Using the Constitution to Frame Progressive Values and Political Proposals

Reclaiming the Constitution For Social Justice

A few weeks ago, in a post on this blog, I said that we who work for social justice in the United States should use basic long-standing, America values to frame our goals. In this post, I want to go further and say that we should root our values explicitly in our country's Constitution. Struggles for social justice in the United States have always been struggles over the meaning of our Constitution. Americans have argued about what the Constitution permits our government to do, and more importantly, they have argued about what the Constitution requires our government to do. In recent decades, we progressives have forgotten how to use the Constitution to argue for social justice, but The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution by Fishkin and Forbath tells us how to reclaim that knowledge and how to use it in the political battles of our time.

Fishkin and Forbath show us that the Constitution is not merely – as most liberals now see it - a set of limits on the powers of government. The Constitution also sets out affirmative duties for the Federal Government and especially for its elected branches. The big conflicts of the past including those of the Populist era or those of the New Deal were seen by the people of those times as conflicts over the meaning of the Constitution and were fought out on those grounds in the political arena and not just in the courts.

We must reclaim the tradition of framing political goals like universal healthcare or affordable childcare in terms of values that are rooted in an interpretation of the affirmative duties of the federal government and especially of Congress. We should claim that the policies we recommend ought to be supported by all patriotic Americans because those policies flow from and are required by the basic principles of our Constitution. There are two approaches that we can use: the textual approach and the structural approach.

The Textual Approach to Framing Policy Proposals

The textual approach consists of interpreting the text of the Constitution in a way that stresses underlying values. The affirmative duties of the Federal Government come from several sources. First, the Constitution’s Preamble tells us that it was established in order to “…promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The powers enumerated in the body of the Constitution should thus be interpreted in a way that is consistent with its purpose of promoting the general welfare. For example, Congress might establish a national healthcare system on the grounds that it promotes the general welfare. 

The Preamble is not the only source of affirmative duties. Section 4 of Article IV says, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ….” This clearly means that Congress has a duty to make sure through appropriate legislation that no state turns its democratic government into an oligarchy through restrictions on voting rights or through corruption.  But Congress's duty may extend much farther. For example, Congress may have a duty to prevent our current administration from using the threat of invasion to bypass a state's democratic procedures and guarantees.

The Structural Approach to Framing Policy Proposals

The structural approach relies on the idea that the democratic political system established by our Constitution can survive only if certain structural conditions are met. The founders of our republic believed that democracy requires a broad, stable and secure middle class and an economy that gives members of the middle class opportunities to improve their condition. The founders also believed that democracy is incompatible with the concentration of wealth in an oligarchy that can use its wealth to control the legislative process and generally to subvert democracy. 

Throughout American history, progressive reformers have argued that for these reasons, Congress has a duty to enact legislation to prevent the rise of an oligarchy and to provide security and opportunity to the middle class. The protection of voting rights and campaign finance reform may obviously be justified in this way, but Congress’s responsibility to maintain a broad middle class and to prevent the rise of an oligarchy could also provide a basis for enacting a wealth tax or for expanding Social Security. 

The same logic may be used as a part of the justification for a national healthcare system. Today, healthcare emergencies are the most common cause of personal bankruptcies in the United States, and even in the absence of bankruptcies, the cost of health insurance weighs heavily on our middle class and limits the ability of middle-class people to take advantage of opportunities to get ahead. Thus, the lack of a national healthcare system threatens the structural foundations of our political system, and therefore, our government must provide a national healthcare system in order to preserve the structural conditions without which the democratic political system established by our Constitution cannot survive.

The Constitution and Inclusion

Both the textual and the structural approaches may be used to support policies of inclusion. The general welfare should be seen to include the welfare of women and of racial and religious minorities, and we must see that if oligarchy is incompatible with democracy, an oligarchy of white men is unacceptable.

American Patriots Should Join Us

Thus, progressive values and progressive social and economic policies may be linked explicitly to the affirmative duties placed on Congress and the President by the Constitution. That is the way that fights for social justice were conducted in the Progressive Era and in the New Deal Era, and we can use the Constitution in today’s fights, too. If we do that, we will strengthen the appeal of our demands, and we will be able to say that supporters of our Constitution and all patriotic Americans should join us in making those demands.

What Should Americans Learn From the Holocaust?

 What Can We Learn?

The Holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered by the Germans between 1932 and 1945 is one of history’s great crimes, but what can it teach us? What can we learn from it that we can apply to our own country?

Ordinary People Can Do Great Evil 

One lesson we can learn is that ordinary people will do awful things to protect themselves and their families and to advance their careers. Most of the officials who carried out the Holocaust were not ideologically committed Nazis. They did not hate the Jews enough to kill them. The perpetrators of the Holocaust were just soldiers or civil servants who followed orders. That does not absolve them from responsibility, but it helps us to see that as individuals they were not all monsters. They were mostly people who were trying to pursue their own interests in an evil system.

Today, in the United States, we can see a similar process at work. The masked ICE thugs who sweep people up off the streets of American cities are probably not exceptionally cruel or brutal individuals, but ICE offers them a chance to advance their careers and to provide for their families. When they find themselves on a street in Los Angeles or Chicago, they do what the German soldiers did. They cooperate with the orders of their commanders, and they help their comrades to carry out the task they have been assigned. They follow orders. Our people are not different from the Germans. Ordinary Americans caught up in an evil system are capable of doing awful things.

