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

Trump's Coalition is Collapsing

The Budget Bill is Causing the Collapse of the Republican Coalition

The coalition that defines the modern, Republican Party and that brought Pres. Trump to power is collapsing because of internal contradictions that cannot be resolved. This collapse presents an opportunity for the Democrats, and we must recognize it and seize it. Trump came to power by harnessing populist rhetoric to a business-friendly political program. He claimed to be the voice of working Americans who had been oppressed by “elites,” but his real, political program has always been to lower taxes and reduce regulation in the service of those very elites. He used racism and xenophobia to appeal to a segment of the American people, but he never intended to deport the entire agricultural work force on which many of his Party's financial supporters depend. Thus, he created the coalition of billionaires and workers that elected him.

The contradictions inherent in this coalition could be ignored or concealed during the campaign for the presidency. As a candidate, Trump could say anything, and his supporters heard what they wanted to hear. However, his “big beautiful” budget bill has brought the contradictions into the open. He cannot pass the tax cuts that his billionaire supporters want without either cutting services that his working-class voters depend on or greatly increasing the deficit. The deficit hawks in Congress are forcing the Republican Party to make a choice, and individual Republican senators are choosing sides.

On the one hand, we have Sen. Josh Hawley, a populist conservative supporter of Pres. Trump saying, that cutting Medicaid is “morally incorrect and politically suicidal.” On the other hand, we have the business conservative Sen. Ron Johnson who thinks that the proposed cuts are insufficient. He wants to cut even more. These two views cannot be reconciled, and many voters are worried that important benefits would be cut if the bill passed.

Other Policies Are Causing Pain To Voters

In the meantime, Trump’s signature tariff policy is is causing pain in rural communities. Farmers are furious because they have lost their export markets because of other countries’ retaliation against the tariffs. Rural areas are deeply divided over Trump's policies. Urban communities are also suffering. Several major American companies including General Motors, Ford, General Electric, John Deere and Coca Cola have announced that they will move production away from the United States. Tens of thousands of jobs are at risk along with the survival of communities that voted for Trump in 2024.

Trump's deportations of immigrant workers are also causing heartache among his supporters. As one business owner in Florida said after his workers were arrested in a raid, "Lost a lot of good men today. I like Trump, but this isn't what I voted for." His feelings were echoed by the people of Kennett, Missouri when they learned that a well-liked member of their community had been arrested.  One member of the community said,

We don’t feel what’s happened to her is right.... She’s a very upstanding citizen in our community. Her kids are into the sports, she’s in the church, and she’s a very upstanding citizen as far as I’m concerned. I think she deserves to be free with her kids.”

Republicans Are Worried About the Coming Elections

Republicans in Congress are worried about the 2026 elections. How can they assure their reelection? Should they side with Hawley to preserve the Medicaid on which their voters depend, or should they side with Johnson? If they do either of those things, will Trump take revenge in the election? 

Their decisions will affect the Republicas' control of Congress, which rests on very thin margins in both houses. A couple of wins in swing districts would hand control back to the Democrats and doom the president’s legislative program. Those who support the “big, beautiful bill” have only a few months to pass it before the 2026 election season begins, but they do not have the votes to pass it in its present form.

Each senator or congressperson must decide how to respond to this situation. The political climate of each state or congressional district is unique, and each candidate must pay attention to the climate in his/her district. So, we should expect that the party will split deeply, and the alliance that has defined Trump’s party will collapse. Some will stick with Trump. Some will follow the path of Johnson. And some will follow the path of Hawley.

Principled Legal Conservatives Are Anti-Trump

An article appearing in the New York Times describes a friend of the court brief filed by a national group of conservative legal scholars opposing Trump's tariffs on constitutional grounds.  These scholars believe that Trump's actions do violence to the Constitution, and their brief says,

The powers to tax, to regulate commerce and to shape the nation’s economic course must remain with Congress,” the brief said. “They cannot drift silently into the hands of the president through inertia, inattention or creative readings of statutes never meant to grant such authority. That conviction is not partisan. It is constitutional. And it strikes at the heart of this case.

 A prominent legal scholar is quoted in the article:

You have to understand that the conservative movement is now, as an intellectual movement, consistently anti-Trump on most issues....

How Can Democrats Profit From the Republican Split?

Democrats can profit from the split by focusing on winning back our working-class voters. To do so, we must focus voters' attention on kitchen table issues. I don't pretend to know what the winning combination of issues may be, but here are a couple of suggestions. First, affordable childcare. Working families are mainly two-income families, and reducing the cost of childcare would put money directly in their hands. Second, stability of health insurance coverage. Most working people get their health insurance from their jobs, which means that the coverage is lost when the jobs are lost. The federal government should pick up a worker's share of the cost of his/her health insurance when he/she loses a job. That would greatly increase the financial security of every working American.

