The Movement Has Choices to Make

A Successful Rally

The rally at Houdini Plaza last Thursday evening was a great success, and the organizers should be proud of what they accomplished. The rally was part of a national movement to “make some good trouble” and to express resistance to our Grifter-in-Chief’s campaign to destroy our democracy. An article in The Dairyland Patriot expressed the goal of the rally well in the words of John Lewis.

My philosophy is very simple. When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, say something! Do something! Get in trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble.

The article also quoted Emily Tseffos, one of the organizers of the rally and one of its speakers.

There’s a bridge in Selma, Alabama. … [It is] just concrete and steel. But in 1965, it became sacred ground. John Lewis – just 25 years old – led hundreds across it. They were met with tear gas, horses, and clubs.  And they kept walking. That’s good trouble. Necessary trouble. The kind we’re called to right now.

So let’s march like Selma, … Rise like Stonewall (the 1969 protests that marked the beginning of the modern gay rights movement). … Strike like Amazon workers. … Dream like the people who know this country has always been remade from the bottom up. Because good trouble isn’t history – it’s a mandate.” 

A Weakness Revealed

These are beautiful and powerful words, and in my view, they are completely correct. We must organize and act. However, Emily's words also reveal a key weakness of the rally and of the movement it represented. The movement is an expression of national revulsion against the policies and actions of the Trump administration, but a successful, political movement cannot be only against something. It must be for something as well. The march across the bridge in Alabama had a goal, which was true freedom for Black people in the United States. The Stonewall protests, and the strikes at Amazon also had clear, positive goals.

The movement represented by the rally has no such clear goals. The people who attended the rally have goals: some are fighting for fair treatment of immigrants; others are fighting for fair treatment of women; still others are fighting for Medicare for All or affordable childcare; other goals were represented, as well. But the movement itself has not coalesced around a set of clear positive goals, and it must do so if it is to succeed.

Hard Choices to Make

Selecting a clear set of positive goals will require some hard choices. A movement cannot fight for everything at the same time. It must demand a small number of clearly defined specific changes. So, this movement at this time and in this place will have to choose, and it will have to put some worthy goals aside for another time. 

Moreover, an effective American political movement should also link somehow to our electoral system, which means that the demands of this movement should point to policy positions that congressional candidates can run on in 2026. It also means that the movement's demands should be capable of being presented in a way that will allow them to attract broad support from the voters.

If the movement’s demands do not point to policy positions for candidates, the movement must expect to reach its goals through civil disobedience. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is an example of the successful use of that strategy as is Gandhi’s March to the Sea to make salt. However, effective civil disobedience is very difficult, and civil disobedience that extends over a long period of time requires an enormous commitment from its adherents. A movement that can make use of the electoral system can achieve its goals much more easily.

So, the movement to “make some good trouble” has choices to make. What will its demands be, and how will it pursue them? It must make those choices if it is to be effective in bringing about change.

Trump’s Narrowing Support Will Bring MAGA Down

Trump Maintains Control by Driving Republican Opponents From the Party

Trump’s support is gradually narrowing because he demands absolute loyalty while at the same time hurting his supporters. Any Republican who opposes him at any point is subject to his revenge, and inevitably, such opposition does arise because each Senator or Representative represents a particular constituency with particular interests. For example, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, recently retired from the Senate rather than vote for Trump’s Big Beautiful bill. As a recent article on MSN said,

This is a pattern visible in the departures of Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Jeff Flake, Bob Corker, Mitt Romney, Mike Gallagher, Justin Amash, Denver Riggleman, Mark Sanford, Will Hurd and any Republican who “dared to deviate from Trump's whims.” 

The same article tells us that

Already a Trump-aligned organization - MAGA Kentucky PAC - was launching a $1-million ad campaign against “traitor” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kent.), for having the gall to oppose Trump’s bill.

This week, yet another Republican congressman has decided to resign rather than support Trump. Mr. Bacon represents a district that went for Kamala Harris in 2024. So, his retirement provides an opportunity for a Democrat to win another seat in the House of Representatives.

Trump's Support Becomes Narrower

This strategy of driving people who don’t support Trump out of the party maintains his rigid control of the party, but it also narrows the range of his support. Meanwhile, his insistence on carrying out policies that hurt the interests of important groups of Republicans cuts into the party’s support from voters and campaign donors. An example is the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. A recent poll tells us

A new poll from Gallup Friday shows a steep drop among Republicans wanting immigration levels into the U.S. decreased – falling from 88 percent in 2024 down to 48 percent in June. The same survey showed an uptick in Republicans who see immigration as having a positive effect on the U.S.

