Author Archives: Sheila

The Utility Of “Antifa”

Lincoln Square features some of the most acute commentators I read, and I found one recent essay really profound. I will quote several observations, but I encourage you to click through and read the entire thing.

The author, Kristoffer Ealy, began by describing his reaction to a clip from C-Span, in which FBI Security Operations Director Michael Glasheen  testified that antifa represents a major domestic threat.  Congressman Benny Thompson allowed Glasheen to “fully commit” to that assertion, before asking him a series of questions: where is antifa is based? Who leads antifa? Where is its central location? Of course, these are questions that Glasheen couldn’t answer, because–as most informed Americans know–antifa simply means “anti-fascist.”

Antifa isn’t an organization–it’s a political point of view.

As Ealy points out, what made this exchange so embarrassing is the fact that, on paper, Glasheen isn’t a clown like Kash Patel, “whose entire public persona is built on grievance cosplay and unearned confidence.”  Glasheen joined the FBI in 2001, and he knows how the agency is supposed to identify and document real threats.

Which is precisely the problem. This wasn’t ignorance speaking. It was acquiescence. A conscious decision to launder a political narrative through the credibility of a badge and a résumé, because in Trump world, repeating the story matters more than whether it’s true…This man is the fucking FBI Security Operations Director, and that title should come with a baseline expectation that he understands what words like “organization,” “leadership,” and “structure” actually mean…

That is Trump administration 2.0 in a nutshell: absolute confidence paired with complete incoherence. Serious authority chasing imaginary threats while refusing to name the real ones.

In Trump world, words like “antifa” and “woke” function as formless racist dog whistles– useful precisely because they can’t be located, described or inspected.

And because [antifa] has no fixed shape, no formal structure, and no identifiable center, it becomes a catch-all that can absorb whoever is already on the margins: immigrants, protesters, students, journalists, Black activists, LGBTQ people — basically anyone who makes certain people uncomfortable. That isn’t a coincidence. That’s the utility.

These endlessly useful abstractions are examples of what scholars define as Moral Panic Theory: a strategy in which political figures exaggerate or invent threats with the intention of creating enough fear to justify expanded uses of power.

The threat doesn’t need to be real; it needs to feel urgent. History is full of examples — crime waves that don’t exist, satanic cults hiding in plain sight, caravans that mysteriously disappear after elections. Moral panics work because fear lowers the standard of evidence….

Symbolic threats don’t endanger your physical safety; they threaten your sense of identity. They’re framed as attacks on “who we are,” not on anything that can be measured, tracked, or responded to by people doing actual work. That’s why the danger always feels enormous and urgent, while remaining conveniently vague. The threat is emotional, not operational — which is perfect, because you can’t SWAT-team a feeling, but you can scare people into voting over one.

Ealy is absolutely correct– this is how the warnings about “antifa” are intended to function. Antifa is a symbol meant to trigger “anxieties about social change, racial reckoning, generational shifts, and cultural discomfort.” When the enemy is indistinct and unformed, that enemy can be whoever the moment calls for.

This isn’t simply stupidity. It’s strategy. Amorphous enemies allow governments to police thought instead of behavior. They shift power away from proving harm and toward punishing suspicion, and that’s the part we should be wary of — not because it’s dramatic, but because it’s effective.

This dynamic is what political theorist Timothy Snyder warned about in his frequently-cited book “On Tyranny,.” It explains how authoritarian regimes get people to “obey in advance.” Such regimes use the Moral Panic strategy because it results in fearful people who actually know better complying reflexively.

That’s why Trump deploys federal agents theatrically. Why immigration enforcement becomes spectacle. Why entire communities are treated as suspect. That’s why Trump can casually revive language like “shithole” and know exactly what permission structure he’s creating.

As the essay concludes,

The only genuinely surprising thing about the exchange is that it took this long for someone to ask the obvious questions Thompson asked. Antifa is not the KKK, the Proud Boys, or neo-Nazis. Those groups have leaders, structures, recruitment pipelines, and documented violence. You can investigate them because they exist.

Policing an invisible organization is MAGA’s roundabout way of policing thought. And when fear governs, democracy doesn’t last long after that.

It’s really worth clicking through and reading the essay in its entirety.

Comments

Justifying Bigotry

Given the profoundly anti-intellectual posture of the MAGA movement, with its rejection of science and empirical fact, It seems positively counter-intuitive to speak about MAGA “intellectuals.” But a December New York Times book review profiled the men (and so far as I can tell, they’re all White men) who have mounted “scholarly” defenses of the bigotries that animate the movement.