Great Evil Develops Gradually 

Another lesson that we can draw from the Holocaust is that that extreme evil develops gradually. Over time, people come to support more and more extreme policies of violence. When Hitler was elected in 1932, most of his supporters probably did not envision the violence of 1938’s Kristalnacht when synagogues all over Germany were attacked. Those who participated in those attacks cannot all have envisioned the murders of tens of thousands of Jews in Poland, Ukraine and Russia by the Einsatzgruppen after 1939, and even most members of the Einsatzgruppen did not foresee the deadly efficiency of the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem as carried out from 1942-45. Those who voted for Hitler in 1932 certainly did not foresee Auschwitz, Treblinka or Sobibor.

We should apply this lesson to the violence currently being perpetrated by ICE in the United States.  ICE started out by arresting people at the border who had crossed into the United States illegally. They then progressed to conducting street raids using masked gangs of agents in cities far from the border. Then the masked gangs started to raid workplaces. A recent raid on a construction site in Georgia netted hundreds of people. Then, a few days ago, a masked gang of Border Patrol agents conducted a raid at night on an apartment building in Chicago. According to Time magazine,

At around 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning, armed federal agents rappelled from helicopters onto the roof of a five-storey residential apartment in the South Shore of Chicago. The agents worked their way through the building, kicking down doors and throwing flash bang grenades, rounding up adults and screaming children alike, detaining them in zip-ties and arresting dozens, according to witnesses and local reporting.

This raid was a textbook example of the unreasonable searches and seizures that are banned by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Apparently, the raid was conducted without a warrant. Our government is using a claim that national security is endangered and that therefore, the president may take such extraordinary steps to protect the country. However, the claim has never been substantiated, and it appears to be no more than a pretext to ignore the Constitution. 

We Should Expect an Escalation of Violence

We should expect that, unless the national security claim is rejected by the Supreme Court, the use of unconstitutional violence will grow because the method that Trump is currently using to arrest and deport immigrants is far too slow and requires far too much manpower. He cannot achieve his goal by using the method he is now using. He will have to escalate to more extreme methods just as the Nazis did.

The gradual escalation of violence leading to the death camps of the Final Solution came about because eliminating millions of people is not easy. Shooting people - even in fairly large groups - is much too slow and requires far too much manpower. So, the Nazis invented an efficient industrial solution: Jews were shipped to the death camps by trainloads, and they were gassed and cremated when they arrived.

Trump's program of deporting undocumented immigrants faces the same problem that the Nazis faced. He cannot achieve his goal of deporting all of our undocumented immigrants by the end of his term using the method he is currently using. There are estimated to be at least ten million undocumented immigrants in the United States. How can so many people be arrested and deported? Can the president's current method achieve his goal? A little arithmetic will show that the current method cannot succeed.

The raid in Chicago mentioned above netted 37 people, and some of those were American citizens who had to be released. If the raid netted 30 candidates for deportation, how many such raids would be needed to deport all of our undocumented immigrants?

If we divide our 10 million undocumented immigrants by 30 (the number netted in the raid), we will see that at least 333,000 such raids would be required to arrest and deport all of our undocumented immigrants. However, Trump will continue as president for only a little more than three years - let us say 1200 days - and if ten such raids were conducted every day, he would have carried out only 12,000 raids by the end of his term, and he would have arrested only about 360,000 immigrants. Even if we doubled that number to 720,000, he would still have deported less than 10 percent of the undocumented immigrants in the United States. 

Clearly, he will have to find a more efficient solution to his problem. He will have to resort to more egregious violations of our constitutional rights, and he will have to use more extreme violence to achieve his goal. His policy of replacing officials who question his methods with people who are loyal to him is designed to facilitate his use of ever more extreme methods, and he will find as the Nazis did that plenty of good people trying to advance their careers will be available to carry out his program. We cannot allow that to happen.

We must resist!

Gaza And The End of the Zionist Dream

The End of the Free and Democratic Jewish State?

The war in Gaza will put an end to the Zionist dream of a free and democratic Jewish state. The State of Israel has always been an imperfect realization of that dream, but the war will definitely end it. I write this in sorrow because I am and have always been a supporter of Israel, but we must face reality. I hope that the State of Israel will continue to survive and prosper, but it cannot do so as a purely Jewish state.

Why must the Zionist dream end here? To answer that question, we need to understand the contradiction at the heart of Zionism and indeed of all nationalism.

Zionism - the Jewish Nationalist Dream

The Birth of Jewish Nationalism

Zionism was born in a political world in which nationalist demands underlay many of the political issues of the time. The First World War was triggered by a Serbian nationalist, and nationalism underlay the creation of countries like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia from the remains of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The national aspirations of people in many parts of the world led to the collapse of the British and French colonial empires after WWII. 

European Jews took the nationalist idea and applied it to themselves. They said, “We, too, are a people, and we too have a right to a country of our own,” and they founded the Zionist movement. The Zionists were young and enthusiastic. They were political leftists and envisioned a socialist society in the new country that they were building. The collective farms (kibbutzim) that they founded were expressions of their vision. They also felt themselves to be renewing themselves and the Jewish people.  A song sung by the early settlers says, "We came to the Land to build and to be built."

