; on conspiracy theories; on philosemitism. The voices of Jewish historians, educators, and scholars, along with many others, are integrated throughout the curriculum.

So what is actually going on? What, in fact, are the reasons there is so much venom and energy devoted to making sure these workshops don’t happen? Four interconnected reasons seem to be at play.

The first reason: In addition to a robust discussion of what antisemitism is, the curriculum also includes what antisemitism is not, distinguishing between antisemitism and criticism of, or opposition to, Israel or Zionism. Those wanting to shut down the curriculum reject any such distinction.

The workshop is attacked because it focuses on challenging antisemitism from a “collective liberation” framework. It seems just the name of the workshop is threatening.

This section of the workshop illustrates the ways that false charges of antisemitism are wielded to penalize and silence those standing with the Palestinian movement for justice. One example of how this plays out is through the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism—in which 7 of its 11 examples of antisemitism are about criticism of Israel, not antisemitism. The IHRA definition is the gold standard of antisemitism definitions for these detractors.

Author Antony Lerman, in “Whatever Happened to Antisemitism,” couldn’t be clearer about the danger of these false definitions: “By falsely conflating anti-Zionism—a form of legitimate political discourse and belief—and antisemitism—a form of ethno-racial hostility and hatred—and calling it “new antisemitism” and codifying it in the form of the “IHRA working definition of antisemitism, antisemitism has been redefined to be what it is not.” He adds: “The conflation is false because, first, the root concept of ‘new antisemitism,’ that Israel is the ‘collective Jews’ among the nations, is a myth—a state cannot have the attributes of a human being. Second, it is a heretical corruption of Judaism because it entails an idolatrous deification and workshop of the state…”

The workshop points to other ways these false conflations are employed to further a particular agenda. For example, the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther, a recently released right wing national strategy document, lays out a plan to supposedly combat antisemitism in the US. But by characterizing critics of Israel as “a global Hamas Support Network,” it’s clear its real aim is to destroy the Palestinian movement for justice and restrict activism against US policy more broadly.

Another example highlighted in the workshop is how, under the guise of fighting antisemitism, specifically on college campuses, Zionist groups (like those trying to get the workshop cancelled) are using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to suppress pro-Palestine advocacy. Just a bit of background: Title VI, which prohibits discrimination in educational institutions, authorizes the Department of Education to investigate charges of antisemitism. That authority was expanded in 2019 when President Trump issued Executive Order 13899 directing that the DOE, in protecting against antisemitism, "consider" the IHRA definition. As a result, DOE investigations of antisemitism now include not only the classic examples of anti-Jewish bigotry, but anti-Israel protest as well. And President Trump ramped this up even more with his recent Executive Order, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” that directs all agencies charged with enforcing Title VI to report to him within 60 days about what they are doing to address antisemitism. As if to underline his concern with protest that is critical of Israel, the Order refers specifically to complaints of antisemitism following “October 7, 2023.” So, again, we can see the ways that criticism of Israel and actual antisemitism become indistinguishable.

The second “problem” of the curriculum, for those opposing it, is that it rejects the essentialist view of antisemitism that is so central to many mainstream and right-wing Jewish organizations. This perspective understands antisemitism as eternal and never-ending. According to the eternalist perspective, antisemitism can’t be stopped and Jews are always under threat–it is “us” versus “them.”

A different perspective—which is the one adhered to in the workshops—understands antisemitism as historically contextual, emerging in different historical periods for different reasons and in relation to other forms of oppression. In other words, when understanding antisemitism and Jewish experience, context is critical.

These different understandings impact whether we see—and respond to—antisemitism in isolation (eternalist view) or, rather, in relationship to the societies and to other struggles against oppression. As Professor Barry Trachtenberg points out, “If one accepts antisemitism to be eternal, and not a consequence of social or historical factors, then it is a fact of life that will forever push Jewish people into defensive postures. It will make us more nationalist, more reactionary, more militaristic, and more closed off from the rest of the world.” We see this perspective in living color today as a number of Zionist organizations have unequivocally supported Israel’s genocide against the Palestinian people, (wildly!) positioning Israel as a victim and lamenting that nobody cares about the Jews (“us” versus “them”).

Next, the workshop is attacked because it focuses on challenging antisemitism from a “collective liberation” framework. It seems just the name of the workshop is threatening.

Challenging antisemitism necessitates a commitment to challenging all forms of racism and injustice.

The workshop’s emphasis on collective liberation reflects a deep commitment to the ways our different communities can act in solidarity with one another, as so many are. As we think more deeply about solidarities and what that tangibly looks like, we know that such injustices as Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-Palestinian racism, and antisemitism must not be viewed as oppositional or isolated struggles, but, rather, the success in challenging each of these injustices requires a vision that is holistic and interconnected.

