The Time Is Now

I woke up yesterday to heartening news: the liberal candidate had won the race for Wisconsin’s high court, and won it handily, despite the twenty-five million dollars spent by Elon Musk to support her opponent. (Actually, that is an inaccurate statement–she won, at least partly, thanks to Musk’s obscene financial support of her opponent.) And although Democrats lost the special races in Florida, they vastly over-performed in those deep Red districts.

Cory Booker had just stepped down from making the longest recorded speech in Senate history–a speech in which he laid out the myriad dangers posed by a lawless and enthusiastically corrupt administration.

News of these events came as civic activism has continued to rise. Town halls across the country have been filled with angry Americans. As I write this, a nationwide protest warning the administration to keep its Hands Off our governing institutions and constitutional order is scheduled for this Saturday, April 5th. That event will join an unprecedented number of prior protests: the Harvard Crowd Counting Consortium reports that “in 2025 our research shows that street protests today are far more numerous and frequent than skeptics might suggest.” In fact, “since 22 January, we’ve seen more than twice as many street protests than took place during the same period eight years ago.”

There’s a tendency to discount the impact of these gatherings, but they are extremely important: not only do they offer “aid and comfort” to citizens who might otherwise consider themselves alone in their righteous anger, research confirms that such events make both participants and onlookers much more likely to vote.

I’m not aware of any research documenting the effect of lengthy and impassioned Senate speeches, but it certainly seems that the incredible performance by Cory Booker on the Senate floor should resonate with the millions of Americans who are disheartened and terrified by the daily disasters caused by this insane administration–and  evidently it did. The Hill reported that more than 350 million people had liked Sen. Cory Booker’s floor speech on TikTok live as he approached 25 hours, and according to the Washington Post, before he was through, his speech had been liked on TikTok 400 million times.

Those are stunning–and heartening– numbers.

There was a lot to like in Booker’s oration, as Heather Cox Richardson reported. Booker began by invoking John Lewis’ admonition to make “good trouble.”

Standing for the next 25 hours and 5 minutes, without a break to use the restroom and pausing only when colleagues asked questions to enable him to rest his voice, Booker called out the Trump administration’s violations of the Constitution and detailed the ways in which the administration is hurting Americans. Farmers have lost government contracts, putting them in a financial crisis. Cuts to environmental protections that protect clean air and water are affecting Americans’ health. Housing is unaffordable, and the administration is making things worse. Cuts to education and medical research and national security breaches have made Americans less safe. The regime accidentally deported a legal resident because of “administrative error” and now says it cannot get him back.

Booker ended his marathon speech by reminding listeners that, in America, We the People are sovereign.

It starts with the people of the United States of America—that’s how this country started: ‘We the people.’ Let’s get back to the ideals that others are threatening, let’s get back to our founding documents…. Those imperfect geniuses had some very special words at the end of the Declaration of Independence…when our founders said we must mutually pledge, pledge to each other ‘our lives, our fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.’ We need that now from all Americans. This is a moral moment. It’s not left or right, it’s right or wrong.

Millions of Americans are recognizing the truth–and the import–of that last sentence.

We are not engaged in political policy disputes. The folks offering admonitions about “listening to MAGA’s discontents,” or “finding middle ground” have missed what has become ever more obvious, missed the point with which Booker concluded. The choice we face is not between policies A and B and policies C and D. We are not choosing between efficiency and waste. What we face is a stark choice between Constitutional governance and autocracy, between human-kindness and cruelty, between destruction and continuity, between progress toward civic equality and a return to the 1950s and Jim Crow. For Christian Americans, it’s a choice between actual Christianity and Christian Nationalism. For women, it’s a choice between individual autonomy and “the problem that has no name.”

This is a moral moment.

Comments

Left And Right

For several years, one of most annoying (and misleading) aspects of American political debate has been the insistence of participants on defining our differences as “left” and “right.” The MAGA cult, especially, has delighted in portraying all non-MAGA Americans as hated “libruls,” and–far from challenging their policy preferences–has displayed a child-like delight in “owning the libs,” seemingly unconcerned that their “successes” in that effort tend to hurt them more than their targets.

America’s liberals have historically been far more centrist and un-ideological than those in European countries, but today, the terminology simply fails to convey the reality of MAGA versus everyone else. So it may be useful to ask ourselves a question: In today’s political environment, what constitutes the “Left”?

Two paragraphs–an aside, really– from one of Heather Cox Richardson’s recent “Letters” provides an accurate answer to that question. While Richardson’s letter wasn’t focused on political language, the introduction to her discussion of the Trump administration’s devotion to Project 2025 aptly captured the essence of today’s political divide:

The craziness going on around us in the first two months of the second Trump administration makes a lot more sense if you remember that the goal of those currently in power was never simply to change the policies or the personnel of the U.S. government. Their goal is to dismantle the central pillars of the United States of America—government, law, business, education, culture, and so on—because they believe the very shape of those institutions serves what they call “the Left.”