The Contradiction at the Heart of Nationalism

The Zionists, like all other nationalists, ignored the contradiction at the heart of nationalism. Nationalism says that a national state is the political expression of a single “people” who share a common language, cultural heritage and biological ancestry. For example, a nationalist would say that France is the political expression of the French people. In reality, France is not the simple and natural expression of a culturally unified people. French culture was imposed on a diverse population. The French language started out as the language of the area around Paris, and at the time of the French Revolution, the language was spoken by less than 10% of the people of France. The French national school system, along with military conscription spread the language to all parts of France. All modern countries have similar histories. Their national cultures have been imposed on diverse populations. So, the idea that a national state is the natural expression of a culturally unified people is false.

The Blind Spot in Nationalism

Nationalists, including Zionists, are blind to this reality, and that blindness has led to harsh and brutal conflicts everywhere. The United Kingdom was created by suppressing the independence of the Welsh and the Scots. The recent Basque struggle for independence from Spain produced a long and bloody civil war. Today, Indian Hindus attack Indian Muslims. The Burmese massacre the Rohingya, and the Muslims of Northern Sudan massacre the Christian and Animist peoples of Southern Sudan. Tribal conflicts are endemic in many parts of Africa. Mexico oppresses the indigenous people in the southern part of the country. The United States was created by the extermination of most of the native peoples of its territory. The creation of the State of Israel has inevitably involved repeated conflicts with the Palestinians. 

A Bi-National State

The war in Gaza is a culmination of those conflicts, but it cannot resolve them. Some people still talk of a two-state resolution of the conflicts, but the time when that solution was possible is long past because today, nearly half a million Israeli Jews live in the West Bank. Some Israelis would like the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank to move to other countries, but no country has offered to take the Palestinians in. They have nowhere to go. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear that the State of Israel would like to annex Gaza and the West Bank.

If Israel annexes Gaza and the West Bank, it will acquire approximately 4.5 million new Palestinian citizens in addition to the 2.5 million Palestinians who already live in Israel proper. The total Jewish population of Israel is about 7.6 million. Thus, if Israel annexes the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians will constitute almost half of the country's population, and Israel will inevitably become a bi-national state like Belgium. It will be impossible to maintain the purely Jewish character of the State of Israel except through an unsustainable and morally unacceptable level of suppression of the Palestinians. ,

If for some reason, Israel does not annex the West Bank and Gaza, the conflict with the Palestinians will continue, and Israel's democracy will continue to be eroded. Israel's oppressive rule in the West Bank and the continuing horror in Gaza are incompatible with a democratic society and contrary to basic Jewish values.  

So, the Zionist dream of a free, democratic and Jewish state ends here.

A Dangerous Lie

Trump Says That We Have Lost Wars Because of Woke Thinking

Recently, our Grifter-in-Chief (GC) told one of the most dangerous and misleading lies that he has told in a political career based mainly on lies. He said, 

We won World War II. We won everything before, and as I said, we won everything in between, … And [after WW II] we were very strong, but we never fought to win. We just didn’t fight to win.” He added, “We could have won every war, but we really chose to be very politically correct, or ‘wokey,’ and we just fight forever.

In other words, our military forces could have won if they had not been betrayed and constrained by “woke” politicians. At first glance, this appears merely uninformed, but don't be fooled. It is dangerous. It is dangerous because it leads to the idea that if we had just “fought to win,” we would have won in places like Viet Nam and Afghanistan. It tells us that if we go to war with a more positive attitude, we will be sure to win.

The Truth About Vietnam and Afghanistan

Anyone who is old enough to remember the wars in Viet Nam and Afghanistan knows that this is false. We lost in those places not because our troops failed in the field but because the goal of our intervention was a goal that could not be reached by military means. In Afghanistan, for example, our troops defeated the Taliban militarily and thereby bought time for the Afghan government to solidify its position, but the Afghan government was corrupt and unpopular and could not solidify its position. No amount of positive thinking on our part could convert a weak, corrupt and unpopular government into a strong, popular, democratic government.

The same thing happened in Viet Nam. Our troops fought heroically and bought time for the Vietnamese government to become a popular, democratic government, but - like the Afghan government – the Vietnamese government was weak, corrupt and unpopular. It could not compete with the patriotic appeal of Ho Chi Minh. In both places, we lost because weak, corrupt and unpopular governments could not become strong, popular, democratic governments that could stand on their own. They could survive only as long as we propped them up, and eventually, we came to the unavoidable conclusion that the cost of propping them up was too great. "Wokey" thinking had nothing to do with the outcomes of those wars.

A Disaster in the Making

The GC’s claim that our armed forces were betrayed by “woke” politicians is similar to the myth that was propagated by German conservatives after their country's defeat in World War I.  That myth claimed that the German army did not really lose. It was stabbed in the back by socialists and Jews.  The myth served the purposes of Germany’s conservative politicians and provided one of the bases of the popularity of the Nazi Party. Our GC undoubtedly intends to use his myth for a similar purpose, and we must not let him do that. We must expose his claim for the lie that it is. The German myth ultimately produced a disaster for Germany. By the end of World War II, the country was completely in ruins, and the scholars who had made Germany the world's leader in the natural and social sciences had almost all left the country. The new myth will very likely produce a similar disaster for us if we allow it to spread. We cannot allow that to happen.