Those opposing the workshop believe that a collective liberation framework minimizes, even makes a mockery of, antisemitism. This perspective is rooted in the belief that antisemitism is exceptional, that is, it is separate from, and unrelated to, other struggles for justice. In fact, the concept of “collective liberation,” in their view, is yet another example of antisemitism.

We challenge this exceptionalism in our workshop with an excerpt from Professor Alana Lentin: “As I write in Why Race Still Matters (2020), the elevation of antisemitism as the racism above all racisms, and the contention that any discussion of the Shoah alongside other genocides renders it banal, constrains solidarity between Jews and other racialised people, thwarting a fuller understanding of race as a colonial mechanism and a technology of power for the maintenance of white supremacy.”

A framework rooted in collective liberation is essential in the fight against antisemitism and all forms of racism. After the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue, Rabbi Brant Rosen, reflecting on the sacred power of solidarities, said “Yes, among the many important takeaways from this terrible, tragic moment is the simple truth that we must never underestimate the sacred power of solidarity. Moments such as these must remind all targeted minorities that we are always stronger when we resist together.”

The amount of effort spent trying to get a simple workshop cancelled would just seem absurd if it weren’t so destructive and didn’t reflect a much deeper commitment by those opposing it to defend Israel's genocide, to attack anyone who speaks out as an antisemite, and to insure that those voices are not heard.

Finally, those trying to shut down the workshop are outraged that it is being facilitated by individuals who support justice for the Palestinian people. In the view of the workshop’s detractors, those facilitating the workshop (who, in fact, support Palestinian justice) are thereby automatically excluded from any authority to teach about antisemitism (and, even worse, proves that they are antisemites). What they are in fact saying is that if you care about anti-Palestinian racism, then you can’t care about antisemitism.

We turn that view on its head and say clearly that challenging antisemitism necessitates a commitment to challenging all forms of racism and injustice. And we know that solidarity, as articulated by community leader Sister Aisha Al Adawiya means: “Standing up for each other in a real authentic way. No cameras rolling. Just the human spirit calling on us to say, ‘This is not right and I have to say something’.”

The amount of effort spent trying to get a simple workshop cancelled would just seem absurd if it weren’t so destructive and didn’t reflect a much deeper commitment by those opposing it to defend Israel's genocide, to attack anyone who speaks out as an antisemite, and to insure that those voices are not heard. We know the attempts to silence and penalize those protesting across the country have tremendous repercussions; students, faculty, and other activists are being doxxed and punished, losing their jobs, being denied financial packages, and, more recently, facing threats of deportation—and all in the name of fighting antisemitism.

But the voices demanding justice will continue to reverberate and strengthen day by day despite these desperate attempts to shut them down.

Beginning in March of 2017 and for the following eight years, at 11:00 a.m. on every Saturday morning, a group of New Yorkers has assembled in Manhattan’s Union Square for “the Yemen vigil.” Their largest banner proclaims: “Yemen is Starving.” Other signs say: “Put a human face on war in Yemen,” and “Let Yemen Live.”

Participants in the vigil decry the suffering in Yemen where one of every two children under the age of five is malnourished, “a statistic that is almost unparalleled across the world.” UNICEF reports that 540,000 Yemeni girls and boys are severely and acutely malnourished, an agonizing, life-threatening condition which weakens immune systems, stunts growth, and can be fatal.

The World Food Program says that a child in Yemen dies once every ten minutes, from preventable causes, including extreme hunger. According to Oxfam, more than 17 million people, almost half of Yemen’s population, face food insecurity, while aerial attacks have decimated much of the critical infrastructure on which its economy depends.

Since March 15, the United States has launched strikes on more than forty locations across Yemen in an ongoing attack against members of the Houthi movement, which has carried out more than 100 attacks on shipping vessels linked to Israel and its allies since October 2023. The Houthis say they are acting in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and have recently resumed the campaign following the failed ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Despite the efforts of peace activists across the country, a child in Yemen dies every ten minutes from preventable cause...

The new round of U.S. airstrikes has damaged critical ports and roads which UNICEF describes as “lifelines for food and medicine,” and killed at least twenty-five civilians, including four children, in the first week alone. Of the thirty-eight recorded strikes, twenty-one hit non-military, civilian targets, including a medical storage facility, a medical center, a school, a wedding hall, residential areas, a cotton gin facility, a health office, Bedouin tents, and Al Eiman University. The Houthis claim that at least fifty-seven people have died in total.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other high-level Trump Administration officials had discussed real-time planning around these strikes in a group chat on Signal, a commercial messaging app. During the past week, Congressional Democrats including U.S. Senator Schumer and U.S. Representative Hakeem Jeffries expressed outrage over the Trump Administration’s recklessness, with Jeffries saying that what has happened “shocks the conscience.”

