Category Archives: Random Blogging

Yellow Lines And Dead Armadillos

Well-meaning people continue to urge folks on the political Left and Right to talk to each other, to listen to each other, and to come to the “middle.” This constant refrain drives me up the wall, because what I see are not “politics as usual” disputes, but a fundamental moral divide. The only “policy” being debated is the right of a lawless administration to send ICE goons (aka Trump’s Gestapo) into American cities to kidnap and brutalize citizens at will.

Even the terms “Left” and “Right” are inappropriate. The Republican Party once had a coherent, politically conservative agenda–free trade, limited government, respect for law and order, support for NATO… That party has vanished, substituting  virulent racism and devotion to Trump for anything resembling a conservative philosophy–or any philosophy, for that matter.

The morphing of the Republican Party into an alternate reality cult has also remade the Democratic Party (most of which was never as “Left” as Republicans used to charge). Actual conservatives and moderates have departed the GOP in droves. Many–probably most–now count themselves Independent, but a not-insignificant number now identify as Democrats, turning Democrats into a nearly ungovernable ideological mix.

The GOP has become a neo-fascist cult; Democratic voters are those who oppose that cult.

When I read pious exhortations about “coming together” and “listening to each other” I want to scream that I have been listening– I’ve heard MAGA loud and clear, and I know there is no “middle ground.”

A recent, welcome essay in Lincoln Square made that point forcefully. As Stuart Stevens began,

In this time of national trauma, we hear many calls for an end to the divisions that are shredding the national fabric. It all sounds lovely. Who could argue that Americans need to do more to understand each other and reach a consensus?

Well, I could.

I don’t want to understand the guy in the Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt during the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

I don’t want to understand the Death Squad ICE agents who murder innocent citizens.

I don’t want to understand the twisted hatred of Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem.

I don’t want to understand the MAGA followers who say the 2020 election was stolen.

Stevens–one of the sane Americans who fled the GOP–draws a stark line between those who he says are “defending the legacy of the Greatest Generation and those who defile its sacrifice.” He points out that carrying the same country’s passport  is an accident of birth, while values are a choice.

Too many Democrats still believe Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election when she said, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” I don’t know how to break it to you guys, but that’s the sort of self-flagellating instinct that helped my Republican candidates win races they had no business winning.

The problem wasn’t that Hillary Clinton described MAGA as deplorable. The problem was that she stopped doing it. You win races by defining the other side in sweeping negative language. Races are about differences and choices. There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow lines and dead armadillos.

Stevens underlines that observation with a very simple question: Is this who you are?” He invokes the image of a ranting Stephen Miller “looking like he’s auditioning for Joseph Goebbels role as Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda” and suggests asking a normal American, a sane voter, “Is this who you want to be?”

We are taught that it is a positive character attribute to give another person the benefit of the doubt. That may work when debating converting the U.S. to the metric system, but it’s a Munich Accord-level of appeasement when dealing with the lunatics of MAGA. Those of us who view this moment as an existential threat to democracy should reject any assumption that the other side is acting in good faith. When a home invader has broken in your door, don’t act like he thinks he’s visiting a friend and has the wrong address. Do whatever it takes to get the bastard out of your house.

Legacy media “both-siding” to the contrary, Americans are not engaged in the sort of normal political debate that demands compromise and conciliation. MAGA folks understand that, while far too many of the rest of us don’t. We are facing a sustained, intentional assault on the very foundations of America’s identity.

That assault calls for resistance, not conciliation. There is no “middle ground” between liberal democracy and fascism.

Comments

The Right Side Of History

In response to the growing, undeniable fascism of MAGA and the Trump administration,  good people have been asking an anguished question: What can I do?

For many of us, the answer is murky. We can–and. must–protest. We can–and must–refuse to sane-wash or ignore what is, after all, before our eyes. We can–and must–support candidates opposing the trashing of our constitution and the rule of law, by volunteering, voting and donating what we can.

But some people are in a position to do more. Some of the universities and law firms that have been targeted have “bent the knee” and opted to be on  the wrong side of history, but others have chosen non-compliance. And recently, that refusal to go along has gathered steam.

Some examples:

The Washington Post, among others, recently reported that Chris Madel, a Republican candidate for governor of Minnesota, dropped out of that race, posting to social media that ICE operations had been an “unmitigated disaster” and that he “could not support the national Republicans’ stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so.” He said that continuing to identify as a Republican would mean he could not look his young daughters in their eyes.