We should pay special attention to rural areas. Polls indicate that rural people still generally support Trump and the Republican Party, but rural communities will suffer deeply from Trump's policies. We should remember that votes are not cast by statistical aggregates. They are cast by individuals, and an aggregate may conceal deep differences among its members. We should go after every vote that we can get.

We should campaign on pocket book issues rather than issues of racial equity or gender equity. Those issues are important, and Democratic office holders should continue to promote equity. However, a political campaign is too short to change the way people feel about the issues surrounding equity. No one is going to decide to vote for a Democrat for the first time in his/her life solely as a result of listening to campaign speeches. On the other hand, while we cannot change voters' minds, we can shift the focus of their attention. We can get them to see other issues as more important. We can get them to see that the oppression of all working people by a system that is rigged against them is wrong, and we can show them that they do not have to accept being oppressed.  As I argued in an earlier post on this blog, progressive policies that benefit all working Americans will also increase equity and opportunity in our society,

Let's get busy!

A Dangerous Fake: Trump's Fight Against Antisemitism

It's a Fake

Trump’s fight against antisemitism at American universities is fake. It is also dangerous to all Americans but above all to Jews and to members of other minorities. The fight against antisemitism is fake because Trump’s Republican coalition includes some of our country’s most virulent antisemites. NPR has reported that several Trump officials have ties to antisemitic extremists. Trump’s dependence on antisemitic allies has been clear at least since his refusal to reject the views of the marchers in Charlottesville who chanted “Jews will not replace us.”

Trump can appear to oppose antisemitism only by conflating Jews with Israelis and claiming that opposition to Israel’s policies in Gaza is antisemitism, which it is not necessarily. It is true that anti-Israel speech often shades over into antisemitic speech, and some supporters of the Palestinian cause are undoubtedly antisemitic. It is also true that many Jewish students have been subjected to antisemitic harassment at various universities. Only a few days ago, a Jewish couple were shot to death as they were leaving a Jewish event in Washington, D.C. Life for American Jews has indeed become dangerous. Nevertheless, opposing Israel's policies in Gaza does not necessarily make you an antisemite, but claiming that it does gives Trump an excuse for limiting freedom of speech, for attacking faculty members and for deporting foreign students. (He needs to deport foreign students to maintain the credibility of another of his fakes.)

Trump rails against supporters of the Palestinian cause, but he never rails against the danger of home-grown, American antisemitism. He works to suppress pro-Palestinian speech at Columbia and Harvard, and he deports foreign students who express pro-Palestinian views. He even promotes the firing of Jewish professors or students who support the Palestinian cause. On the other hand, he never proposes suppressing the antisemitic screeds on social media that encouraged a man to kill Jews in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, and he uses antisemitic tropes himself in his own speeches. Trump’s fight is really against freedom of speech and of the press. It is aimed at suppressing any expression of opinions that are opposed to his ideas or policies. The defense of Jews is only an excuse.

It's Dangerous

This fake fight against antisemitism is dangerous for Jews because, as The Guardian has reported, many of those targeted by Trump are in fact Jewish students or professors and because, as an opinion piece in POLITICO has said,

We need to be very vigilant about the erosion of the rule of law and our civil liberties … because that is the best defense against antisemitism, not the protection of the strongmen.

Or as Michael Roth says in the NY Times,

Abductions by government agents; unexplained, indefinite detentions; the targeting of allegedly dangerous ideas; lists of those under government scrutiny; official proclamations full of bluster and bile — Jews have been here before, many times, and it does not end well for us. The rule of law and the right to freedom of thought and expression are essential safeguards for everyone, but especially so for members of groups whose ideas or practices don’t always align with the mainstream. As M. Gessen recently wrote in these pages, “A country that has pushed one group out of its political community will eventually push out others.” What our government is doing now is wrong in itself, but beyond that, it poses a bigger threat to Jewish people’s safety than all the campus protests ever could.

Focus on Maintaining and Improving Our Democracy

Trump hopes that we Jews will not notice that his claim for be against antisemitism masks his support for home-grown antisemitism and his suppression of civil liberties, but we should keep our focus on maintaining and improving American democracy. We should not support an authoritarian politician who represents a clear and present danger to American Jews along with other minority groups in our country.