Why Is There No Effective Opposition to Trump?

 Trump is Not Popular So, Why is There no Effective Opposition to Him?

A recent article in The Economist discusses the lack of effective opposition to Pres. Trump in the United States. The article says,

If a single political idea has tied Americans together over their first quarter of a millennium, it is that one-person rule is a mistake. Most Americans also agree that the federal government is slow and incompetent. Together, these things ought to make it impossible for one man to govern by diktat from the White House. And yet that is what this president is doing: sending in the troops, slapping on tariffs, asserting control over the central bank, taking stakes in companies, scaring citizens into submission.

The effect is overwhelming, but not popular. President Donald Trump’s net approval rating is minus 14 percentage points. That is little better than Joe Biden’s after his dire debate last year, and no one fretted that he was over-mighty. This is a puzzle. Most Americans disapprove of Mr. Trump. Yet everywhere he seems to be getting his way. Why?

The article goes on to answer its question by pointing first to the fact that Trump is moving so fast that the institutions that might exercise some control cannot keep up. In addition, the article says, his control of the Republican Party is so complete that “… the party’s organizing idea is that Mr, Trump is always right, even when he contradicts himself.” Finally, the independent institutions that might constrain him suffer from a coordination problem. Their interests are not always aligned.

The Democrats Offer No Alternatives to Trump's Policies

I suggest that there is another reason for the lack of effective opposition to Trump: the Democratic Party offers no clear policy alternatives to the voters. We live in a time when working Americans are suffering economically, but the Democratic Party has not unified around a set of economic policy proposals to benefit working Americans. Gov. Newsom of California and Gov. Pritzker of Illinois show the problem clearly. They are popular among those who hate Trump, but their popularity is based entirely on their clever and very public opposition to his attempts to take over policing in their states. Standing against Trump or even against fascism is not the same as offering a program to benefit working Americans.

The Democratic Party is not without ideas. The party's left wing does have policy proposals to offer the voters, but the proposals have mostly been rejected by the party’s leaders and by so-called “centrist” Democrats on the grounds that the proposals are “too radical.” The policies are not really radical, but the people on the left wing of the party have never pointed that out. They don't explain how their proposals flow from basic American values. Instead, the left likes to talk about “revolution" in vague undefined terms and about "socialism" with no clear definition for that word, either.

Trump's Republicans Offer Concrete Proposals

Trump and the Republican Party offer proposals to deal with the concerns of the voters. The proposals are fraudulent, but they are persuasive. The Democrats offer no alternatives except to say that Mr. Trump is a fascist who is destroying our democracy.  That is true. He is trying to destroy our democracy, but that fact is not uppermost in the mind of a woman trying to support herself and her child on her earnings as a waitress. She has more immediate problems, and when Trump tells her that he will make sure that she won’t have to pay income tax on her tips, she is bound to listen. Similarly, a couple that is living paycheck to paycheck and barely able to pay its rent even with two incomes cannot spend much time worrying about the state of our democracy. When Trump tells the couple that their plight is due to the foreigners who have taken American jobs, they are bound to listen, especially when the Democrats are not speaking to them at all.

Democrats May Win in 2026, But in the Long Run, They Must Decide to Stand for Something That Benefits Working Americans

Democrats may win enough congressional seats in 2026 to end Trump's control of Congress, but in the long run, the party will not stop hemorrhaging voters’ until it unifies around a set of policy proposals that promise to benefit working Americans. Being against Trump is not enough. The Democratic Party must be for something, too.

Stress the Basic American Values That Underly Progressive Policy Proposals

Link Policies to Values Explicitly 

In last week’s post on this blog, I said that progressives must retrieve the ability to talk about justice with the vocabulary of class, and I provided examples of the use of a class-based vocabulary from Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s campaign web site. However, using the vocabulary of class to describe and promote policy proposals by itself will not be enough. Democrats must also link their proposals explicitly to basic, American values. They must show how their proposals flow from those values.

Basic American Values

Values From Our Founding Documents

Basic American values may be found in the founding documents of our republic, and commitment to those values is part of what it means to be American. Our Declaration of Independence says,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men….

Our Constitution tells us that our government was established in order to:

…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ….

These words say that our government has a positive duty to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare. Democrats can link their policy proposals to this positive duty.

Widely Held Values

Widely held American values may also be found outside of our founding documents. Ideas like equality of opportunity or playing on a level playing field may be used. Finally, we can reclaim patriotism by linking it to each individual’s responsibility to promote the strength, cohesion or competitiveness of our country.

An Example: Linking Basic American Values to the Policy of Free Post-Secondary Education

We can use the policy of free post-secondary education to illustrate each of these approaches.  

The Constitutional Approach

Here is the constitutional approach. Our government should use tax money to provide free post-secondary education because our government has a duty to establish justice and promote the general welfare. A just society cannot be based on the idea that the children of the wealthy who have done nothing to earn their parents’ wealth should have an unearned advantage. They should not be able to start their adult lives without heavy debts while the children of ordinary, working Americans have their financial lives crippled by debts. A government with a responsibility to establish justice and promote the general welfare should not allow such injustice to continue.