We can see the process of narrowing at work also in a bipartisan decision in a Senate committee to reject the president’s proposed cuts to the budget of NASA. It is easy to see why some Republican senators might oppose cuts to programs that support a large number of well-paid jobs in the senators’ states.

American companies are having a terrible time dealing with the uncertainty and changeability of Trump’s tariff policies. A recent New York Times article  described the problems that the management of Eagle Creek – a luggage manufacturer based in Steamboat Springs, Colorado - is facing. The article says,  

Three shipping containers with about $240,000 worth of the manufacturer’s goods were set to arrive [from Indonesia] at the Port of Los Angeles on July 30, just before the new tariffs are expected to kick in. A delay of even a few days could result in additional fees of at least $52,000 — and up to $75,000 if Mr. Trump followed through on imposing an additional tariff of 10 percent on countries aligned with the policies of BRICS nations, a group that includes Indonesia.

Although it wasn’t clear whether the on-again, off-again tariffs that Mr. Trump had just unveiled would hold, or whether he was bluffing, executives at Eagle Creek realized the company needed to have enough cash on hand to pay the tariff bill.

Eagle Creek has to deal with this sort of uncertainty every day, and it costs the company a lot of money. So, imagine now what is likely to happen in Republican politics when Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger starts to talk about Republican alternatives to the CEO of Eagle Creek, to soybean farmers in Illinois and to vegetable growers in California.

Anti-Trump Republican Politicians Will Gain Support

The political ambitions of the anti-Trump Republican politicians will align with the economic interests of many Republican voters and campaign donors. Although, some voters are so committed to the MAGA vision that they will continue to support Trump, others who have voted Republican all of their lives will find that they do not have to leave their party to find candidates who support their interests, or they may turn to a third party. A few will vote for Democrats. We can see these divisions starting to form in a small community in Nebraska where a health center is scheduled to close. We should see more such divisions in the 2026 elections. Next year is not going to be dull.

Rule Through Fear: The Mark of An Authoritarian Regime

Fear as a Means of Maintaining Political Control

Pres. Trump is trying to rule by making us afraid. The use of fear as a means of political control is a hallmark of fascist and other authoritarian regimes including his. An authoritarian regime uses fear because it cannot arrest all of its people. Somehow, it must persuade most of them to acquiesce quietly and not to resist, and it can do that by making the people afraid to resist openly. Fear persuades them to keep their heads down and their mouths shut. Trump is attempting to do just that. He is trying to persuade us to keep our heads down and our mouths shute.

Trump's Tactics For Instilling Fear

Using a Criminal Gang to Kidnap People

In a previous post on this blog, I said that ICE was a criminal gang, and indeed, it is, but why should Trump make use of a criminal gang? The answer is that he uses the criminal gang to instill fear in us. Masked ICE agents swoop down unpredictably and kidnap people off the street. No one knows when they will appear or whom they will arrest. So, people are afraid. Most of us know that we are citizens and should have nothing to fear, but ICE arrests people first and asks questions later. So, we are afraid.

Announcing Policies Designed to Create Uncertainty and Fear

Recently, the Department of Justice issued a memo directing U. S. attorneys to pursue revoking the citizenship of naturalized citizens “to reduce crime.” This announcement is designed to induce fear. No naturalized citizen knows when the government may try to revoke his/her citizenship, and so, everyone is afraid. Everyone prefers to avoid even the possibility of being arrested or ensnared in a lawsuit. So, most people keep their heads down and their mouths shut.

Threatening to Withhold Funds

Trump’s attacks on universities serve the same purpose. Universities should be centers of criticism of Trump’s policies, but his attacks instill fear in scholars who depend on government funding for the research that advances their careers. So, the scholars, too, learn to avoid criticizing any policies of the Trump administration. In addition, Trump announced recently that colleges and universities that allow what he called “illegal protests” will lose their federal funding, and that students who participate in such protests will be arrested. 

Threatening to Proceed Against Law Firms

Trump is also using this tactic against law firms. A recent New York Times article, quotes the legal scholar Thomas Vladeck saying:

What the Trump administration is doing is not just about specific lawyers representing unpopular clients, but is rather far more ominous: The administration is acting in ways that will necessarily chill a growing number of lawyers from participating in any litigation against the federal government, regardless of who the client is.