Glory, Glory Hallelujah: Reclaiming Our Progressive Religious Heritage

Religion's Progressive Tradition is Being Lost

In the United States today, religious arguments and commitments are mostly identified with the political right. They are rarely heard on the left. There are "faith-based" organizations that work for social justice or for human rights, but even they rarely invoke their religious heritages to justify their political positions. Anti-religious views have become widespread on the left with the result that the deep roots of religious commitment to social justice in Western Civilization are being lost.

The Fight For Social Justice is Not a Fight For Theocracy

We can reclaim our progressive, religious heritage in support of our fight for social justice, but we must avoid promoting theocracy. Religion in America is a private matter. We are NOT a Christian nation, and we should NOT base our laws on biblical sources. We do NOT believe that the Bible is the word of God. We know that it was written by many people over a very long period of time, and it expresses their beliefs about what they saw as the will of God. The people who wrote the Bible lived in societies that were very different from ours. They accepted practices like slavery that are abhorrent to us.

We also recognize that religious institutions have always been divided over questions of social justice. On one hand, religious people have been at the forefront of movements like the antislavery movement. On the other hand, religious authorities have generally taken conservative, political positions. This division appears clearly in the contrast between two bits of English verse. The first expresses the view of religious institutions by claiming that social inequity has been ordained by God.

The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate,

God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate.

The second expresses an opposing view.,

When Adam delved and Eve span

Who was then the gentleman?

In spite of the conservatism of religious institutions, religious progressives have found strong support for their views in their religious traditions. They have argued their positions in ways that ultimately could not be refuted because of their deep roots in a shared religious tradition. We can reclaim that tradition.

The American Religious Tradition is Central in the Struggle For Social Justice

The centrality of our religious tradition in the drive for social justice in American society has one of its most moving expressions in the words of the Civil War song “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” I suggest that before reading the rest of this blog, you follow this link. Read the words of the song and think about what they mean. Most of us today do not believe as the song's author believed, and we would not write as she did in 1861, but there is no missing her sense that her cause flowed directly from her religious tradition.

A more recent example may be found in the sermons of Martin Luther King, Jr. Here is one example.

Christians are always to begin with a bias in favor of a movement which protests against unfair treatment of the poor, but surely Christianity itself is such a protest. The Communist Manifesto might express a concern for the poor and the oppressed, but it expresses no greater concern than the manifesto of Jesus, which opens with the words, “The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captive, recovering the sight of the blind; to set at liberty them that are bruised, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

Another example may be found in the liberation theology of Latin American Catholics in the late twentieth century. Liberation Theology has played a major role in the development of contemporary, liberal Catholicism.

We Must Reclaim the Progressive Religious Position

We progressives in the United States need to reclaim the heritage of religious support for social justice because by doing so, we can show that our cause has very deep roots in our culture. We need to remember the words of the prophet Isaiah, Chapter 58,

Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:

to loose the chains of injustice

and untie the cords of the yoke,

to set the oppressed free

and break every yoke?

Is it not to share your food with the hungry

and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—

when you see the naked, to clothe them,

and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

Then your light will break forth like the dawn,

and your healing will quickly appear.

Capitalism, The Bible and a Wealth Tax

 The Bible in American Politics

Today, many Americans take what they claim are biblical positions on important, political questions. Some claim to be Christian Nationalists (which is a little like claiming to be a atheistic pope), while others take allegedly biblical positions on specific issues like abortion or sexual identity. So, it may be worthwhile to ask what the biblical tradition has to say about one of the key elements of our society, which is the capitalist organization of our economy or as some prefer to call it, the “free enterprise” system.

A Central Idea in American Capitalism

One of the central ideas of American capitalism is that the owners of a productive resource are entitled to all of the profits from the productive use of the resource. The owner of a farm is entitled to sell or consume all of whatever the farm produces, and the owner of a factory is entitled to the profit from the sale of the factory’s products without restriction.  As we see it, an owner’s right to the products of a resource that he/she owns is absolute, and ownership does not impose any social responsibility. A farmer or factory owner may choose to help needy members of his/her community, but he/she is not required to do so.

The Biblical Approach

The Bible rejects the idea that ownership of a resource imposes no social responsibility. The Bible says clearly that owners are required to share the products of the resources they own with those who are not owners. Ownership resides ultimately with the community, and the community has an interest in the welfare of all of its members. So, The Bible says in Leviticus Chapter 19:

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap all the way to the edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. You shall not pick your vineyard bare or gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the poor and the stranger.

Sharing the products of your land is not voluntary. It is required as a condition of ownership. The Bible is not hostile to profit. The owner of a resource is allowed to profit from it, but his/her right to profit is not absolute. It comes with a responsibility to contribute to the welfare of the whole community.  