The book is “Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right” by political theorist Laura Field, who has written broadly about the movement. She divides her “Furious Minds” into three main groups. “Claremonters,” are clustered around California’s Claremont Institute;  the “Postliberals,” want to curb individual rights in favor of collectivism, which they label  “the common good”; and “National Conservatives,” who “endorse a homogenous nation-state and often embrace elements of Christian nationalism.” She labels another, less cohesive group the “Hard Right Underbelly,” and tells readers that figures in that group adopt “aggressively silly nicknames like “Raw Egg Nationalist” (who has a Ph.D. from Oxford) and “Bronze Age Pervert” (who has a Ph.D. from Yale).” That latter cohort is extremely online, promoting what she describes as a “hyper-masculinist aesthetic.” Several are openly racist and fascist.

What all these groups share is a hatred of liberalism — defined not as a partisan political ideology that is left-wing (though they hate that too), but as a system of government that values individualism and pluralism. Postliberals like Patrick Deneen, a political theorist whom Field credits with “the most palatable, sanitized version of Trumpy populism that one is likely to encounter,” started out by criticizing a liberal establishment composed of mainstream centrists in both parties.

I read one of Deneen’s books–“Why Liberalism Fails”– a few years ago, and was repelled by his thoroughgoing rejection of America’s founding philosophy in favor of a theocratic state rooted in (his version of) Christianity. His dissatisfaction with pluralism and civic equality appear to characterize the other figures she profiles, who she suggests suffer from an “apocalyptic despair, replacing the hard work of thinking and reflecting on the world — in all of its pluralism and plenitude — with a reflexive embrace of coercive political power.”

In her book, Field also examines the fevered misogyny of the New Right, noting that terms like “gynocracy” and “the longhouse” have become “overwrought MAGA epithets for an unbearably feminized and pluralist society.” She doesn’t shy away from admitting the deficits of liberal rationalism, but she also reminds the New Right’s intellectual critics that they are able to indulge their fantasies of authoritarianism thanks to the “freedom and security afforded by the liberal democracy they loathe.”

In the societies they want to emulate, dissent from the preferred ideology of the regime isn’t tolerated. But of course, they seem convinced that the autocracy they favor would be founded on their preferred beliefs…

These “intellectuals” are trying to provide philosophical coherence and theoretical grounding for what is actually an emotional and irrational MAGA movement founded on revulsion for modernism and the social changes that they believe are eroding the dominance of White Christian males–hence their efforts to provide “principled” defenses of racism and misogyny, and the necessity of White Christian control.

As the Times’ book review concludes,

In a memorable passage, Field breaks the fourth wall and addresses the men whose cramped extremism has become so familiar to her. “You take the liberal world for granted, too,” she writes. “This has allowed you to don the language of grievance and oppression far too lightly, without having given enough thought to what oppression actually means — the kind of oppression that doesn’t let you love who you want to, or vote in free elections or not be disappeared.”

Field detects a strain of decadence underlying the fanaticism, with soft, comfortable men mistaking cruel titillation for insight and trying their mightiest to look tough: “It is unseemly, and it is unmanly, and some of you will miss your liberalism when it’s gone.”

We the People need to protect and defend the liberal democratic society that gives these ungrateful “cramped extremists” the freedom to defend the morally indefensible.

Comments

Another Year Is Gone…

It’s New Year’s Eve. Another year is over.

And what a year! Not only did America not make progress, we woke every day to the rantings and transgressions of a profoundly ignorant, senile, mentally-ill maniac who–to our everlasting national shame–occupies the Oval Office.

The good news is that the Resistance grew stronger throughout the year. Seven million genuine patriots turned out for No Kings Day, and smaller protests around the country have continued weekly. The lower federal courts have continued to block the unconstitutional efforts to turn America into a fascist state. Jimmy Kimmel is still on the air, thanks to the millions of Americans who expressed their displeasure by dropping their Disney subscriptions. Democrats over-performed dramatically in virtually every election held in 2025, from school boards to governors. Law firms that “bent the knee” lost partners and clients to those that refused to do so. Even Rightwing pollsters show Trump’s approval far, far underwater–and continuing to decline. And the MAGA movement’s bigots are fighting each other.

All of that is good.