President Trump commented that there was “no harm done” in the administration’s use of Signal chats, “because the attack was unbelievably successful.” But the Democrats appear more shocked and outraged by the disclosure of highly secret war plans over Signal than by the actual nature of the attacks, which have killed innocent people, including children.

In fact, U.S. elected officials have seldom commented on the agony Yemen’s children endure as they face starvation and disease. Nor has there been discussion of the inherent illegality of the United States’s bombing campaign against an impoverished country in defense of Israel amid its genocide of Palestinians.

As commentator Mohamad Bazzi writes in The Guardian, “Anyone interested in real accountability for U.S. policy-making should see this as a far bigger scandal than the one currently unfolding in Washington over the leaked Signal chat.”

On Saturday, March 29, participants in the Yemen vigil will distribute flyers with the headline “Yemen in the Crosshairs” that warn of an alarming buildup of U.S. Air Force B2 Spirit stealth bombers landing at the U.S. base on Diego Garcia, a tiny island in the Indian Ocean.

According to the publication Army Recognition, two aircraft have already landed at Diego Garcia, and two others are currently en route, in a move that may indicate further strikes against Yemen. The B2 Spirit bombers are “uniquely capable of carrying the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), a 30,000-pound bomb designed to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets ... This unusual movement of stealth bombers may indicate preparations for potential strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen or serve as a deterrent message to Iran.”

The Yemen vigil flyer points out that multiple Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs can use their GPS precision guidance system to “layer in” multiple warheads on a precise location, with each “digging” more deeply than the one before it to achieve deeper penetration. “This is considered particularly critical to achieving U.S. and broader Western Bloc objectives of neutralizing the Ansarullah Coalition’s military strength,” reports Military Watch Magazine, “as key Yemeni military and industrial targets are fortified deeply underground.”

Despite the efforts of peace activists across the country, a child in Yemen dies every ten minutes from preventable causes—and the Democratic Representatives in the Senate and the House from New York don’t seem to care.

A version of this article first appeared at The Progressive.

Once you start looking, the signs of an American recession are everywhere.

The second-hand market is heating up, a classic pre-recession indicator. People are unloading luxury goods. Second-hand clothes apps, such as RealReal, Depop and Grailed, are filling up with designer handbags and sneakers bought during the la-la economy of the pandemic. This always happens before a crash.

You might remember that eBay boomed before the 2008 recession. People panic-sold designer handbags faster than you could say Anglo Promissory Note. Splurges always lead to sell-offs.

It looks like 2025 will be the year the pandemic chickens come home to roost. When the plague hit five years ago this week, governments closed down our economies and rather than impoverish workers who were forced to stay home, national treasuries opened the fiscal and monetary spigots. Government spending soared and interest rates were cut to negative territory. About $15 trillion (€13.85 trillion) of fiscal/monetary sweeties were doled out by the world’s richest governments to protect their stay-at-home electorates. (The governments had no choice; a great depression would have accompanied the plague.)

Investment and speculation took off in a splurge of credit, consumption and debt. As sure as night follows day, the credit cycle rolls and we are about to pay a terrible price for the emergency economics of Covid-19.

In tune with our always-on age, the coming American recession will be live-streamed on Instagram. Every small change in consumer confidence and business sentiment will be videoed, shared, commented on and thus amplified. We are witnessing the TikTok-isation of the business cycle, meaning the economic cycle – previously a slow-moving, deliberate phenomenon – will pick up pace, becoming fitful and immediate.

In the past, it took people time to realise that the economic backdrop was changing. Today, with social media and a US president who behaves more like a near-bankrupt day trader than a long-term investor, our collective time horizons have been slashed from years to months, weeks to minutes. The impact of a slowing economy on investment and spending will be almost instantaneous.

The latest signs from the American heartland are not encouraging. The average voter’s confidence about their economic prospects is falling quicker than at almost any other time on record. The litany of surveys pointing to recession, or more accurately a Trump-cession, not to mention the sell-off in American stock markets, suggests we are on the cusp of something enormous. The incoherence of Trump economics – with its on-and-off tariffs – is making already indebted consumers and businesses even more anxious.