That, in turn, will make it harder for many clients adverse to the Trump administration to find lawyers to represent them — such that at least some cases either won’t be brought at all or won’t be brought by the lawyers best situated to bring them.

Threatening Political Consequences

Trump also instills fear in members of his party in Congress. He does so by threatening to support candidates to oppose them in primary elections. This tactic allows him to force members of Congress to support his policies. We saw this tactic at work in the recent debate over his Big Beautiful Bill.  Many senators and representatives opposed the bill in debate, but they voted for it anyway. The exceptions were senators who had decided not to run for reelection in 2026.

Soon It Will Be Too Late

Thus, like any other authoritarian ruler, Trump works to rule through fear. Fortunately, his apparatus of fear is not yet complete, and we must continue to resist. If we don't resist now, the apparatus of fear will grow stronger each day, and soon, it will be too late.

Don't Sacrifice Our Democracy on the Altar of Religious Differences or Middle Eastern Policy

American Elections Should Be About Making America More Just and Equitable

Democrats should campaign on and vote for policies that benefit Americans, and that means focusing on reducing the outlandish disparities in wealth and income that plague our society. We will have an opportunity to make progress in that direction in 2026, but we will be able to take advantage of that opportunity only if we maintain a razor-sharp focus on the issues that really matter. Our president is a master at finding issues that divide American liberals, and we must beware of falling into his traps, which have the potential to destroy American democracy and set back the cause of social justice for decades.

One of Trump's traps is his promoting of division over antisemitism and Israel's war in Gaza. Democrats are deeply split over the war. At one extreme, we have people who treat any criticism of Israel's policies as unacceptable antisemitism, and at the other extreme, we have people who deny the right of the State of Israel to exist at all. In between, we have a wide range of views. Trump is exacerbating the division among Democrats by his attack on antisemitism on university campuses. His hope is that we will be too divided among ourselves to mount effective congressional campaigns in 2026. If we fail to do so, we run a real risk that Trump will succeed in destroying American democracy and the rule of law.

Democrats Must Stick Together To Win

We must not be taken in. We must stick together.  Donald Trump and his MAGA movement are on the verge of destroying both democracy and the rule of law in the United States, but Democrats may prevent that from happening by winning the midterm elections next year. To do that, we will have to unite around a progressive program that benefits all working people in our country. Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Zohran Mamdani are pointing the way. We can unite around the domestic policies that they and others have proposed.

Take a Leaf From Obama's Campaign Strategy

The victory of Mamdani in the mayoral primary election highlights both the possibilities and the dangers. He has proposed concrete policies to tackle real problems in New York City. I may not agree with all of his proposals, and in any case, policies that work in New York may not work in the rest of the country. However, Mamdani's ideas can form a basis for discussion among liberals. 

On the other hand, Mamdani is Muslim and takes a pro-Palestinian position on the war in Gaza, and he risks splitting the party. To avoid that, he should take a leaf from Obama's campaign strategy. Obama did not stress his blackness in his presidential campaigns. He ran as a president for all the people, and that strategy turned out to be a winning one.  Similarly, a Democratic candidate for national office in 2026 or 2028 should run as a candidate for all of us.

We Have a Lot To Do

We have much to do in our country. We must adopt environmental policies to minimize the effects of climate change. We must save Social Security and Medicare. We must find a way to fund post-secondary education in a way that does not saddle young people with crushing debts. We must find a way to provide affordable childcare. And we must find ways of mitigating the huge disparity in the distributions of wealth and income is destroying our democracy.

If we lose in 2026, we will lose what may be our last opportunity to make progress on these issues, and we may lose our democracy as well. So, we need to get together to win. We know that we will never agree on every issue, but we should not sacrifice the well-being of our own people on the altar of the Gaza War or the bombing of Iran. We should fight this election on the grounds of domestic policy.

ICE: Our First Government-Sponsored Criminal Gang

What is a Law-Enforcement Agency?

ICE is a criminal gang, not a law-enforcement agency. We Americans are very familiar with law-enforcement agencies. We have local and state police forces, and we have the FBI. So, we know what a real, American law-enforcement agency looks like, and we know how American law-enforcement agents behave. 