Their definition of “the Left” includes all Americans, Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, who believe the government has a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, promoting infrastructure, and protecting civil rights and who support the institutional structures Americans have built since World War II.

Let me repeat that second paragraph, because it is an incredibly important description of our current reality:

Their definition of “the Left” includes all Americans, Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, who believe the government has a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, promoting infrastructure, and protecting civil rights and who support the institutional structures Americans have built since World War II.

The differences that existed between Left and Right when I was first involved in politics were far different than they are today. The Republican Party in which I worked for some 35 years (a party that no longer exists) had firm principles about the proper, limited uses of government power and authority. Admittedly, that party had its far-Right fringe, just as the Democrats had its collectivist-Left, but the GOP’s establishment was generally successful in isolating the Christian Nationalists and neo-Nazis that have always been in its midst.

Back then, establishment Republicans and Democrats argued about policy–about what constituted the proper and improper uses of government power, and/or the efficient/effective management of government programs.

What should government do about the struggle of poor families to feed their children? Should ameliorative efforts be left to the voluntary sector? To the states? If the federal government should be involved, how should its programs be fashioned?

When it came to foreign affairs, there was broad agreement that policy squabbles should not extend beyond the ocean’s edge–and a common commitment to a government that stood by America’s allies and promoted peace and democracy abroad. It’s true–and unfortunate– that America’s leaders too often misused the nation’s power and lost sight of the country’s fundamental philosophical commitments, but never in our history did either party heedlessly and overtly side with the country’s enemies over our allies.

Our internal fights to extend civil rights did tend to break down over party lines, but when I was an active Republican, the vast majority of Republicans I worked with rejected racism and agreed that the nation’s laws should be applied evenly and fairly. Today, MAGA Republicans’ devotion to Donald Trump rests largely on their wholehearted support of his efforts to take the country back to the days of Jim Crow.

Bottom line: The “libs” that MAGA delights in “owning” are the Americans who believe in retaining a government that operates under the Constitution and respects the rule of law. Full stop. We may disagree strongly about aspects of that operation, about the extent of federal authority, about the optimum contours of our social safety net, over what constitutes “merit”–but today, the “Left” that MAGA hates is composed of all conservatives and liberals who believe in retaining a government that answers to We the People.

According to MAGA, any American who wants to retain our democratic republic is a Leftist.

Comments

The Rubber Is Meeting The Road

Paul Weiss, an enormous and influential law firm, and Columbia University, long considered a top-rank institution of higher education, have bent their knees to the bully in the White House. They didn’t offer even token resistance. (Many in the legal community now mockingly refer to the law firm as “Paul Wuss.”)

Their cowardice threatens all Americans.

A recent essay in The Contrarian  quoted Rachel Cohen, a young lawyer who organized a letter of protest against Donald Trump’s unconscionable attacks on lawyers and law firms, and who subsequently resigned from her job at Skadden Arps, which has evidently also bent the knee. (She’s not alone; see The Telegraph, Junior lawyers revolt after bosses bow to Trump ‘intimidation’.)

“Big law has a huge collective action problem,” she said. “[I]t’s because we are so risk averse.”

As the Contrarian notes,

In a real sense, the collective action problem—no one stands up to the MAGA onslaught because no one else is doing it—now permeates much of civil society (including the press, law firms, and universities). Tech barons feel compelled to cough up $1M for Trump’s inauguration because they don’t want to risk being left off the podium. Paul Weiss capitulates for fear other firms will do the same. Faced with oppressive, powerful forces, it is much easier to go along to get along, keep your head down, and not call attention to oneself. (Hence, the entire Republican Party capitulating to Trump.)

At a time when too many Americans measure their worth by comparisons to others’ wealth, status, and influence, the fear of losing something–access to a politician, research grants, social status, or blue ribbon clients–can become paralyzing. “It is called a collective action problem for a reason—it is hard to break the passivity cycle. But that does not mean it is impossible.

The essay suggests changing the incentives. Law firms bending the knee can be ostracized by associates; universities like Columbia should be shunned by students, faculty, and alumni who understand the degree to which compliance undermines intellectual integrity. When institutions face a downside–shaming– for doing the wrong thing, they might be more inclined to stand by their principles.

Meanwhile, other universities can eschew the ground of least resistance. They can pledge to reject attacks on academic freedom. If and when even one prestigious university lays down such a marker, it will cement its own status as a prominent academic institution that leads with integrity. (Also, one or more schools can offer Columbia students the opportunity to transfer, or could agree to hire researchers whose grants were cut. The loss of prestige, students, and top-notch faculty can be a disincentive to cave.)