Humane Capitalism and Democracy

Capitalism as a system for allocating resources and motivating productive activity is compatible with either the current American view or the biblical view, but the biblical view is more humane and in addition, promotes social stability. Capitalism left to itself appears to lead to an ever-increasing concentration of wealth in a small, wealthy upper class. Capitalism does not necessarily lead to the immiseration of the working class as Karl Marx predicted because capitalism drives technological improvements that increase the total wealth of a society. However, capitalism does appear to drive increasing concentration of wealth in a small upper class. 

The economist Charles Picketty has proposed that the increasing concentration of wealth  may be expressed as a function of the relationship between the rate of growth of the economy and the rate of return to capital investment. As long as the rate of return to capital investment is greater than the rate of growth of the economy, capital's share of the national income will continue to increase, and the distribution of wealth will become ever more inequitable. This is an inherent feature of the capitalist system, and its consequences can be avoided only through deliberate societal intervention. He suggests a small wealth tax as a useful way to prevent the increasing concentration of wealth.

Such a wealth tax may be seen as a modern form of The Bible's commandment to leave some of the harvest for the poor. It recognizes that the ownership of wealth (or as we say "capital") comes with a responsibility to share it equitably and that a society has an interest in promoting social justice.  A capitalist system cannot demand that wealth be shared equally among all members of a society. However, a capitalist system can and should demand that the amount of inequality be limited.

We can see today some of the political results of our society's failure to limit the growth of inequality in the distribution of wealth. Working class people see that the system is rigged against them and that neither party addresses their concerns effectively. We have become so deeply divided politically that our government is almost incapable of democratic action, and that has led to the emergence of authoritarian presidents who try to bypass Congress and to govern through executive orders. This appears to validate Martin Wolf's contention that capitalism is compatible with democracy only if the capitalism delivers a decent level of living for most people If we really want to preserve our democracy, we should pay attention to the biblical view that the owners of wealth have a responsibility to share it.

It is Going to Get Worse Before It Gets Better

 The Grifter in Chief is in a Bind

The Grifter in Chief’s (GC) shredding of the Constitution in his drive to fake the deportation of millions of immigrants is going to get worse before it gets better. The GC is a man who cannot bear to see himself as a loser or to admit that he is wrong. It has always been obvious that he could not deport practically the entire agricultural work force along with a large share of the construction workers without generating enormous opposition including opposition in red states. Now, his tariff program may also be at risk because people are beginning to realize that the tariffs are hurting them. Although it has been reported that most truck drivers voted for Trump, they are realizing that their industry will be disproportionately hurt by tariffs, and their job security may be at risk. Support for the GF is dwindling.

The GC Diverts Attention

With both his signature programs at risk, the GC will work to keep public attention focused on his fight with the courts over the extent of his authority to deport people. He will insist on his power to deport and imprison people at will, and as he loses that fight, he will work to build the myth that if only the courts had not overstepped their authority, he would have been able to do all that he promised. He and his supporters will do everything they can to limit the freedom of the press, as we can see in the latest move by Pam Bondi.

This approach is the similar to the approach he used in his response to the assault on the Capital on January 6, 2021.  He and his supporters propagated the myth that the election had been stolen and that the people who attacked were patriots who were only trying to prevent the certification of a fraudulent election. That strategy worked very well for him. So, I predict that he will use it again.

He will commit more egregious breaches of The Bill of Rights, and many lawsuits will be filed against those breaches. The Supreme Court will have no choice but to declare the breaches unconstitutional, and he will declare the attacks on him to be a witch hunt. He will throw doubt on the the question of whether people really have or deserve constitutionally protected rights. The news media will be full of that controversy and will lack space to cover the harm that his tariff policies are causing to ordinary Americans.

"Not My Fault"

In addition, his struggle will form the basis of a political strategy based on the idea that the harm was not really caused by his policies. It was caused by the resistance to them. If only he had been allowed to do what he wanted to do, everything would have turned out well. His diehard supporters will enthusiastically support Trump's story which fits well with the attitude described by David French and Damon Winter in their photo essay  in the New York Times. 

[Trump's] supporters see virtually every significant American institution opposed to his rise. The mainstream media, the universities, Hollywood: They’re all united in opposition to Trump.

As a consequence, supporting Trump is an act of defiance in and of itself. This is one reason you see Trump supporters wearing clothing that says things like “Lions, not sheep.” Trump is a lion, and his supporters are lions for standing beside him.