An Argument Based on Equality of Opportunity

Democrats can also link the policy of free post-secondary education to the idea of equality of opportunity. We Americans believe that fair competition is fundamental to our system, but a system that saddles some people with heavy debts that others do not have to bear is fundamentally unfair. It is like forcing some runners in a race to run with weights strapped to their ankles. Such a system gives an unfair advantage to the runners who do not have the weights on their ankles. A government with a responsibility to establish justice and promote the general welfare should not allow such injustice to continue.

An Argument Based on Patriotism

Finally, Democrats can relate the policy of free post-secondary education to our patriotic duty to do what we can to strengthen and develop our country. In the brutal international competition for economic primacy, we need all of the trained and educated workers that we can produce. We should not waste a large share of our potential by making it difficult for young people to obtain the training that they need and that our economy needs them to receive. A government that has a responsibility to provide for the common defense should do what is necessary to make sure that we have a sufficient supply of trained people.

This does not include only people trained in the STEM fields. The people who manage the technical folks need a much broader view of the world than that provided by training in computer programming or engineering, and our government needs people with a broad view as well. So, education in the humanities is also important.

Say It Over and Over Again

Whichever approach to linking to values is used, it should be made explicit, and it should be repeated every time the issue is discussed. Democrats should never allow the link between the policy and the values that justify it to be assumed. Instead, they should point to the connection over and over again. They should never allow the issue to be discussed without an explicit reference to the underlying values. That is how Democrats can build a consensus in favor of the policy of free post-secondary education, and the same approach may be used with any other policy position. The repetition of the link to values will gradually establish itself in the minds of voters and will help to build a consensus in favor of the policy.

Using the Vocabulary of Class Solidarity: the Example of AOC

AOC Uses the Vocabulary of Class

 In last week’s post, I said that if Democrats want to defeat the MAGA movement, they will have to recover the ability to talk about class oppression, and in an earlier post, I said that the anti-Trump movement will have to make hard choices about what it stands for. Fortunately, there are leaders in the Democratic Party who understand what needs to be done, and the best known of these is Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (AOC). Her campaign website is full of ideas about how the party can move forward.  (In the interests of transparency, I should say that I do not work for AOC or her campaign, and I am not recommending that you do so or that you vote for her. I am using her campaign website as an example because her positions are particularly clear and detailed.)

Her List of Issues Prioritizes Class-Based Concerns

Her list of campaign issues includes (in this order):

1. Medicare for All
2. Housing as a Human Right
3. A Peace Economy
4. Justice for Workers and Small Businesses
5. Real Public Safety
6. Honor in Immigration
7. Just Recovery for Puerto Rico
8. Green New Deal
9. Elevate Public Education
10. Women's Rights
11. Support LGBTQIA* Rights
12. Aging With Dignity

2.    Of these 12 issues, only 4 (numbers 6, 7, 10, 11) refer to benefits for specific social groups like races or genders. Number 12 refers to seniors, but seniors are different because everyone who lives long enough becomes a senior. No one is born a senior.

Moreover, the order of the items in the list shows that she prioritizes issues that affect all working Americans. The first five issues in her list are important to all working Americans. Not one of them mentions a races, genders or even generations.

Her Way of Talking Emphasizes Class Solidarity but Not Socialism

Her descriptions of her positions on these issues show how she thinks that Democrats ought to talk about them. She does not talk about socialism or class conflict on her campaign website although she has described herself as a democratic socialist. She simply says that her policies would be good for all working Americans. 

•          On Medicare for All, she says, “Medicare for All uncouples healthcare from your job.  It allows everyone to receive quality care that is affordable at the hospital, pharmacy or doctor’s office. It will cover primary, mental, dental, vision, women’s health, and emergency room care in addition to prescription drugs.” She is also cost conscious. “A national healthcare system has stronger buying power and can negotiate lower prices for drugs and medical equipment as well as curb the astronomically high administrative salaries."

• On Elevate Public Education, she says, “Our schools should never be on the chopping block, even when budgets are tight. Now is the time to strengthen our education system and make it more affordable to all, so that students are prepared for jobs in a post-COVID economy.” Her website adds, “Rising tuition costs have made college and trade school inaccessible for millions and saddled millions of others with student loan debt.  That is why Alexandria is working to liberate people suffering from student-debt and make our public college system affordable once again.”

• On Justice for Workers and Small Businesses, she says, "Far too often the United States government chooses to side with corporate wealth at the expense of working people and small business. This must end." 

This is a vocabulary of class solidarity among working Americans, but it is not a vocabulary of socialist revolution. It focuses on specific issues and demands incremental changes rather than revolution.  It focuses on policies that restore equity for all working Americans and not on issues that divide working Americans along the lines of race or gender. That is the way that Democrats should talk. That is the way forward.

The Price of Forgetting How to Talk About Class Oppression

Democrats Don't Know How to Talk About Class Oppression 

Democrats have forgotten how to talk about class oppression, and they have paid a steep price for their forgetfulness. In an earlier post on this blog, I talked about how the Democrats came to forget what had been the core of leftist politics in the early decades of the twentieth century. The anti-communist fervor of the time made it politically difficult to talk about class oppression without being accused of being a communist, and then, the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Movement gave American leftists a way of talking about oppression without mentioning class.