I would note that incentivising moral/legal behavior is only necessary for institutions lacking the integrity to act on their purported principles without outside pressure.

The Association of American Law Schools has published a blistering letter denouncing Trump’s unprecedented attacks on legal and educational institutions.

Taken together these actions seek to chill criticism, silence those who may seek to hold the executive branch accountable and intimidate lawyers…. The independence of our universities and judiciary, and the ability of lawyers to fully represent their clients, are at the core of our democracy and have long been supported by all Americans, regardless of political party.

The letter called for collective efforts to push back against the Trump bullies, including coordination with alumni, judges, local bar associations, and other schools, and for public and private demonstrations of support for those Trump targets.

As a former lawyer and academic, I found the immediate, craven surrender of Paul Weiss and Columbia incredibly depressing.  A law firm unwilling to defend the rule of law has shamed itself; a University (especially one with an ample endowment, like Columbia) that sells its integrity for a grant betrays the central purpose of academia.

If I were in the market for legal services, I would not employ a law firm that has shown itself unwilling to defend itself. If I was once again seeking an academic position, I would avoid any university unwilling to defend academic freedom.

Several law firms attacked by Trump (Covington and Burling, Perkins Coie, Jenner and Block, and most recently, Wilmer Hale) have refused to fold, unlike Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps. At this juncture, I was able to find only five universities that have publicly spoken out against Trump’s vendetta. The president of Wesleyan, Michael Roth, was first and loudest; he’s been joined by presidents of Mount Holyoke, Delta College in Michigan, Trinity Community College in Washington DC, and Princeton.

Their ranks must increase. The rubber has hit the road.

Comments

The War On Medical Knowledge

This administration is waging a war on all sorts of research, scholarship and expertise.

MAGA Republicanism has long been an enemy of that hated “elitist” devotion to knowledge and empiricism (remember Scott Walker’s attacks on the University of Wisconsin and the “Wisconsin Idea”? He wanted to change the description of the University’s purpose from “basic to every purpose of the (University of Wisconsin) system is the search for truth” to “meet[ing] the state’s workforce needs.” )

If there remains any doubt about MAGA’s animus toward scholarship and the search for truth, one need only look at Trump’s all-out attacks on Universities and the judiciary. The universities’ commitment to empirical fact and the courts’ commitment to “fact-based” analysis are incompatible with the madman’s desire to impose his own prejudices on the American public.

Perhaps the clearest–and most horrifying– example of Trump’s assault on knowledge and expertise has been his enthusiastic facilitation of RFK Jr.’s assault on medical research, including but not limited to cancer research.

As The Washington Post recently reported,

A federal judge might have paused President Donald Trump’s attempt to slash about $4 billion for biomedical research funding through the National Institutes of Health, but the uncertainty created by the administration is already taking an immense toll on science.

Many schools and institutions have preemptively implemented cost-cutting measures in anticipation of losing funding down the line. This will, of course, curtail all sorts of crucial research happening now on disease treatments and preventions. But it will also have reverberations for years to come — potentially affecting an entire generation of future scientists.
 
The NIH has announced cancellation of its prestigious internship program–a program that gave more than 1,000 college students the opportunity to work at the agency each summer–and the National Science Foundation has downsized its research program for undergraduates. Countless doctors and medical scientists owe their careers to these programs.
 
 
Johns Hopkins University said Thursday it had begun laying off more than 2,000 workers across the globe after the institution lost $800 million in federal grants cut by the Trump administration.

As the administration has slashed funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), perhaps no institution of higher education has been hit harder than Johns Hopkins. Among the programs targeted were a $50 million project to treat HIV while experimenting with machine learning in India and a $200 million grant to treat one of the world’s most deadly diseases in thousands of children.
 
Several other media outlets have reported on Trump Administration’s cuts to cancer and Alzheimer’s research funding, including the termination of a $5 million grant to the Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center at Columbia University. DOGE has listed that amount among DOGE’s “savings.” The vicious cuts to medical research have included pediatric cancer research funding.
 
 
The Trump administration’s effort to reshape the federal government through Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is raising fears among public health experts, researchers and advocacy groups of a massive brain drain and dire impacts to public health. 
 
Termination letters hit the inboxes of thousands of workers across health agencies in just the past week as the administration took a sledgehammer to the federal government.  

The employees worked on projects including studying infectious diseases, medical device safety, food safety, lowering health costs and improving maternal health outcomes. All of them are now out of a job.  