A law enforment agency follows well established procedures. When a law-enforcement agent approaches citizens on the street, in an office or at their homes, the agent can be recognized easily. Typically, the agent is wearing a uniform. He/she wears or carries a badge or other identification and shows it to the citizens. The agent is never masked. The agent immediately explains why he/she is approaching the citizens, and if they are being arrested, they are informed of the reason why, and they are informed of their rights. Law-enforcement agents do not kidnap people.

What is a Criminal Gang?

In contrast, members of criminal gangs display none of those characteristics. They don’t present identification. They are often masked. They rarely wear uniforms. They do not explain why they are approaching the citizens, and they do not inform citizens of their rights. Criminal gangsters do not make arrests using established procedures. Instead, they kidnap people.

ICE Acts Like a Criminal Gang

The agents of ICE do not behave like law-enforcement agents. They behave like criminal gangsters. We know that because we have all seen numerous reports of ICE raids in the streets, in homes, in factories and on farms. ICE does not follow the established procedures for arresting people. Instead, the people are simply kidnapped.

We often say that if a creature looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, we should treat it as a duck, and we should apply this saying to our understanding of ICE. It looks like a criminal gang, talks like a criminal gang and acts like a criminal gang. So, it most likely is a criminal gang, and the fact that it is sponsored by our government means only that for the first time in our history, our government is sponsoring a criminal gang.

Plenty of Insanity to Go Around

The war between Israel and Iran has grown out of the insanity that affects both sides. By “insanity,” I mean “persisting in acting in ways that are based on false ideas or that are detrimental to the actor.”

Iran's Insanity

Iran's insanity is its investment of huge resources in a project that cannot be completed and that is detrimental to its people. The government of Iran has made it clear for decades that at the core of its foreign policy is the complete destruction of the State of Israel, and in the service of that policy, it has invested billions of dollars in the development of nuclear weapons and in the support and training of groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen.

The money that has been invested in that way might have been invested in the development of the country and the improvement of the lives of its people. Iran is a big country with lots of fertile land and other natural resources including oil. Iran’s government might have chosen to use its oil revenue to increase the country’s industrial capacity and diversify its economy, but it has not done so. Instead, it has chosen to spend the money to destabilize Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen and to put pressure on Israel. That policy has brought on the international sanctions that have impoverished the Iran and its people. The policy has also made enemies of the Sunni Muslims of the Middle East led by Saudi Arabia.

Iran’s government has not destroyed the State of Israel and is very unlikely to achieve that goal, but it has impoverished the country and given strength to antigovernment movements within Iran.

Israel's Insanity

Irael’s insanity is its government’s insistence on clinging to an unachievable goal and an incorrect view of the nature of the Palestinians’ struggle. The unachievable goal is the goal of recreating the ancient Kingdom of Israel by integrating Gaza and the West Bank into the State of Israel without making the territories’ people into full citizens of the State of Israel and without damaging Israel’s democracy.

That goal cannot be achieved. If the occupied territories were integrated into Israel in a way that preserved Israel’s democracy, the Palestinian residents of the territories would have to be made into full citizens of the State of Israel, and that would mean that state would cease to be a Jewish state and would become a binational state. If the occupied territories were integrated into Israel in a way that did not make the Palestinians full citizens of a binational state, it would become an apartheid state, and Israel’s democracy would be destroyed

The incorrect view is the view that Palestinian attacks on the State of Israel are nothing but expressions of old-fashioned antisemitism. It is the view that Palestinians want to kill Jews just because they are Jews. This view refuses to accept that the Palestinians have their own national aspirations. The Palestinians don’t just want to kill Jews. They want to have their own country or at least to be full citizens of a binational state.

Ignoring the national aspirations of the Palestinians is convenient for Israel’s government in the short run, but it has led to a disastrous and unending struggle, which has damaged Israel’s democracy and its standing in the world. It has also prevented Israel from making peace with its neighbors and given Iran the excuse it needs to continue to support Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Israel's attempt to eliminate Iran's nuclear weapons program is certainly justifiable in the light of Iran's clear commitment to the destruction of Israel. Nevertheless, Israel's government's commitment to the unachievable goal and the incorrect view have created a context in which other countries can support Iran and condemn Israel. Moreover, Israel's inability to deal sanely with the Palestinians guarantees that the attack on Iran can provide the country with only a temporary increase in security

So, there you have it. There is plenty of insanity to go around. The two countries are killing each other's citizens, although doing so is not in the long-term interest of either country.

How Can Democrats Win?