He Will Lose in the End

The GC's breaches of the Constitution will appear to some of his supporters as courageous acts aimed at saving our country, and they will continue to support him. However, not all members of his party will see things that way. Already, his support is dwindling, and members of Congress are finding the courage to oppose him. He may well fail even to pass his proposed budget. In the end he will lose, but not immediately. It is going to get worse before it gets better.

We Must Preserve Our Rights

 American Citizens Live in Fear

A woman I know well who has lived peacefully and happily in this country for almost sixty years is now afraid to go out on the street alone. She entered this country legally as a young woman, and she became a citizen nearly 50 years ago. Now, she is afraid to go out by herself. She sees people arrested randomly and deported, and she wonders if she will be next. She is not alone. Many of our fellow citizens are living in fear today.

Is this what we have come to? Is this the country we love? Why is this happening?

Why is This Happening?

It is happening because our president, the Grifter in Chief (GF) finds himself in a bind. In his election campaign, he promised to deport millions of immigrants, but he cannot keep that promise for two reasons. First, he cannot keep his promise because if he were to deport millions of farm and factory workers, he would damage the economies of almost all of the red states, and he would lose political support in those states. Second, he cannot keep his promise because it would be very costly to do so. He wants to reduce taxes, but the deficit hawks in Congress will prevent him from doing so unless he can cut federal spending drastically. This is no time for him to propose spending billions of dollars for a program of mass deportation.

So, he is faking it. He is pretending to keep his promise by deporting a relatively small number of people randomly chosen from among citizens and residents who represent no threat to American workers or to the United States. Some people are deported because they are alleged without proof to be members of gangs that are labeled “terrorist organizations.” Other people are deported because they have spoken out in support of Hamas, although support of Hamas was never mentioned in his campaign. Still other people are deported through "administrative error!" The latest absurdity in this tragic comedy is that a two-year old child who is an American citizen has been deported.

Our Rights Are Disappearing Before Our Eyes

To do all of this the GF has had to ride roughshod over the rights to due process and to free speech. He has arrested a judge, and he has threatened others with impeachment because they made decisions that he didn’t like. He has pressured universities to teach only what he approves of. He has pressured law firms not to represent clients who oppose his policies. Without warrants or due process, he has arrested foreign students who supported Hamas and put them in detention facilities. He has said openly that he cannot carry out his program of deportations without eliminating the right to due process. In effect, he says that no one has a right to due process if the president decides that it is an impediment to something he wants to do. In other words, he claims that he can ignore the rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights whenever it is convenient for him to do so.

We Cannot Accept the Destruction of Our Constitutionally Protected Rights 

We must understand clearly the implications of the deportation of students who support Hamas. As a Jew and a supporter of Israel (although not of its actions in Gaza), I can easily understand why people are angered by support for Hamas, but I can also see that the right to free speech cannot apply only to speech that I approve of. The right applies also and perhaps especially to speech that is unpopular. If we allow the president to deport these students, we are accepting the idea that he is allowed to decide when speech is free and when it is not. 

That is completely unacceptable. We cannot allow a president to claim that speech is free only when people say things that he approves of.  The same applies to the issue of due process. We cannot allow a president to claim that the right to due process may be ignored whenever the president decides that ignoring it is convenient for him.

Otherwise, my friend and millions of other American citizens will continue to live in fear in their chosen country, and our rights as Americans will be destroyed merely because the GF needs to appear to be keeping a campaign promise. If we do not act now, we will soon all be living in fear.

We Must Win in 2026

 Resistance is Big and Growing 

Donald Trump and his administration are the greatest danger to American democracy that I have seen in my lifetime, but fortunately, he is provoking a lot resistance, and the resistance is growing. Voters on the left are attending the rallies organized by Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez. Thousands of people in a red state like Montana attending their rally in Missoula, where Sanders and Cortez spoke about resisting oligarchy. The Montana Free Press said,

“Taking on oligarchy is enormously difficult,” Sanders told the capacity crowd. “These guys own the economy. We now have more concentration of ownership than we’ve ever had in the history of this country. They own most of the media. They own the United States Congress and the White House. They got enormous amounts of wealth and power. But, you know what we got? We got the people. And the last that I have heard is that 99% is a hell of a lot bigger number than 1%.” 

Resistance is coming from the political right, too. A poll reported by Newsweek showed that nearly 25% of Republicans oppose Trump’s tariff plans. In addition, farmers are among those most endangered by those plans, and the farmers are also among those who would be most hurt by the deportation of undocumented workers. There is also resistance to Trump’s plans to lower taxes on the wealthy. Even Steve Bannon thinks they are a bad idea. Then, there is the resistance in the courts to Trump’s attempts to suppress dissent and eliminate the rule of law. A judge as conservative as Amy Coney Barrett has shown opposition to some of Trump’s actions.