If we can hang on, minimize the ongoing, daily damage being done by this inept, lawless administration (and avoid a “wag the dog” war with Venezuela) maybe we can make it to the midterms and a big Blue wave. As we enter 2026, I’ve got my fingers crossed, hoping for an even more robust resistance. (Not just my fingers; I bought a voodoo doll…)

In what I think is a good sign, the Chattering Classes are beginning to focus on the “after”–on the reforms that will be necessary when this period of insanity is over. I think it’s another good sign that the conversation isn’t about returning to an admittedly non-ideal status quo. After all, if America hadn’t had genuine problems with our governance, if we hadn’t closed our collective eyes to the glaring evidence of economic unfairness, if we hadn’t ignored the growing lack of civic literacy and engagement, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have been elected.

If we are very fortunate, and we emerge from the current nightmare having learned some valuable civics lessons, there will inevitably be arguments about what the necessary reforms should be. There is some uniformity on the structural side–guaranteeing the right to vote, overturning Citizens United, and getting rid of gerrymandering, the filibuster and the Electoral College, for starts.

And perhaps–just perhaps–we will have been sufficiently chastened by this current, profoundly embarrassing interregnum to admit to ourselves that America is far from “Number One” in social policy, and that we could learn a lot from those “high tax” countries whose citizens regularly rank as far happier than we are.

A resident of one of the Scandinavian countries was recently quoted pointing out something I’ve frequently noted: our fixation on “low taxes” ignores what he called the “real life” tax. As he said, when you add what we pay in taxes to what we pay for health insurance (and copays), college tuition and daycare (all of which are “free” in his country, in the sense that they are benefits paid for through their taxes), Americans not only end up paying considerably more than the citizens of those “high tax” countries, but our access to medical care, college and daycare is unequal. (When it comes to health care, our fragmented system also loses the substantial economies of scale–which is why we pay far more for far less than any other first-world country.)

Right now, of course, Americans aren’t debating policies, governmental or social. Right now, we’re just hoping to emerge from this cold civil war with enough of our constitutional infrastructure intact to make reform possible. So here’s my wish for the coming year: that the resistance continues to grow, that there is a huge Blue wave in November, and that an re-invigorated House and Senate discharge their constitutional duties of oversight and impeachment.

(Meanwhile, witch that I am, I’ll keep sticking pins in that voodoo doll…)

Comments

Disparate Impact

Nearly every day of the Trump II presidency provides another indisputable example of the White nationalism that fuels MAGA. The most recent example is the Justice Department’s elimination of its “disparate impact” regulations: As Politico has reported, “The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to end long-standing civil rights policies that prohibit local governments and organizations that receive federal funding from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color,” 

So what, you might ask, is “disparate impact”?

Disparate impact is a term describing practices that are facially neutral—in other words, practices or laws that do not explicitly discriminate—but that fall more harshly on a minority or disfavored group and can’t be justified by business or governmental necessity. 

Let’s say a rural county has a rule that, in order to become a licensed carpenter–one of the better jobs in that county– someone must be a high school graduate and weigh at least 180 pounds. Neutral, right? Except that in that county, Blacks are less likely to have completed high school, and women are far less likely to weigh at least 180 pounds. Proponents of the rule defend it by explaining that carpenters must be able to read plans and must be able to pick up at least 40 pounds of lumber.

Rather obviously, the rules mandating high school graduation and 180 pounds are ill-suited (at best) to ensure applicants will meet those goals. If that was really the (entirely appropriate) reason for imposing restrictions, applicants for licensure would be tested to see if they could read plans and asked to demonstrate their ability to heft the required pounds of lumber. Even if the discriminatory impact of the rules wasn’t due to intentional discrimination, their impact was clearly discriminatory. 

Allegations of intentional discrimination can be hard to prove. In my made-up example (based on an old case), absent probative evidence that the people creating the rules had intended to make it difficult for women and Black folks to become carpenters, a lawsuit alleging discrimination would fail.  The ability to base one’s case on a demonstration of the real-world effects of such rules, and the existence of reasonable alternatives better suited to the purported goals, would be far more likely to succeed. 

Which is why our racist and misogynist administration wants to go back to a time when it was necessary to prove intent.

The Department of Justice made the change in order to comply with one of Trump’s numerous executive orders. In an April Order, he explicitly called for an end to disparate-impact liability for discrimination and ordered federal agencies to stop enforcement of anti-discrimination laws based on disparate impact theories. 

The disparate impact rule has been in effect for over fifty years. It was based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was firmly established in 1971, in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Duke Power–the employer– required applicants to have a high school diploma and to take aptitude tests for certain jobs, requirements that were demonstrably not job-related and that disproportionately excluded Black applicants. The Supreme Court in that case held that Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”

As Politico reported,

The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to end long-standing civil rights policies that prohibit local governments and organizations that receive federal funding from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color.