That high-profile rejection was important, but the resignations of scores of federal workers took even more courage, because many of these people are walking away from careers and financial security.

Tracee Mergen, a supervisor in the FBI’s Minneapolis field office resigned after she was pressured by higher-ups in D.C. to abandon a civil rights investigation into the fatal ICE shooting of Renee Good. The call for her to end her inquiry came from aides to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Lawyers, I am relieved to note, have been prominent among the resigners. Several career lawyers had already fled the Department of Justice, in reaction to Trump’s remake of that department, but resignations from DOJ increased after the murders in Minnesota. Six career prosecutors in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division announced they are leaving the department in response to the administration’s edict that there would be no civil rights probe into the fatal shooting of Renee Good.

These resignations come from people who have chosen to be on the right side of history. So has David Jolly, a  former Republican who is now a Democratic candidate for governor of Florida, who abandoned traditional political “civility” in a speech that should be echoed by every Democrat (and by the few Republicans who, like Jolly and Madel, have chosen to put country before party).

I am cutting this post short in hopes that readers will click through and watch Jolly’s speech. It deserves widespread distribution.

The bottom line is that we can all do something to be on the right side of history. Increasingly–and thankfully– the people who can do more, the people who can refuse to bend the knee or obey in advance, are doing it. It’s a welcome sign.

Comments

Cutting Through The C**p

If I see another “study” attempting to describe the different motives of those who support Donald Trump, I will once again engage my (not-so-inner) potty-mouth.

The most recent example I’ve come across was a description of a study purporting to describe four different varieties of Trump voter. Here’s the crux of the study’s “scholarly” conclusion:

About 29 percent of 2024 Trump voters are what we call the “MAGA Hardliners.” These are the fiery core of Trump’s base, mostly composed of white Gen Xers and Baby Boomers, who are animated by the belief that God is on their side in America’s existential struggle between good and evil. Then there are the “Anti-Woke Conservatives” (21 percent): a more secular and affluent group of voters deeply frustrated by what they perceive as the takeover of schools, culture, and institutions by the progressive left. Another 30 percent are the “Mainline Republicans”: a more racially diverse group of middle-of-the-road conservatives who prioritize border security, a strong economy, and cultural stability. Finally, we have the “Reluctant Right” (20 percent). Members of this group, unlike the other three, are not necessarily part of Trump’s base; they voted for him, but have ambivalent feelings toward him. Only half identify as Republicans, and many picked Trump because he seemed “less bad” than the alternative.

Any reasonable look at those “differences” will note the common thread that unites them, the overwhelming grievance that allows them to ignore–or even cheer–Trump’s ignorance and venality, his increasing dementia, and his destruction of America’s constitution at home and influence abroad. 

That common thread is a deep-seated racism. 

Let’s look at all four of those categories. The first, the MAGA Hardliners, are described politely; they are rather clearly White “Christian” nationalists. Project 2025 mapped out their preferred society–a society where God has installed  White males in positions of authority, where women are returned to the kitchen and bedroom, and people of color who are allowed to remain in the country are properly subservient.

“Anti-woke conservatives” are assigned to a second, presumably separate category. Everything we need to know about them is in the “anti-woke” descriptor. They are only different from the White “Christian” nationalists because they don’t attribute their racism to a god. They may be more educated and more secular, they may even be more circuitous when expressing their hatreds, but they are every bit as racist as the MAGA Hardliners.

Calling the third group “Mainline Republicans” is a slur on those who could formerly have been described that way– genuinely traditional “mainline” Republicans have mostly departed from today’s GOP, leaving the “mainline” moniker to those who were formerly on the fringe. They are, according to the description, concerned with “border security, a strong economy, and cultural stability.” Border security and “cultural stability” are the give-aways here: securing the border means “keep Black and Brown folks out of the U.S.” “Cultural stability” is code for keeping White Christian male status dominant.

And that fourth group–the voters who chose to give the nation’s nuclear codes to a clearly unfit buffoon who had been found guilty of multiple felonies and rape because he was the “lesser of two bad choices?” Come on! Kamala Harris was only a lesser choice to people who could not bring themselves to vote for a Black woman (a Black woman married to a Jew, no less!)

These aren’t different constituencies. At most, they’re different varieties of racists.