We Must Join Forces to Win in 2026

All of these sources of resistance must come together in the elections of 2026 to wrest control of Congress from the president. The Republicans will probably lose congressional seats because historically, the president’s party usually loses seats in the midterm elections. The Republican majority in Congress is very thin, and the loss of only few seats will cost the party control of Congress. Moreover, the party is already divided over the president’s budgetary policies. Trump’s advisors know all of this, and that is why they are trying so hard to attain their objectives before the elections of 2026.

The Alternatives Are Unthinkable

The importance of taking control of Congress away from Trump in 2026 cannot be overstated. In our political system, the people express their power through elections. Members of the House of Representatives are required to run for office every two years because the founders of our republic believed that such frequent elections would make the representatives responsive to the will of the people. Twenty twenty-six is our chance! Let’s do it!

We must also win in 2026 because the alternative is unthinkable. If the people cannot stop Trump, he will destroy our world and our democracy, or he will be overthrown by a military coup. American military officers swear an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” If Pres. Trump fails to execute the laws faithfully or ignores orders of our courts, he will become a domestic enemy of the Constitution, and the officers will be obliged by their oath of office to oppose him. Our military has a long and honorable tradition of abstaining from involvement in domestic politics, and that tradition is one of the bases of the success of our democracy. If the military is forced to break with that tradition, our democracy will exist only as long as the results of our elections are acceptable to our generals. We cannot allow that to happen. We must win in 2026.

We can do it!

A Grifter Faking It

Recent Arrests of Foreign Students

Our Grifter-in-Chief  (GC) has recently had a number of foreign students and professionals arrested ostensibly because of their views on war in Gaza. The GC’s excuse is that their presence in this country is a danger to American foreign policy, but that excuse is so ludicrous that it can only be thought of as a fig-leaf to cover his illegal actions. In an earlier post on this blog, I said that the purpose of these arrests was to stifle dissent by showing that the GC can make dissent very expensive for any dissenter. That is true, but it is not the whole story.

To stifle dissent, the GC would not have had to focus on arresting foreign residents. Using appropriate, legal excuses, he could just as easily arrest American citizens, and doing so might have been even more effective for suppressing dissent. However, the GC chose to arrest foreign students because he has another motive: he wants to appear to fulfill his promise to deport aliens from the United States while not really deporting very many of them. 

The GC Made a Promise That He Can't Keep Right Now

In his election campaign, he promised to deport millions of undocumented people, but as president, he appears to be reluctant to undertake deportations on such a grand scale. There are two reasons for his reluctance. First, deportations of millions of people would be very expensive and would interfere with his goal of reducing federal income taxes. He won't be able to persuade the deficit hawks in Congress to accept the tax cuts unless he also cuts government spending, and he won't be able to do that while paying for the deportation of millions of people. 

The second reason for the GC's reluctance is that deporting millions of workers would generate strong opposition from some important supporters of the Republican Party. Farmers and owners of other agricultural businesses would not want to lose their work forces, and merchants in small towns would not want to lose their customers. 

The GC Pretends to Keep His Promise

So, the GC is in a bind. If he deports millions of undocumented workers, he will generate strong opposition among his supporters. On the other hand, if he fails to deport people, he will lose the support of many voters who voted for him because he promised to deport millions of people. His solution to this dilemma is to pretend to keep his promise. He arrests a few hundred Venezuelans and ships them to El Salvador, and he arrests a few hundred graduate students and professionals. He conducts a few raids in urban areas that usually vote for Democrats. In total, the government says that it has arrested about 30,000 people, but the GC has avoided arresting millions of people in factories, fruit fields or dairy farms. Thus, he can appear to be keeping his promise, and he avoids alienating his supporters.

At the same time, he furthers his progress toward his main goal, which is to lower income taxes for himself and other billionaires. He knows that the deficit hawks in his party won’t let him do that unless he can cut the cost of the federal government by trillions of dollars. So, Elon Musk is working as quickly as he can to fire thousands of federal employees, and the GC will propose a budget that includes big cuts to programs like Medicaid on which many of his working-class supporters depend. He knows that this is no time for him to propose the billions of dollars in new expenditures that deportation of millions of people would cost. So, he fakes it.

Maybe Later

If he succeeds in lowering the income tax rates for billionaires and if he succeeds in suppressing political dissent, he may get serious about deporting the millions of undocumented workers in the United States, but even then, I wouldn't count on it. Deporting millions of workers would be contrary to his policy of trying to revive American manufacturing. He will not be able to persuade people to build factories in the United States if there are not enough workers to staff those factories. I don't know whether the goal of deporting undocumented workers is more important to him than the goal of reviving American manufacturing. Only time will tell. In the meantime, expect him to continue to fake it.