Repealing the government’s 50-year-old “disparate impact” standards will make it harder to challenge potential bias in housing, criminal law, employment, environmental regulations and other policy areas.

Making it harder to challenge discrimination–making it easier to keep those “Others” in subservient positions– is both the basis of Trump’s support and the over-riding purpose of this profoundly unAmerican administration. 

I’d say “for shame!” if the horrible people in this administration were capable of feeling anything akin to shame–or even embarrassment.

Comments

She’s Right And She’s Right

A recent essay by Mona Charen in The Bulwark stirred an old memory. Many–many–years ago, I debated Charen at a local synagogue. I no longer recall the reason or the subject; we were both considered conservative Republicans at the time, although my very foggy recollection is that she was much farther to the Right (or wrong) on whatever issue it was. (Permit me to note that back then “the Right” was considerably more “woke” than it is today. As I often point out, I was pro-choice, pro gay rights and pro women serving in combat when I won a Republican primary in 1980.)

In any event, kudos to Charen these days. She is a vocal member of the Never Trump contingent, and an editor of The Bulwark, a decidedly anti-MAGA publication. In a recent essay, she critiqued Trump’s recent prime-time speech, under the headline “Can we get that 18 minutes back?” In the process, she made some very good points.

She began with an entirely appropriate sentiment, quoting someone named Tim Miller: “I was embarrassed. It’s really unbelievably stupid that we’re here, that this person is the president, and that that was real—that was not a spoof.”

Charen characterized the speech as “a waste of 18 minutes of prime time,” but admitted she’d nevertheless been relieved–at least Trump hadn’t used the time to declare war on Venezuela, which she’d feared.

There’s another reason for my sense of relief. Last night’s speech reveals Trump has no sense of how he might save his foundering presidency, or even much of an inclination to try to do so. Indeed, yesterday’s Republican meltdown in the House in the face of increased health insurance costs, a faltering economy, and the deadline for the release of the Epstein files tomorrow—all of these suggest a rough holiday season for the administration.

Which is good. A weaker Trump administration is better for America.

Charen then reminded readers that any former President would have used the occasion of a prime-time speech to reflect upon–or at least reference–the previous week’s tragedies. During that week, two U.S. soldiers had been killed in Syria, students were killed in yet another mass shooting at Brown, there had been an attack with multiple fatalities on Jews celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney, and the tragic, horrible murder of Rob and Michele Reiner. Trump ignored even a perfunctory reference to any of those events, although he had previously posted truly despicable “thoughts” on the Reiner tragedy to his vanity platform, Truth Social.

Charen then addressed a central quote from the speech–Trump’s assertion that “One year ago our country was dead. We were absolutely dead, but now we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world. And that’s said by every single leader that I’ve spoken to over the last five months.”

Trump has bragged before that he’s received such praise, naming those who have purportedly flattered him: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, “the king of Saudi Arabia,” “the emir of Qatar,” the prime minister of Hungary, and “every leader of NATO.” As Charen notes,

Trump is, of course, lying. Some foreign leaders, to flatter him and mitigate their risk of exorbitant tariffs, have probably told him he’s doing a great job. But it’s absurd to imagine that all the presidents and prime ministers of NATO countries have told him (as Trump has alleged more than once) that America was dead a year ago. To say such a thing wouldn’t just overtax their tolerance for self-abasing dishonesty, it would damage their post-Trump relations with the United States.

So why does Trump keep boasting that they said it? Because he’s a pathological narcissist. And because he thinks it will impress Americans.

If Trump really thinks rational Americans will be impressed by these transparent lies, he’s even stupider–and more demented–than previously thought.

Charen closed her essay by citing (and refuting) Trump’s insistence that he’s bringing prices down. Evidently, he expects Americans to believe his lie and ignore the contrary evidence they encounter daily. He seems to believe that Americans will believe him that they’re doing well, because (he says) Putin, Xi, and MBS have told him so.

The Bulwark, Lincoln Square and several other publications established by Never Trump former Republicans stir memories of the “before times,” when pundits, strategists and other assorted political junkies across the political spectrum argued about policy and what constituted good governance.

Given the ongoing takeover of legacy news sources like CBS by cronies benefitting financially from the antics of our demented would-be King, those Never Trumpers are providing a valuable service.

Comments