Punters across all income brackets are panicking and consumer confidence is collapsing, although it is richer workers who are most worried. This probably reflects the fact that middle-class Americans are heavily invested in the stock markets, which are back to where they were in September and falling farther. Since Trump was inaugurated, the percentage of voters who are worried about their job has shot up from 30 per cent to close to 80 per cent of all those surveyed. The number of consumers worried that businesses might close has spiked up to the highest level since records began in the middle of the 1980-81 recession.

People’s confidence about where their income will be in a year has plummeted to the lowest level since 2009, right after the Great Crash. Worse still, the average American is now more worried about inflation than at any time since the beginning of the pandemic, when prices shot up because of the shutdown of industry.

This combination of a rapidly weakening economy and fear of inflation points to an old enemy not seen since the 1970s: stagflation, where unemployment and inflation rise together. In such an environment, prices rise at the same time as incomes fall. The main trigger is the broad electorate’s understanding that tariffs are a tax on spending that will raise the price of goods for working Americans.

What is going on in corporate America, the part of the economy that was supposed to be boosted by Trump? Earnings are an important leading indicator, as profit squeezes foreshadow lay-offs and investment cuts. Corporate profits surged in 2021 but have now entered a slower growth phase. By the third quarter of 2024, US corporate profits fell 0.4 per cent quarter-on-quarter, the first decline in years. By late 2024, year-on-year profit growth was 5.9 per cent, down from more than 20 per cent in 2023 – this is a huge slowdown in margins.

All the while the nonsense that is Trump’s economic plan continues to be “sane-washed” by many writers and commentators as if there is some brilliant economic rabbit about to be pulled out of a hat by the sages of Mar-a-Lago. Declaring a trade war on your four biggest trading partners – Canada, Europe, China and Mexico – will simply push up American prices, robbing US consumers.

Tariffs are a way of taking something away from somebody. Trade allows better, cheaper products to come in from abroad, putting manners on local crony businesses. Tariffs protect second-rate local businesses, allowing them to sponge off consumers, flogging second-rate goods when punters could be buying superior imported stuff. In the end, tariffs take from buyers and give money to yellow-pack local sellers who can’t compete in the international market. There’s a reason that low tariffs, which have been reduced continuously in the past 50 years, corresponded with the greatest expansion of the global economy ever seen.

Protectionism is a sign of weakness, not strength. Americans are not being “ripped off”; in fact, they are being enriched by having access to better, cheaper, superior products made by more productive people. Rather than being the beginning of a great new era of American prowess, tariffs are a sign of insecurity and fear, marking the end of the great American century that began after the end of the first World War.

The fascinating thing is that the average “Joe Six Pack” American appreciates this; otherwise, why is he so fearful about the future?

Democratic politicians have begun trying to vent voters’ anger at their opponents by calling them names. Minnesota Gov. and former vice-presidential nominee Tim Walz recently called DOGE head Elon Musk a “South African nepo baby,” presenting him as an entitled foreigner. Similarly, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett attracted attention by calling Texas Governor Greg Abbott “Governor Hot Wheels.”

This name-calling may feel good for Democrats, but it just repeats the mistake of the recent past. Democrats lost the 2024 election due to their inordinate focus on President Donald Trump’s personal flaws, controversial statements, and criminal record as well as by offering a vague, bland policy agenda. What is needed now is a focus on policies—not personalities—though name-calling may still be a key tool, if they do it right.

Rather than focusing on the personal, Democrats should be using labels like “Pro-Cancer,” “Job-Killers,” “Anti-Constitution,” and “Healthcare-Cutters” to tar congressional Republicans. These may sound harsh, even outlandish. But they are true, highlighting in only a few words how Trump and Musk’s actions (and congressional acquiesce to them) will harm Americans in ways that matter to them.

The main objective right now should be not only hitting hard, but hitting smart—and saddling Republicans in Congress with the worst effects of Trump’s agenda using concise, aggressive terminology.

Only through a wave of sharp, crisp, and memorable verbal attacks on all Republicans to raise awareness of the most unpopular ill effects of Trump policies can Democrats force them to either distance themselves from the president or fully own his agenda. Think of the effectiveness of the Republican phrase “death panels,” a slanderous label used to describe the Affordable Care Act that helped contributed to the Democrats’ big loss in the 2010 midterms only two years after former President Barack Obama’s historic 2008 victory. Unlike “death panels,” labels like “Pro-Cancer,” “Anti-Constitution,” and “Job-Killers” have the benefit of being true.