The Limits of Talk About Race and Gender

In this way of talking, the oppressed are said to be women and people of color, and the oppressors are said to be white men. There is some truth in this, but it hides the fact that while our country is indeed run by a small group composed mostly of white men, the majority of white men do not belong to that small group. Most white men are also among the oppressed. They may be less oppressed than working-class women or people of color, but focusing exclusively on that difference only serves the interest of the real oppressors. 

The Democrats' inability to see class oppression even extends to working-class women. They are among the most oppressed people in our society but neither the Democratic Party nor the women's movement - which is mainly a movement of business and professional women - has really addressed their concerns. 

On the wall of the office of the Democratic Party in the county where I live, there is a mural that exemplifies the way that Democrats have come to think. The mural consists of portraits of famous figures in the struggles for racial and gender equality. It shows people like Cesar Chavez, Harriet Tubman, Martin Luther King and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It celebrates their struggles, their achievements and their suffering. 

However, the heroes of earlier class struggles are not included. The long list of white men who have struggled, suffered and sometimes died in the fight for social justice in our country is not represented. As a result, the mural conveys the message - probably unintended - that the Democratic Party is not interested in the suffering of working-class white people or in their contributions to the struggle for justice.

The Price That the Party Has Paid

By focusing on race and gender to the exclusion of class, Democrats have thus come to appear to be indifferent to the oppression of white, working-class people, and they have paid a heavy political price for their apparent indifference. White working-class people in large numbers have given up hope in the Democratic Party and have joined the Republican Party. Some of this change was triggered by the Democrats’ support for the Civil Rights Movement and for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but that is not the whole story. It explains why the southern states shifted to the Republican Party in the late twentieth century, but it does not explain the success of the MAGA movement, which did not exist until after 2010.

Donald Trump the leader of the MAGA movement offered the white working class an explanation for its oppression.  He told people that they were oppressed because of DEI and because of immigration. This explanation was false, but it was persuasive, and millions of people believed him. He has also come up with a few policies that appear to favor working-class people. Eliminating the income tax on tips is such a policy.

Now, we are seeing the results. Trump has control of all three branches of government, and he is pressing universities and other institutions to abandon DEI; he is arresting and deporting tens of thousands of immigrants; he is close to eliminating the independence of the Federal Reserve; and he is pressing museums and national parks to downplay any references to racial oppression. None of this will really help the working class because the source of its suffering lies elsewhere, but in the meantime our democracy may be destroyed.

The Way Forward

If Democrats wish to counteract the MAGA movement effectively, they are going to have to rediscover the vocabulary of class oppression, and they are going to have to speak for all of our oppressed people including the white working class. The Democrats are going to have to find a way to talk about working class solidarity across the lines of race and gender if there is to be any hope for democracy in our country.

Is Reducing Taxes for Seniors a Trap?

A Movement to Reduce Taxes For Seniors

We are seeing a movement to reduce taxes on seniors, and it is a blatant attempt to make ordinary people fight among themselves instead of uniting to fight against the ruling class. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill included an increased deduction in taxable income for seniors, and many states offer partial exemptions on property taxes for seniors. States are also promoting income tax breaks for seniors.

One argument for reducing taxes on seniors is that many seniors live on fixed incomes, which do not rise as the value of their homes rises. Younger people, it is said, benefit from increased salaries in inflationary times, while seniors do not. Another argument is that seniors have “paid their dues” and so, they should be exempt from taxes in retirement.

The Movement Ignores Reality

The problem with both of these arguments is that they ignore the fact that there is a wide range of income and wealth among seniors. Some old people struggle to get by while others are quite well to do. Some are very rich. It makes sense to provide tax relief for seniors who struggle to get by but not because they are old. It makes sense because in a country as rich as ours, everyone can easily be provided with a decent minimum standard of living.

The seniors who are well to do or rich are a different case altogether. A person who is living comfortably can well afford to pay taxes just like the rest of us. A person who receives a sizable amount of passive income from retirement accounts or other investments does not need to be subsidized by the young. Moreover, seniors are big users of public services like Medicare and Social Security, and there is no good reason to allow them to shift the cost of those services to the young. In short, seniors who are poor should be helped because they are poor, not because they are seniors.

An Attempt to Split The Forces of Social Justice

We should see the movement to exempt seniors from taxation for what it is. It is a blatant attempt to create a rift between the old and the young in order to prevent them from uniting to work for a more just and equitable society for all of us.  Just as the ruling classes in the United States have often promoted racism to split the working class and to defeat labor unions, the ruling classes now promote special treatment for the old. We who care about social justice should avoid succumbing to pleas to provide special treatment for the old because such pleas are designed to weaken us in our struggle.

Keep the Focus on Social Justice For All

We must maintain a focus on proposals to advance the cause of social justice for everyone. A decent national healthcare system would benefit all Americans. A system of free post-secondary education would benefit Americans throughout their lifetimes by eliminating the crippling debts that burden Americans today. It would make it easier for young people to save for retirement, and it would relieve parents of the need to provide support for their grown children. Affordable childcare would benefit all Americans because it would allow working families to earn and to save more on their own. The baby bonds proposed by Darity and Hamilton would help to reduce the unreasonable disparity in income between lower and upper-class people that exists in our country today. These are the kinds of things that we need to focus on, and we should not allow ourselves to be trapped by proposals that encourage working Americans to fight against each other.