The Rule of Law is Almost Dead

A Scofflaw President

To President Trump, the law means nothing. He does whatever he wants. He has arrested people and deported them without any consideration of due process, and he has peremptorily fired civil servants without alleging any legitimate causes for the firings. The president's party controls Congress, and that makes him safe from impeachment. He is immune from criminal charges resulting from just about anything he might do, and if his supporters are convicted of crimes, he can pardon them, thus making them immune, too.

Most recently, we have learned that a man in Maryland named Kilmar Abrego Garcia was arrested and deported illegally to El Salvador, where he is a prisoner in the Center for Terrorism Confinement, and the administration says that it happened through “administrative error.” Not only that, but the Trump administration claims that the courts cannot order that the man be returned to the United States because he is now in Salvadoran custody and is therefore outside of the jurisdiction of our courts! 

In other words, the administration made a “mistake” and has no intention of rectifying it. The man can rot forever in a Salvadoran prison. Apparently, the Center for Terrorism Confinement is now Mr. Trump’s Bastille, and “administrative error” is his lettre de cachet. We are now in the France of Tale of Two Cities. If you think that I am exaggerating, you should read this article.

A Hairsbreadth Away From the End of the Rule of Law

On Friday April 4, a federal district judge who did not agree with the administration's claim, ordered the administration to return Mr. Garcia to the United States by the evening of Monday April 7. However, instead of complying with the court's order, the administration appealed the court's decision to the 4th District  Court of Appeals, which declined to intervene, and consequently, the administration has made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.  In other words, President Trump intends to preserve his right to deport anyone at will without interference from the law or the courts.

The Chief Justice has delayed the district court's order temporarily to give the court time to think about this. We are on the cusp of a constitutional crisis and a hairsbreadth away from the end of the rule of law.

We Should Be Scared

Mr. Trump's determination to preserve at all costs his ability to deport anyone at will is extremely frightening. The case of Mr. Garcia may really be an administrative error, but there can be no doubt that our president has discovered a very convenient way to deport any of us at will in order to suppress dissent and enforce his will. Anyone who says anything he doesn’t like can be "disappeared" through an "administrative error." This possibility is in addition to the methods of dissent suppression discussed in a previous post on this blog.

Anyone may be made to disappear in this way. Why should administrative errors occur only with immigrants? Why can't an American citizen also be made to disappear through administrative error? We know that Mr. Trump is vengeful and vindictive, and we know that he has contempt for law when it opposes his will. He and his supporters are suggesting even now that Judge Boasberg is committing “judicial overreach” and “legislating from the bench” merely for insisting that the president follow the law. They say that an “unelected judge” should not be allowed to oppose the will of an elected president. In other words, they believe that an elected president should not be bound by the law. A vengeful and vindictive president with contempt for the law has surely figured out that “administrative error” provides him with an easy way to rid himself of inconvenient enemies.

We Must Resist

We cannot allow our freedom to be destroyed in this way. We must resist, and there are several ways to do it.

• We can talk to our friends and neighbors about what is happening. Begin with people who are already opposed to Trump or his policies. Encourage them to become politically active. Even this president cannot deport thousands of people.
• We can take part in public demonstrations opposing the president's policies.
• We can work for candidates running for office. The election of Judge Crawford to the Wisconsin Supreme Court has shown that working for candidates can be effective even against strong opposition.
• We can contact our representatives in Congress and urge them to oppose the president's attempts to stifle dissent. 
• Urge our representatives to oppose policies that will be economically harmful to our communities. This may be a very effective method because it may give even Reublican representatives the confidence to oppose his policies.
• We can donate money to the candidates and political parties we would like to support.
• We can donate money to organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and others that are fighting the the president in the courts. This may be the most effective method of resistance because delay is our friend. In 2026, the president will probably lose control of Congress, and that will reduce his power considerably.

We Should Be Prepared to Leave if Resistance Fails

I have no desire to leave my country. I am an American, and the United States is my home. However, we must face the possibility that we may need to leave if resistance fails. I recommend that everyone who values his/her freedom should begin to plan seriously to move to another country. With reasonable luck, we may never need to carry out our plans, but we should be prepared.

Here is what you can do. 