And credit where credit is due: the one promise Trump has kept is his promise to emulate the Nazis. He hasn’t brought down the price of eggs or other groceries, hasn’t kept America out of foreign military engagements, and certainly hasn’t made America great. He and Stephen Miller and the assortment of clowns, misfits and outright psychopaths he has assembled have pursued an unrelenting attack on DEI, on “wokeness,” on accurate history, and on anyone perceived as an enemy of the would-be King of (some) White folks.

Now, Trump’s administration has unleashed its very own Gestapo–directed at cities in Blue states that failed to vote for him. Actually, Trump has gone one better than Hitler– Gestapo thugs didn’t wear masks.

Sane-washing takes lots of forms. For far too long, the media has tried to portray insanity and corruption as just one set of political positions, while academics have attempted to “slice and dice” MAGA supporters into more and less reprehensible categories. Those efforts are another kind of mask–one that keeps us from seeing the extent of the fascism we face.

Purveyors of “making nice” need to cut the crap and face up to the very ugly evidence of where we are right now.

Comments

Let’s Send J.D. Ford To Congress

For the last couple of terms, Indiana’s Fifth Congressional District has been “represented” (note quotation marks) by Victoria Spartz. I will refrain from characterizing the Congresswoman, since I live in Indiana’s Seventh Congressional district (where I am very happy with my own Congressman, Andre Carson). I’ll just link to a 2025 Town Hall meeting at which her constituents–in a district she’s helping to turn from Red to Purple–roundly booed her performance in office.

I will also share that I was delighted when, a week or so ago, J.D. Ford announced he’d be running against Spartz. J.D. is one of the more thoughtful members of Indiana’s terrible state legislature. (I know–being “more thoughtful” than the MAGA culture warriors who dominate that body is faint praise…But J.D. has been an informed and hardworking member of the Indiana Senate since he was elected to that body in 2018.)

When I saw the announcement, I dug through my past posts to retrieve what I had written when J.D. first opposed then-incumbent Mike Delph. As he prepares to run against an equally unsuitable incumbent, I thought I would share that post.

At a recent candidate forum, J.D. Ford–who is running against Mike Delph–made what should have been one of those “duh, yeah, we learned that in high school civics” observations: when businesses open their doors to the public, that constitutes an obligation to serve all members of that public.

There is a reciprocal relationship–a social contract– between business and government. The government (which collects taxes from everyone in its jurisdiction, no matter their race, religion or sexual orientation) uses those tax dollars to provide services. Those services are an essential infrastructure for the American businesses that must ship goods over publicly-financed roads, depend upon police and fire departments for safety, and (in some cities, at least) public transportation to bring workers and customers to their premises.

As Ford noted, business that want to discriminate– who want to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve–are violating that social contract. They want the services that are supported by the tax dollars of all segments of the public, but they don’t want to live up to their end of the bargain.

Where Ford (and I) see fundamental fairness, Mike Delph (surprise, surprise!) sees religious intolerance.

“I was saddened to hear him express such intolerance for those of us that hold deep religious conviction,” Delph told The Star. “Religious liberty is a fundamental American ideal.”

Let’s call this the bull*** that it is.

If your religious beliefs preclude you from doing business with gays, or Jews, or blacks, then don’t open a retail establishment. Don’t enter into a contract knowing that you will not honor its terms.

Religious liberty allows you to hold any beliefs you want. It allows you to preach those beliefs in the streets, and to refuse to socialize with people of whom you disapprove. You have the right to observe the rules of your particular religion in your home and church, and the government cannot interfere. But when you use religious beliefs–no matter how sincere–to disadvantage people who are entitled to expect equal treatment, when you use those beliefs as an excuse not to uphold your end of the social contract, that’s a bridge too far.

It would be wonderful to have an Indiana Congressional Representative who clearly understands that basic constitutional principle.

Important as that is, my enthusiastic support isn’t based only that essential understanding.

During his time in the Indiana Senate, Ford has demonstrated the ability to get things done, even as a member of the minority. He’s served as Caucus Chair of the Indiana Senate Democrats, and during the 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions, served on a variety of committees, including Education and Career Development, Elections, Ethics, Family and Children Services, the Health and Provider Services, Local Government, and Rules and Legislative Procedures committees.

And unlike Spartz, who has a reputation for public outbursts and confrontations with colleagues and staff,  and for a management style politely described as “dysfunctional” (a style that has contributed to high levels of staff turnover and general lack of effectiveness), J.D. has modeled appropriate legislative behavior.