“The federal government has a huge footprint. [These layoffs] will interrupt all fields of research. Every phase of our scientific endeavor has been interrupted, including that research that is essential for our national security,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association.  

MAGA’s Christian Nationalists evidently want to take us back to the days when “good Christians” like Cotton Mather understood diseases like smallpox to be evidence of God’s displeasure….

To believe the Trump/Musk assault is on “fraud and waste” would require us to re-define those terms. “Waste” in Musk jargon is defined as any program with which he disagrees. The fact that Congress chose to establish a program or pursue a goal is entirely beside the point, as is that pesky Constitutional provision vesting Congress–not DOGE– with exclusive authority over fiscal matters.

If there is one thing that distinguishes MAGA and its White Christian Nationalists from the rest of us, it is a seething resentment of those who differ, and especially those they consider “elitists”–defined not as people with money, (they  worship oligarchs, no matter how obviously ignorant) but people with knowledge and expertise. 

They’re thrilled with Trump’s destruction of our government, and they evidently don’t worry that they’ll get cancer…or measles.

 
 
Comments

Trump’s Phony War On Anti-Semitism

If there is any aspect of Donald Trump’s “character,” (note quotes) that has been amply documented, it has been his bigotries. (Extensive research has also confirmed that agreement with his racial animus is a characteristic of the vast majority of his supporters.) Trump’s own virulent anti-Semitism has been consistently displayed by his numerous reported comments and social media posts, and by his ongoing relationships with, and support from, various neo-Nazi figures.

So the administration’s assertion that its war on universities is an effort to stamp out anti-Semitism is ludicrous. What he wants to “stamp out” is intellectual inquiry and free speech. And plenty of Jewish academics are having none of it.

On Indiana University’s Bloomington campus, thirty-eight current and former Jewish professors delivered a letter to President Pamela Whitten, Provost Rahul Shrivastav and Board of Trustees Chair Quinn Buckner, urging them not to invoke their names or Jewish students’ names as justification for limiting free speech at IU.

Jeffrey C. Isaac, James H. Rudy professor of political science, signed the letter. Isaac said the group opposes antisemitism, and he’s been involved in activism against antisemitism.

Isaac said existing laws and the university’s regulations and policies already protect Jewish people from antisemitism. He’s never felt afraid on campus, and his students haven’t said they’re afraid either.

“I don’t mean to question every person who says they’re afraid,” Isaac said. “We need to listen to them. But that’s different than saying we need to shut down anything that disturbs them, and that’s what’s going on in this country now.”

In the letter, with which I entirely agree, the professors declined  to be used as “justification for any action that further limits academic autonomy or freedom of expression at IU.”

We, the undersigned, have all been “Jewish students on campus” somewhere. Our children have been Jewish students on campus somewhere. We teach Jewish students on this campus. And we—unlike Gov. Braun or Education Secretary Linda McMahon—have known antisemitism firsthand. But we also know that our identities, both as Jewish Americans and as public university employees, require respect for free speech and tolerance of opposing viewpoints.

Those values lead us to remind you that IU has a responsibility to stand firmly for freedom of speech.

In coming months, Secretary McMahon and Governor Braun will seek your compliance in enforcing their vaguely defined prohibitions against “antisemitic harassment and discrimination” from “radical organizations and individuals.” The lessons of last year’s overreaction to the protests on Dunn Meadow, withdrawal of Samia Halaby’s Eskenazi Museum retrospective, suspension of Prof. Abulkader Sinno, and imposition of an overbroad expressive activity policy are clear: censoring legal expression—even in the name of bringing us together—only tears us apart.

The letter concluded,

These are fraught times for universities and other American institutions asserting their commitments to the protection of the First Amendment. Still, we recall the words of Hillel: “If I am not for me, who will be for me? And when I am for myself alone, what am I?” This university’s best means to protect the well-being of all of its students will be to affirm its commitment to civil liberties and to protect its academic programs from political interference. We count on you to do so.

Although it remains to be seen, it is unlikely that President Whitten–a politically-connected appointee who has thus far survived several faculty votes of no confidence, and whose response to previous student protests has ranged from unsatisfactory to appalling–will defend civil liberties against the assaults by Trump and Braun. But those who signed the letter, and the many others of us who endorse its sentiments, have made it clear that they do not consent to be cynically used by the blatant hypocrisy of Rightwing partisans who have a long history of actual anti-Semitism. We recognize this ploy as an obvious and thinly-veiled smokescreen for their consistent assaults on basic American civil liberties.

We know our history, and its lessons.

And if there is one lesson Jews all over the world have learned the hard way, it is that–like all marginalized minorities–we can only thrive in an open society that respects the civil liberties and free speech rights of all citizens, whether we agree with them or not.

Comments