In last week’s post, said that to win the elections of 2026, take back control of Congress and regain our working class support, Democrats should focus on kitchen table issues rather than on issues of racial equity or gender equity. In this post, I want to expand on that idea and explain what I mean.

What is the Problem?

We live in a very inequitable society in which an outlandish share of the national income goes to a tiny group of wealthy people. Making the distribution of income more equitable is the most important political task of our time, and in order to do that, we need to understand the real nature of the problem. To put it bluntly, the problem is that a few rich people have most of the wealth, while millions of hard-working people own practically nothing. Note that I did not say “a few white people” or “a few white men.” I said “a few rich people.” It is true that most of the rich people are white men, but it is also true that most white men are not rich. It is true that working-class women of all races are among the most oppressed members of our society, but it is also true that there is a substantial number of women who are billionaires. Likewise, it is true that black people earn less than white people on average, but it is also true that that we have a substantial number of black billionaires. So, the problem is not the redistribution of income from male workers to female workers or from white workers to black workers. The problem is the redistribution of income from the owners of capital to the working class. 

Defining the problem in terms of race or gender serves the interest of the rich because that definition sets the workers to fighting with each other instead of getting together to work for their shared interests. That is why, for example, our current president has made a big deal out of dismantling DEI programs. He wants working-class Americans to think that by doing that, he is helping them, and he hopes that they will not notice that he is also dismantling programs like Medicaid on which those supporters depend. 

We Democrats must focus on improving the lives of working-class people of all races. We must fight against the idea that improving the lives of black people means transferring income from white workers to black workers or that improving the lives of women means transferring income from men to women. Instead, we must focus on doing things that improve the lives of all working people. Here are a couple of examples. There are many others.

Policy Proposals

Affordable Childcare

One way to improve the lives of all working people would be to provide tax-supported, affordable childcare. Today, many families are or could be two-income families, and many women are single parents. Childcare takes a huge bite out of the incomes of those who can afford childcare, and those who cannot afford it are condemned to poverty because they cannot get decent jobs. Affordable childcare would immediately put a substantial amount of money into the pockets of millions of working-class people.

In addition, affordable childcare would help to reduce the income gap between white people and black people because black people are more likely than white people to be in the working class. Black people have on average a small fraction of the household wealth that white people have, and black people earn less than white people at every level of education. So, black people would benefit disproportionately from a program of affordable childcare. It would give them a leg up in their struggle to improve their economic situation.

Baby Bonds

Baby bonds are another possibility. The idea is that each baby born in the United States would receive at birth a treasury bond that would be held in trust for the child until he or she reaches adulthood. The amount of the bond would depend on the wealth of the child’s family. Children born into wealthy families would receive smaller bonds than children born into poor families. Darity and Hamilton, who originally proposed the idea in 2010, suggested that children in the lowest wealth quartile might receive bonds worth at least $50,000, while children in the highest wealth quartile would receive a much smaller amount.

Each bond would be held in trust for the child until it reached adulthood, and the interest earned would be reinvested. When the child became an adult, the money would then become available to pay for education, to purchase a house or for any other approved purpose. While the bond was held in trust, it would appreciate considerably in value. A $50,000 bond earning 4% interest would be worth a little over $109,000 when the child reached the age of 21.

The point of giving children baby bonds would be make equality of opportunity more real in the United States by making it possible for a working-class child to obtain professional training without incurring crippling debts. A person without crippling debts can use her income to accumulate wealth that can be passed on to her children thus allowing her to join the patrimonial middle class.

Respect

However, no policy positions will help us to regain our majority unless we start to show respect for working-class people and rural people. The Democratic Party has become the party of the patrimonial middle class, and that comes with cultural baggage. First, we Democrats are by and large well educated, and we look down on people who are less educated. Second, we are mainly urban people (because the jobs for educated professionals are in cities), and we look down on rural people and on rural ways of living.  

Our attitudes are visible to everyone. They shine through in places like Hillary Clinton's description of Trump's supporters as "a basket of deplorables" or Barack Obama's remark about people clinging to guns or religion or racism. People hate and resent being looked down on, and they vote their feelings. We will never regain our majority until we come to understand that our obvious sense of superiority bears a large share of the responsibility for the rise of Trump. If we want to win, we will have to deal with our own prejudices, and we will have to nominate a candidate who can talk with working-class and rural people as equals. 

Let's get busy! We have a lot to do