What is the Real Purpose of Trump's Tariffs?

The Tariffs Are Intended to Shift the Tax Burden to Working Americans

Trump’s tariffs are intended to increase the tax burden on working Americans so that the tax burden on the very rich can be reduced. The tariffs are not intended to boost American manufacturing. Trump's talk about boosting American manufacturing is just a sales pitch. It is fake just like the rest of Trump’s populist pitch. The real purpose of the tariffs is to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to working Americans and in this, the tariffs have been and continue to be successful. Many economists have taken the sales pitch seriously and have said that the tariffs will not boost American manufacturing. Trump has ignored their criticism because he doesn’t care. Boosting manufacturing was never really the goal.

The Tariffs Have Not Been Designed to Boost Manufacturing

The haphazard, arbitrary and scattershot way that the tariffs have been designed and implemented shows clearly that they are not intended to boost American manufacturing. A tariff that boosts manufacturing must be very carefully planned, and it must be narrowly focused on specific sectors that the tariff can benefit. Trump and his advisors know that. Of course, they do, but they have not designed his tariffs that way. Instead, they have imposed tariffs on all sorts of imported goods in an arbitrary and capricious manner that leaves businesses full of uncertainty. None of this would make sense if the purpose of the tariffs were to promote American manufacturing.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the tariffs is to raise revenue in a way that shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to working Americans, Trump’s approach is very effective. A tariff is a consumption tax just like a sales tax. Ordinary working people spend most of their incomes on consumption because they have to. Rich people, on the other hand, are able to save and invest a larger share of their incomes. Thus, ordinary people are more heavily affected by a tariff than rich people are. The president and his advisors know all of this. So, the idea that their policies are intended to boost American manufacturing is not credible, but the idea that the tariffs are intended to shift the tax burden to working Americans makes perfect sense.

Deporting Immigrants Makes Boosting Manufacturing Impossible But Trump Doesn't Care

Our president’s policy of deporting immigrants also gives away his real intentions. The policy shows that he has never really intended to boost American manufacturing. Deporting immigrants is incompatible with boosting manufacturing because manufacturing needs workers. There are currently almost 400,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the United States, and deporting a large share of our work force will not make filling those jobs any easier. Certain key sectors will be especially hard hit by the deportations, and one of those sectors is construction. Around 32.5% of the workers in the construction trades are immigrants. If they are deported, who will build the factories that boosting manufacturing will require? The president and his advisors know this, too. So, we must assume that Trump is lying when he says that he wants to boost American manufacturing.

On the other hand, if the tariffs are intended to increase the share of our government’s revenue that is paid by working Americans instead of the rich, the president’s policies make perfect sense, and in that way, they are already successful. The tariffs are bringing in substantial revenue. Moreover, this understanding of their purpose fits well with the reduction in income taxes that was recently passed in the president’s OBBB.

The Tariffs Are Working as They Are Intended to Work

This blog has said many times that Trump’s populism is fake. Neither he nor his party has any interest in improving the lives of working Americans or in creating manufacturing jobs. His real goals are the goals that the Republican Party has pursued at least since Reagan’s days. Republicans want to cut the taxes paid by the wealthy, and they want to eliminate government programs like Medicare that effectively redistribute income from the wealthy to working Americans. The populist pitch is just a way to attract votes to Republican candidates.

Critics of Trump’s tariffs who take his populist pitch seriously are missing the point. Trump and his advisors are not clueless. His tariff policy is working exactly as it is intended to work, and working Americans are paying its price.

The Supreme Court Is Becoming a Racist Institution

The Court is Becoming Racist

The Supreme Court is becoming a racist institution because it is dominated by originalists in constitutional interpretation. Originalism is inherently racist although it does not appear to be racist at first glance. Originalism is,

... a theory of the interpretation of legal texts, including the text of the Constitution. Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law.   

On its surface, this sounds like a reasonable idea (although some prominent legal scholars have debunked it), and there is nothing in the definition that appears to be inherently racist. However, the definition says that the Constitution ought to be interpreted in the way that it would have been interpreted by the people who lived in the United States at the time that the Constitution was adopted, and that interpretation was unavoidably racist

The Constitution Was Originally Understood in a Racist Way

The Constitution of the United States was adopted in 1788. At that time, slavery was legal in all of the 13 states. Both law and public opinion recognized that black people could be owned as slaves, and that view was justified by an ideology that said that white people were superior to non-white people both culturally and biologically.

Several of the most prominent members of the Constitutional Convention were slaveholders. George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson all owned slaves. Alexander Hamilton did not own slaves, but he married into a slave-owning family, and as a young man on the island of Nevis in the Caribbean, he worked for a merchant who imported slaves. The Constitution itself included the provision that only 3/5 of the slaves should be counted in determining the voting population of a state.

There can be no doubt then that the American people of 1788 must have read and understood the Constitution as condoning slavery and the racist ideologies that underlay it. Moreover, the racist understanding of the Constitution persisted for many years. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 showed that just before the Civil War, the Supreme Court still shared the racism of the writers of the Constitution. The 14^th Amendment - ratified in 1868 - established that anyone born in the United States was a citizen entitled to the equal protection of the law, but the decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson, which established the “separate but equal” doctrine, was decided decades after the passage of the 14^th amendment and showed unmistakably that the racism that underlay the “original public meaning” of the Constitution still characterized its interpretation. 