Any Republican politician who has not vocally opposed Trump’s massive, multi-billion dollar National Institutes of Health cuts to institutions researching treatments for cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses should be label as “Pro-Cancer.” It is not unfair, it is a fact—if you are a politician weakening researchers’ ability to find cures and treatments for cancer, you are on the wrong side of the war against cancer. Opponents of Trump could theoretically form a broad base of opposition by forming local groups with names like “Cancer Survivors Against Cuts” to pressure Republicans in Congress to stand up and protect these funds. Even if the effort fails, as it likely will, these labels might prove potent against Republicans in 2026. This national issue can easily be framed locally given that every state has universities facing major cuts, and in many states and congressional districts, these universities and their health networks are among the top employers.

On that note, Democrats should be labeling Republicans as job killers, and not only because of the tens of thousands of federal workers Musk’s DOGE has fired, or because of the many jobs lost amid hiring freezes at universities (affecting whole university towns) and by businesses facing tariff uncertainty. Democrats can connect Musk’s interest in AI and self-driving cars to the fact that he and others in the Trump orbit, despite their ostensible opposition to job outsourcing, are more than happy to use technology to kill jobs. Job-killing congressional Republicans should be tied as closely as possible to Musk and anything unpopular about his business empire simply because of all they do to enable him.

To borrow a phrase used recently by Jamelle Bouie to characterize Trump’s policies, all Republican enablers of Trumpism should be considered “Anti-Constitutional” for supporting an assault on the separation of powers. Similarly, repeatedly calling congressional Republicans “Healthcare-Cutters” would call attention to the massive Medicaid cuts in next year’s budget and how they will affect regular people, which many Americans—including some who rely on Medicaid—seem to be unaware of amid these busy news cycles.

This name-calling may strike some as rude or radical. But being rude never seemed to hurt the Republicans, and right now, the danger for Democrats isn’t looking radical—it is looking weak. Moderates, and even some conservative voters, will have more respect for Democrats who are not feeble and can confidently call out Republican policies that will harm their lives. If they want to present themselves as more moderate, Democrats can frame themselves as “Anti-Recession Activists” and “Constitution Supporters.”

Many Democrats are refraining from going on the offensive, instead apparently waiting until enough conservative voters suffer from the economic pains of Trump’s policies. But the country cannot afford to wait. The main objective right now should be not only hitting hard, but hitting smart—and saddling Republicans in Congress with the worst effects of Trump’s agenda using concise, aggressive terminology. Democrats—liberals, progressives, moderates—are fighting for their way of life. It is time to act like it.

For the next few weeks, the buzzword in US debates on the liberal/left about economics and ecology will be “abundance” after the release of the book with that title by Ezra Klein (New York Times) and Derek Thompson (The Atlantic magazine).

The book poses politically relevant questions: Have policies favored by Democrats and others on the political left impeded innovation with unnecessary red tape for building projects? Can regulatory reform and revitalized public investment bring technological progress that can solve problems in housing, infrastructure, energy, and agriculture? The book says yes to both.

Those debates have short-term political implications but are largely irrelevant to the human future. The challenge is not how to do more but how to live with less.

All societies face multiple cascading ecological crises—emphasis on the plural. There are many crises, not just climate change, and no matter what a particular society’s contribution to the crises there is nowhere to hide. The cascading changes will come in ways we can prepare for but can’t predict, and it’s likely the consequences will be much more dire than we imagine.

If that seems depressing, I’m sorry. Keep reading anyway.

Rapid climate disruption is the most pressing concern but not the only existential threat. Soil erosion and degradation undermine our capacity to feed ourselves. Chemical contamination of our bodies and ecosystems undermines the possibility of a stable long-term human presence. Species extinction and loss of biodiversity will have potentially catastrophic effects on the ecosystems on which our lives depend.

Why aren’t more people advocating limits? Because limits are hard.

I could go on, but anyone who wants to know about these crises can easily find this information in both popular media and the research literature. For starters, I recommend the work of William Rees, an ecologist who co-created the ecological footprint concept and knows how to write for ordinary people.

The foundational problem is overshoot: There are too many people consuming too much in the aggregate. The distribution of the world’s wealth is not equal or equitable, of course, but the overall program for human survival is clear: fewer and less. If there is to be a decent human future—perhaps if there is to be any human future—it will be fewer people consuming less energy and creating less stuff.

Check the policy statements of all major political players, including self-described progressives and radicals, and it’s hard to find mention of the need to impose limits on ourselves. Instead, you will find delusions and diversions.

The delusions come mainly from the right, where climate-change denialism is still common. The more sophisticated conservatives don’t directly challenge the overwhelming consensus of researchers but instead sow seeds of doubt, as if there is legitimate controversy. That makes it easier to preach the “drill, baby, drill” line of expanding fossil fuel production, no matter what the ecological costs, instead of facing limits.

The diversions come mainly from the left, where people take climate change seriously but invest their hopes in an endless array of technological solutions. These days, the most prominent tech hype is “electrify everything,” which includes a commitment to an unsustainable car culture with electric vehicles, instead of facing limits.