• First, if you don't have a passport, get one. If your passport is near its expiration date, renew it. 
• Second, Find out about countries that welcome American immigrants. 
• Learn about the advantages and disadvantages of each country. 
• Who can qualify for a resident visa? 
• What is the cost of living there? How safe is the country? 
• What kind of healthcare system does it have? 
• Does it already have a large expat community? 
• Think about where you would like to live. 
• Look into the process for getting a visa that will allow you to live there. 
• If the process is lengthy, get it started. 

There are lots of resources online for obtaining the information that you will need. A search on something like “retiring abroad” or “living abroad” will get you started. Good luck!

Mozart and the Illusion of Political Stability

An Illusion of Stability

Recently, as I drank my second cup of coffee and looked out at a beautiful, sunny morning, I listened to one of Mozart's horn concertos. The music was lovely and conveyed a comforting sense of order and stability as his music generally does. His original audiences must have felt that it expressed well their feeling that they lived in a world that was itself well-ordered and secure. As I drank my coffee, I imagined a roomful of wealthy Viennese or Parisians listening to Mozart’s music and thinking how comfortable and secure their lives and their social order were.

We know now that their comfort was an illusion. Their governments and their social order were tottering to a fall. The French Revolution took place in Mozart’s lifetime as did the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The Napoleonic Wars, which destabilized all of the governments and societies of Europe, occurred only a few years later. As I thought about that, I wondered whether our political situation today may be similar to that of Mozart’s original listeners. I wondered whether our sense of stability and order may not also be an illusion.

We too live under a government and in a social order that seem stable and secure. Those of us who are comfortably well off feel secure in our positions just as Mozart’s listeners did. Oldsters like me receive our Social Security checks regularly and draw from our retirement accounts. We sip our coffee, and we appreciate the orderliness of Mozart’s music. We feel secure, but our government and society are threatened just as the governments and societies of Mozart's contemporaries were threatened and for the same reasons.

Why the French Revolution Happened

The French Revolution was triggered by the fact that the French government was broke. The revenue of the government did not cover its expenses, and it had to borrow money to pay its bills. Its debts grew larger every year, and lenders were becoming more and more reluctant to lend. One of the reasons for this situation was that the nobles who owned most of the country’s wealth refused to pay taxes. To find a way out of that difficulty, the king had to convene a national parliament: the Estates General. We all know what happened after that.

The French government’s need for money triggered the revolution but was not its only cause. Pressure for change had been building for decades. The new, urban middle class resented the privileges of the nobility, and the urban proletariat demanded food and justice. The peasants in the countryside were also deeply oppressed and often on the verge of starvation. The royal government, like ours, refused to acknowledge the problems of the people. When the poor complained that they had no bread to eat, Queen Marie Antoinette famously responded, "Then let them eat cake." There were extravagant displays of wealth next to extreme poverty. The king and the nobles sat atop a social order that was waiting to explode.

Are We Too Deluded?

We too live in a social order and under a government that seem to be secure and stable, but we too have a government whose expenditures outrun its revenue. Our government, like that of eighteenth-century France, has to borrow money to cover its costs. Our upper class, like that of eighteenth-century France, owns most of the country’s wealth and refuses to pay a fair share of the taxes. In our country as in eighteenth-century France, social injustices have been accumulating. Perhaps our society like that of eighteenth-century France is a cauldron waiting to explode. 

The strains in our system are visible in both of our political parties. The Republican Party is an uneasy alliance between its billionaire wing and its working-class MAGA voters. The party uses racist and nationalist appeals to cover its oligarchic ambitions. The billionaire wing, represented by Elon Musk, is working as fast as it can to reduce the costs of government enough to allow the already minimal taxes that the wealthy pay to be reduced still further. The working-class MAGA voters depend on services that the billionaires want to eliminate. 

The Democratic Party, which has in the past claimed to be the party of the working class can no longer count on the unwavering support of labor unions and has yet to devise a unified response to the Trump administration. The Party is divided between its "progressive" wing and its "centrist" wing. The latter suffers from the illusion that there are still "independent" and "undecided" voters in our electorate. The party has so far been unable to unite around a progressive, populist platform that might really appeal to working-class voters.

In the meantime, the cost of living continues to rise for most Americans, and healthcare emergencies remain the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. Housing becomes every day more unaffordable. Our president wants to put a tariff on Canadian lumber, and that will of course make housing still more expensive. Many of our people have lost faith in our system of government because it has failed to live up to the tacit bargain that makes representative democracy consistent with market capitalism. In the meantime, our president and his people are working to stifle dissent and weaken our democracy. W. B. Yeats put it well:

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst

    Are full of passionate intensity.

Perhaps the comfort that I felt listening to Mozart’s Horn Concerto was as delusional as the comfort felt by his original audiences. Après nous le déluge?