He’s also a really nice guy.

Fifth District voters– if you send J.D. Ford to Congress, you won’t have to yell at him in Town Hall meetings….

Comments

Epistemic Breakdown

Epistemic breakdown is a fancy way of saying “destruction of a shared reality.” As a recent essay pointed out, that destruction is politically useful.

We’ve just seen an example in the administration’s propaganda about the murder of Renee Good. “Don’t believe your lying eyes”– believe the “revised” reality we offer instead. But that example is a small part of a sustained assault.

If–like so many Americans–you’ve found the administration’s attacks on science and education mystifying, the essay offers a frightening and detailed explanation.

If you can convince a large segment of the population that experts cannot be trusted, institutions are corrupt, objective truth doesn’t exist, and loyalty matters more than evidence, then power no longer depends on performance or results. It depends on identity and obedience.

Science, especially, has characteristics that the author notes are fatal to authoritarian politics: it produces falsifiable claims that can be tested, and if found to be wrong, require us to update our beliefs. Science is also institutionally distributed. No single leader controls it. Like most scholarship, it requires peer review and subsequent replication. And–importantly–research undermines what the essay calls “charismatic authority.” Scholars and data don’t demand loyalty.

Authoritarian movements cannot survive in an environment where people accept that some claims are simply false, expertise matters, and reality constrains power. So science isn’t debated, it’s delegitimized.

Anti-vaccine rhetoric is particularly effective because vaccines sit at the intersection of government authority, personal autonomy, fear of harm, complex science, and immediate bodily stakes. That makes them ideal for narrative manipulation.

Anti-vax rhetoric accomplishes several things simultaneously: it reframes public health as tyranny, converts inconvenience into persecution, turns expertise into elitism, casts personal feeling as equal to evidence, and creates an “us versus them” moral divide.

Once that framing is accepted, any future policy can be painted the same way: climate action, election integrity, court decisions, civil rights protections.

The essay makes a further point that is hard to believe, given the sheer incompetence and lunacy on display in this administration: the author claims that the lies are often “deliberately obvious.” The objective is a demonstration of loyalty; those who accept the blatant lies prove their loyalty. Those who reject or dispute them self-identify as outsiders, as people who cannot be trusted. As the author points out, this is a tactic used in cults and authoritarian regimes. “The lie becomes a bonding ritual, not a claim about reality.”

When propaganda and lies are understood in this way, it becomes clear why “fact-checking” doesn’t work.

The endless cycle of “Trump said X, but actually Y” doesn’t expose the strategy, it amplifies it. Every fact-check is free publicity. Every debunking is another news cycle. The lie has already done its work by the time anyone “corrects” it.

From a power perspective, this strategy delivers a base that cannot be peeled away by evidence, immunity from scandal or failure, a permanent grievance engine, justification for extraordinary measures, and a population conditioned to accept coercion “in defense of freedom.”

It also creates an enemy class: scientists, journalists, doctors, judges, educators. Once labeled as corrupt, they can be ignored, sidelined, or purged.

The essay provides a long list of the way the strategy has been–and is being–employed, and it will look very familiar to those of us who have been blindsided by assertions that are self-evidently bonkers: vaccines don’t work, elections have been rigged, public schools are indoctrinating our children, etc. etc.

Historians are just beginning to trace the way in which the Right has developed and pursued  this strategy over the past 50 years. (The essay includes a timeline, and it names names.) It didn’t start as a coherent plan, but it developed into one over time. As the timeline shows, the destruction of Americans’ shared reality wasn’t random or accidental–it was built systematically “by specific people making specific moves at specific times, each building on what came before.”

The author breaks the history down into segments: the blueprint, the think-tank infrastructure, the merging of religion and politics, the building of the political machine, and so on. You really need to click through and read the lengthy essay in its entirety–it explains what the author calls the “parallel reality structure” we now inhabit–built by a stolen Supreme Court and nurtured by constant norm destruction, media capture, and Project 2025.

When courts enable rather than restrain, legislatures normalize rather than confront, executives reward loyalty over law, media profits from distortion, and capital hedges instead of resists, elite-led correction becomes structurally improbable.

For U.S. democracy to survive, enough ordinary Americans need to make authoritarianism too costly.

I know it’s long, but read the whole thing.

Comments