There is a small kernel of truth in the rhetoric of both right and left.

When the right says that expanding fossil energy production would lift more people out of poverty, they have a valid point. But increased production of fossil energy is not suddenly going to benefit primarily the world’s poor, and the continued expansion of emissions eventually will doom rich and poor alike.

When the left says renewable energy is crucial, they have a valid point. But if the promise of renewable energy is used to prop up existing levels of consumption, then the best we can expect is a slowing of the rate of ecological destruction. Unless renewables are one component of an overall down-powering, they are a part of the problem and not a solution.

Why aren’t more people advocating limits? Because limits are hard. People—including me and almost everyone reading this—find it hard to resist what my co-author Wes Jackson and I have called “the temptations of dense energy.” Yes, lots of uses of fossil fuels are wasteful, and modern marketing encourages that waste. But coal, oil, and natural gas also do a lot of work for us and provide a lot of comforts that people are reluctant to give up.

That’s why the most sensible approach combines limits on our consumption of energy and rationing to ensure greater fairness, both of which have to be collectively imposed. That’s not a popular political position today, but if we are serious about slowing, and eventually stopping, the human destruction of the ecosphere, I see no other path forward.

In the short term, those of us who endorse “fewer and less” will have to make choices between political candidates and parties that are, on the criteria of real sustainability, either really hard-to-describe awful or merely bad. I would never argue that right and left, Republican and Democrat, are indistinguishable. But whatever our immediate political choices, we should talk openly about ecological realities.

That can start with imagining an “abundance agenda” quite different than what Klein and Thompson, along with most conventional thinking, propose. Instead of more building that will allegedly be “climate friendly,” why not scale back our expectations? Instead of assuming a constantly mobile society, why not be satisfied with staying home? Instead of dreaming of more gadgets, why not live more fully in the world around us? People throughout history have demonstrated that productive societies can live with less.

Instead of the promise of endless material abundance, which has never been consistent with a truly sustainable future, let’s invest in what we know produces human flourishing—collective activity in community based on shared needs and reduced wants. For me, living in rural New Mexico, that means being one of the older folks who are helping younger folks get a small-scale farm off the ground. It means being an active participant in our local acequia irrigation system. It means staying home instead of vacationing. It means being satisfied with the abundant pleasures of this place and these people without buying much beyond essentials.

I’m not naïve—given the house I live in, the car I drive, and the food I buy from a grocery store, I’m still part of a hyper-extractive economy that is unsustainable. But instead of scrambling for more, I am seeking to live with less. I know that’s much harder for people struggling to feed a family and afford even a modest home. But rather than imagining ways to keep everyone on the consumption treadmill, only with more equity, we can all contribute ideas about how to step off.

Our choices are clear: We can drill more, which will simply get us to a cruel end game even sooner. We can pretend that technology will save us, which might delay that reckoning. If we can abandon the delusions and diversions, there’s no guarantee of a happy future. But there’s a chance of a future.

The most gaping loophole in our tax law? The tax-free compounding of gains on investments.

This classic loophole enables the two most lucrative inequality-driving income tax avoidance strategies. The first, buy-borrow-die, allows wealthy Americans to avoid income tax entirely on even billions in investment gains.

These wealthy need only hold on to their appreciated assets until death. What if they need cash before then? They merely borrow against the appreciated assets, typically at very low interest rates.

Are rich Americans, including billionaires, truly unable to pay tax on their investment gains before they sell the assets yielding those gains? Wanna buy a bridge?

The second avoidance strategy, buy-hold for decades-sell, lets wealthy investors pay a super low effective annual tax rate on investments that appreciate at high rates over long periods of time. These investors typically experience decades of compounding gains without taxation.

The effective tax rates involved in this second strategy won’t reach buy-borrow-die’s zero tax, but may in some cases get as low as a 4% effective annual rate. A 4% effective annual tax rate would have an investment with a pre-tax growth rate of 20% per year enjoying an after-tax growth rate of 19.2% per year.

Congressional apologists for the ultra-rich on both sides of the aisle regularly claim that their wealthy patrons should be entitled to endless tax-free compounding of investment gains. Without this tax-free compounding, the argument goes, our richest wouldn’t have the “wherewithal to pay” tax on their investment gains before their assets get sold. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) invoked this tired canard at a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing.

Funny how these same apologists for our richest don’t have much sympathy for ordinary Americans who lack the “wherewithal” to pay for medical care, adequate housing, and other necessities. Average wage earners, under current law, can’t even wait until year-end to pay Uncle Sam their taxes. Those taxes come out of each paycheck, wherewithal to pay or not.