Thus, the original public meaning of the Constitution was unavoidably racist. It was written in a racist society by people who owned slaves.  American racism continued to dominate the interpretation of the Constitution for many years after the Constitution was adopted. Although the writers of the Constitution espoused ideals of universal equality and freedom that continue to inspire us today, they understood those ideals very differently from the way that we understand them today.

Our Understanding of the Constitution Has Changed

Only since the Second World War has our understanding of the Constitution gradually changed. Pres. Truman integrated the armed forces in 1948, and the “Brown” decision that outlawed segregation in schools came in 1954. The Voting Rights Act came in 1965. Today, we have advanced beyond the ideas of our country's eighteenth-century founders. Today, most of us understand the Constitution as being opposed to racism, and the bulk of recent jurisprudence agrees with that view.

Originalist Judges Are Driving a Return to Racism

Now, several Supreme Court Judges are returning to interpreting the Constitution in terms of its original public meaning. Led by Clarence Thomas, our country's most prominent originalist, they want to return to the racist interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed in this country until quite recently.  They want to annul the progress that we have made so painfully. They are turning the Supreme Court back into the racist institution that it once was. 

Stop Talking About Socialism

A Stupid Waste of Time

We are engaged in a stupid and pointless discussion of “socialism” vs. “capitalism.” Candidates on the political left like to call themselves “democratic socialists.” On social media, we see criticisms of ”End Stage Capitalism” from the left, and on the political right, we see people arguing passionately that “socialism has never worked.”

This discussion is stupid and pointless because it gets in the way of discussions of substantive policies. The discussion is particularly bad for the political left because - due to decades of Republican propaganda - the word "socialism" turns off most American voters. By choosing to describe themselves as socialists, leftist politicians actually reduce their chance of being elected to office or of enacting the policies that they favor. Of course, the political right is only too happy to label all of the left's proposal's as "socialist."

Leftists should deal with this situation by dropping all talk of "socialism." Instead of talking about socialism, the left should insist on political debates on the merits of its proposals. Such debates would benefit the left because the left's proposals are really very moderate. Nothing that the political left has proposed is particularly radical or new in the context of American politics. So, instead of claiming that its proposals are revolutionary, the left should stress their moderation. To see just how moderate the left's proposals are, let us examine a few of them.

Moderate Policies That Are Portrayed as "Socialist"

Medicare for All

One signature proposal of the American left is Medicare for All, which would expand Medicare to cover everyone in the United States.  This is hardly revolutionary. It is a proposal to expand a successful existing program, and the reasons for the expansion are the same as the reasons for the initial creation of Medicare.

Medicare was established in 1965 because it had become almost impossible for old people to get health insurance.  Old people were starving or eating cat food because they could not pay their medical bills. So, we established Medicare, and it has become the most successful anti-poverty program in our history.

Today, again, the cost of health care is driving millions of Americans into poverty.  Health emergencies are the most common cause of personal bankruptcy in our country, and every day, more of our people cannot afford adequate health insurance.  To solve this problem, the left proposes that we expand a very successful program to cover more people. That is not revolutionary. On the contrary, it is precisely the sort of pragmatic, incremental change that has always characterized American politics at its best.

Free College

Another signature proposal of the left is free post-secondary education at public colleges and universities. This is completely unrevolutionary. In fact, we used to have it, but under prodding from the Radical Right’s anti-tax crusaders, we gave it up. When I attended the University of California in 1958, the tuition was free, and the fees were $140 per semester. State universities in other states were just as inexpensive.  That was also the period of the GI Bill under which military veterans could have even these modest expenses paid by the federal government.

In the years since, radical rightist anti-tax crusaders have persuaded us gradually to reduce the states’ support for higher education and shifted the burden more and more onto the students. We have gone so far in that direction that the left’s proposal now seems revolutionary to some people, but it is not. It is merely a restoration of the normal, American way to pay for the higher education of our people.

Green New Deal

Politicians on the left of the Democratic Party have proposed the idea of a Green New Deal.  It proposes large investments in green energy projects that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and help to save our planet from global warming. At the same time, in theory, the projects would create millions of good jobs.

The Green New Deal sounds revolutionary, but in fact, it continues our long-standing policy of promoting the development of energy sources.  We have always believed that adequate supplies of energy were crucial to the development of our economy, and the Green New Deal merely redirects our energy policy toward promoting new energy sources that fit our country’s current needs in a time when the use of fossil fuels is endangering our country and its economy.

Today, we spend enormous amounts subsidizing the fossil fuel industries, as we have for many years. The Green New Deal proposes that we continue to subsidize energy production but that in doing so, we should focus our subsidies on green energy rather than fossil fuels. Today, the climate crisis has given rise to new needs, and we must shift our policies to meet them. Again, that is not revolutionary. It is precisely the sort of pragmatic, incremental change that has always made our country successful.

Let's Stop Wasting Time

Let us not waste our time in stupid arguments about socialism. Let us focus on real policy questions with real implications for people’s lives. We on the left should stop using the word "socialism," which turns off most voters, which has nothing to do with any real policy proposals, and which contributes nothing to advancing the cause of making life better for all Americans

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