Are rich Americans, including billionaires, truly unable to pay tax on their investment gains before they sell the assets yielding those gains? Wanna buy a bridge?

Let’s start with the easiest case: a publicly traded investment that can be sold in smaller units, an investment in stocks, for instance. Say Rich, a wealthy investor, buys 1 million shares of Nvidia at $100 per share, and those shares, by year’s end, increase in value to $120 per share.

Our investor Rich now has a $20 million gain. If that annual gain faced a 25% tax rate, Rich would have a $5 million tax liability. To raise the cash to pay that tax, Rich could sell off 41,667 of his shares, leaving him with 958,333 shares, now worth just under $115 million.

That doesn’t seem very painful.

Now, let’s say Rich didn’t want to sell any shares. He could instead just borrow $5 million against the shares to pay the tax.

Or what if Rich had bought a parcel of land instead of Nvidia shares and, for whatever reason, having him borrow to pay tax on his annual investment gains didn’t turn out to be feasible?

Still no problem for Rich. For gains on illiquid assets, Rich could defer the payment of tax until he sold the assets, but the tax could be computed as if it accrued annually. How might this work? Say, for example, that Rich’s $100 million parcel of land grew at an annual rate of 10% for 20 years, at which point he sold it at its appreciated value of $672,749,995.

Had Rich paid tax at 25% on his gain each year, his rate of return would have been 7.5% per year, and after 20 years his investment would be worth $424,785,110.

The $247,964,885 difference between his sale price and the value of his investment with its actual rate of return reduced by the tax paid would be his tax liability upon sale. Payment of that amount would leave Rich with the same sum, $424,785,110, had he been able to sell a small share of his parcel each year, to pay the tax on his investment gain.

Put another way, Rich would be left with the same amount using this tax computation as he would if he sold his parcel each year, paid tax on the gain, and reinvested the remaining proceeds in another parcel.

And if Rich died before selling his parcel? His income tax could be determined for the year of his death in the same fashion as if he’d sold the parcel for its fair market value at the time of his death. Or, in the alternative, his inheritors could step into his shoes and pay the same tax when they sold the parcel as Rich would have had he survived and sold it at that time.

The bottom line: If we closed the tax-free compounding of investment gains loophole, some situations might exist where the immediate payment of tax on investment gains could pose a problem. But we can address those situations by deferring payment of the tax until investments get sold and accounting for the tax-free compounding in the determination of the tax.

These problematic situations, in other words, don’t justify leaving a gaping loophole in place.

So the obstacle to shutting down buy-borrow-die and buy-hold for decades-sell has absolutely nothing to do with ultra-rich investors lacking the wherewithal to pay taxes. That obstacle remains the politicians in Washington, D.C. who lack the wherewithal to summon the courage to make our rich pay the taxes they owe our nation.

George Packer recently wrote an Atlantic piece that cleverly situated the Trump regime within a familiar Orwellian framework.

According to Packer, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), and other slavish Trump sycophants have become comically ridiculous (Packer references Henri Bergson's theory of comedy) in direct proportion to their ability to absurdly and mechanically mimic President Donald Trump's perspective with the same rhetorical mannerisms that they had employed mere months ago to argue the exact opposite point of view. "Without missing a beat" they once spoke skillfully on behalf of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and now (in robotic fashion) they laud Russian President Vladimir Putin. They are stooges of the moment, laughable figures right out of the pages of 1984.

As Packer sees it, the old order of American NATO alliances had "made the past eight decades uniquely stable and prosperous in modern history." In his view the U.S. descent into realms of Orwellian mendacity originates with the antics of Trump and his lapdogs. Packer does not trace the U.S. embrace of dystopian culture to, say, renaming the U.S. military juggernaut the Department of Defense—an example of Orwellian deception far more confusing than playing a game of musical chairs with global alliances.

The schism between liberals and progressives hinges on whether or not one views Trump as an aberration, or a preordained end point of systemic failure.

Packer's calculus proposes that the danger of Trump stems from his power to humiliate and control his underlings in such a fashion that only he retains the ability to speak his mind, while all of the lesser accoutrements of the MAGA-sphere are reduced to being mechanized puppets.

I worry that many mainstream liberal pundits have made fascism into a Trump-centric formula—liberals like Packer betray nostalgia for past glories of American democracy and the world order that the U.S. largely controlled after WW II, and dominated almost completely after the Soviet fall. Like most instances of political nostalgia, this view depends on a myopic distortion. The uniquely prosperous and stable eight decades that Packer lauds were eight decades of war, regime change, colonial extraction, and—notably—eight decades of gathering extinction, environmental degradation, and skewed wealth.

We can either see Trump as a fracture in time, a great misfortune, a lightning bolt from hell intent on destroying a formerly beneficent arrangement of policies and alliances, or we can alternatively see Trump as a representation of American values—a mirror of the culture we created. The schism between liberals and progressives hinges on whether or not one views Trump as an aberration, or a preordained end point of systemic failure.

By the same token we might raise a skeptical eye at Packer's revisionist assessment of Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his passive discomfort as an extra in the theatrical meeting with Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Zelenskyy:

He sat mute throughout the Oval Office blowup while his principles almost visibly escaped his body, causing it to sink deeper into the yellow sofa. Having made his name in the Senate as a passionate defender of democracy and adversary of authoritarianism, he must have suffered more than others from the inner contortions demanded by the new party line—they were written on his unhappy face.

I have far more curiosity about the inner contortions that George Packer employed to rehabilitate Marco Rubio—a stick figure neocon with predictable views on corporately inflicted climate overheating (he doesn't believe in it), gun control (he doesn't believe in it), and abortion (he doesn't believe in it). The one thing that Rubio believes in with undeterred passion is war, and this, in Packer's view, makes him a "passionate defender of democracy and adversary of authoritarianism." Apparently, Rubio's enthusiasm for giving the authoritarian genocidaire, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a blank check for all the bombs of his dreams has no effect on Packer's assessment.

Rubio's constricted body language during the Trump-Zelenskyy showdown seemingly provides Packer with the pretext to assume that Republican capitulation to Trump conceals, in at least some instances, an internal moral crisis. It may be that Rubio had some sort of confused hiccup, a moment of puzzlement, as the story line shifted on a dime, or it may be that Rubio recoiled at his passive role, his mandate to be a mute walk-on in a drama that might have been more persuasive had he been excluded.

Packer gives himself license to fantasize about the allegedly tortured inner life of sycophants, and that troubles me. If we overly humanize Trump's henchmen and speculatively envision them as ambivalent victims of Trump's alleged mystical powers, we miss the seriousness of our predicament. U.S. politicians have been morally castrated as a matter of structural design, for, at least the eight decades of my lifetime. Trump can't be blamed for the vacuous surrender to corporate schemes that U.S. politicians dependably perform. Give Trump credit for exploiting the soulless dregs that he has surrounded himself with, but he did not drain the humanity from Marco Rubio. The moral desert that comprises the center of the former Florida senator resulted from a drought that long preceded Trump.

I believe that we have two real choices—capitulation or revolution.

Packer concludes his piece by asserting that the public view of the Russian-Ukraine conflict has not followed the narrative plot that Republican politicians newly embrace. The public still reviles Putin, and two-thirds of Americans (according to polls that Packer cites) want to continue to arm Ukraine. In Packer's view, America's public approval for arming Ukraine "might be America's last best hope." This misses the larger issue—how did the U.S. become a rapidly consolidating fascist country with politicians (centrist Democrats, neocons, libertarians, MAGA loyalists), all playing their preassigned bit parts?

The true masters of the system, the military industrialists and the corporate profiteers, lose nothing if the U.S. shifts alliances. The public support for Ukraine is little more than a lingering reflection of recent media perspectives. The public is always at the mercy of mass media and corporate control of information. In a country that has spent more money on military spending than the nine leading global competitors combined, the U.S. public still fails to react with alarm. Militaristic propaganda is at the heart of public control, and there are not even vestiges of antiwar passion detectable within the congressional body.

The anomie and gloom that characterize the public mood as fascism threatens to attain consolidation and crush all dissent cannot be remedied by backward steps into the immediate neoliberal system that gave rise to Trump in the first place.

A proposed withdrawal into the recent past of former President Joe Biden, or even former President Barack Obama (if it were even possible to do so—it isn't), condemns the public to accept a retreat into familiar safety—a set of governmental policies that the late David Graeber attributed to "dead zones of the imagination."

Graeber noted that:

…revolutionary moments always seem to be followed by an outpouring of social, artistic, and intellectual creativity. Normally unequal structures of imaginative identification are disrupted; everyone is experimenting with trying to see the world from unfamiliar points of view; everyone feels not only the right, but usually the immediate practical need to recreate and reimagine everything around them.

A true resistance to fascism would involve something more powerful than fatuous dreams about an idealized past. After all, superficial fantasies about the virtues of the past are Trump's shtick. I believe that we have two real choices—capitulation or revolution. The option of stepping meekly into the immediate past, as Packer proposes, will excite almost no one. This is a time—taking inspiration from David Graeber—for recreation and reimagining.