Category Archives: Random Blogging

It Isn’t Left And Right

I’ve become convinced that the contending “analyses” of MAGA/Christian Nationalist extremism and its far-left antagonists really misses the real nature of our current political and social distress. The root of our dysfunctions isn’t really policy differences or political orientations. It’s fundamentalism versus broad-mindedness.

A recent article from The American Prospect about the death of the right-wing crank David Horowitz reminded me of a conclusion I’d reached several years ago, when I became reacquainted with a distant cousin who had moved back to Indianapolis after many years on the West Coast. I hadn’t seen him since college, when I was one of the very few family members who defended his very unpopular left-wing political activism. (Despite being pretty conservative myself at the time,  I was appalled when Bloomington’s then-prosecutor brought charges against my cousin and a few others for their “socialist” activities.) 

Fast forward some thirty-plus years, and–lo and behold–he’d “evolved” into a Right-wing true believer. Just as doctrinaire, but from the opposite political pole.

The article about Horowitz made the point that such changes aren’t uncommon. (Remember the intellectuals who defended their move from Left to Right as a response to being “mugged by reality”?) Horowitz was a communist in early life who transitioned into a rabid Right-winger.

Decades before “woke” became a term of derogation, Horowitz began raging at the academic community: not just the far left, but even social democrats who criticized the far left, like Todd Gitlin, who figured prominently on a Horowitz-devised list of 100 dangerous academics who would be fired if Horowitz ruled the world. Even conservative leaders who declined to drink the Trump Kool-Aid were traitors to the cause: Writing in Breitbart, Horowitz labeled neocon Bill Kristol a “renegade Jew” for the sin of supporting a different presidential candidate in the 2016 Republican primaries. Fellow former lefties who’d repudiated the far left for mainstream conservatism, like the Manhattan Institute’s Sol Stern, also ran afoul of Horowitz’s diktats for their failure to join the far-right Visigoths taking arms in the culture wars. In 2021, Stern co-authored a New Republic piece with Ron Radosh (both of whom had known Horowitz since his far-left days) in which they documented Horowitz’s career-long commitment to violent extremism. “In that earlier era,” they wrote, “he celebrated the burning of a bank by a student mob. Today he’s an intellectual pyromaniac who honors the MAGA mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6.”

Horowitz’ new certainties influenced some of the worst MAGA ideologues, including the odious Stephen Miller.

The problem with individuals who go from hard-Left to hard-Right–or from hard-Right to hard-Left–really has little to do with the “epiphanies” that trigger their philosophical changes. The real issue is their obvious need for doctrinal certainty in a very complicated and uncertain world. These are people who simply cannot tolerate the ambiguities of modern life–who are desperate for a world rendered in black and white, a world without any shades of gray.

Let’s think about that.

The noted jurist Learned Hand famously said that “the spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.” My youngest son has similarly distinguished “good religions”–which help people wrestle with moral dilemmas– from dangerous ones that tell people what they must believe and how they (and others) must act.

Neither of these insights are meant to suggest an apathetic approach to important values. They are, however, recognition of the importance of intellectual humility, what we might think of as a scientific approach to our understanding of the world we inhabit. (One of the reasons some religions reject science is because scientific hypotheses are always open to falsification. Absolute certainty is unavailable.)

Reasonable people can mediate or surmount most differences in policy preferences and political philosophy. (Granted, not all.) Fundamentalism, however, abhors and rejects compromises. It leaves no room for “agreeing to disagree.” The philosophy of “live and let live” that permeates America’s Bill of Rights is anathema to True Believers. 

Unfortunately, rigid adherence to any worldview– scriptural, dogmatic or ideological–inevitably leads to the drawing of distinctions between the ingroup of “righteous” folks and everyone else, and justifies all manner of inhumane behaviors.

I don’t know what psychological issues lead people to these rigid and dogmatic places. But I am convinced that the need for certainty, intolerance of difference, and the rejection of ambiguity and intellectual humility are far more damaging to the American Idea than the particulars of philosophy at either end of the political spectrum.

Comments

Shades Of Scopes

Christian Nationalists have tried to discredit science ever since Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Most Americans know about the Scopes litigation–probably thanks to the movie, Inherit the Wind–but fewer know that Scopes (and science) lost at that Tennessee trial.

It’s comforting, albeit misleading, to think that respect for science, the scientific method and empirical evidence eventually won out.

It’s misleading because the forces antagonistic to scientific research and verifiable knowledge haven’t yielded to logic or evidence. Those forces are alive and well in the Trump administration, and they are rapidly eradicating America’s longstanding global dominance in the creation of human knowledge.

The New York Tmes recently took a “deep dive” into the Trump administration’s war on scientific inquiry. Noting the resignation of the head of the National Science Foundation–a man Trump appointed during his first term–after Trump cut more than 400 research awards from the NSF budget, the report noted the administration has also slashed budgets for the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and NASA, and has defunded thousands of researchers.

The explanations offered for this wholesale attack are typical Trump hogwash. “Cost-cutting,” “government efficiency,” and my favorite: “defending women from gender ideology extremism.” It appears that numerous grants were eliminated simply because their descriptions referenced aspects of reality rejected by MAGA morons– climate, diversity, disability, trans or women.

Economists tell us that every dollar spent on research has returned at least $5 to the economy.

Nevertheless, Trump’s administration has defunded studies on AIDS, pediatric cancer and solar physics. It has laid off meteorologists at the National Weather Service; pandemic-preparedness experts at the C.D.C.; and black-lung researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The Times reports that a next-generation space observatory, already built with $3.5 billion over a decade, awaits a launch that now may never happen.

Predictably, American scientists are evaluating their options. France and Canada are among several other countries courting American researchers. A recent poll found that more than 1,200 American scientists are considering working abroad.

What is even more frightening is the administration’s effort to count as “science” only “findings” that accord with the administration’s beliefs–and the National Science Foundation will no longer fund “research with the goal of combating ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation.’ Why? The administration says that efforts to correct lies and disseminate accurate data “could be used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens.” And a Justice Department official accused prominent medical journals of political bias for not airing “competing viewpoints.”

I am not making this up.

The Atlantic has responded to this insanity with an article titled “This is Not How We Do Science. Ever.”

Since its first days, the new Trump administration has clearly shown where it thinks scientific attention should not be focused: It has attempted to censor federal scientific data, cut billions in government spending on research, and compromised care for some of the world’s most at-risk populations. Now, as the nation’s leaders have begun to encourage inquiry into specific areas, they are signaling that they’re willing not just to slash and burn research that challenges their political ideology but to replace it with shoddy studies designed to support their goals, under the guise of scientific legitimacy.

The article reports on several administration directives clearly intended to confirm Trump’s desired results.

This is consistent with everything Trump and his allies have revealed about their views on science since January: that it is not a means to better understand objective reality, but a political weapon that they must guard against, or deploy themselves. In recent months, Kennedy has accused the expert committee that counsels the CDC on its nationwide vaccine recommendations of being in the pocket of vaccine manufacturers; the administration has also fired from HHS several scientists who were prominent leaders in the COVID-19 response, including a few closely affiliated with Anthony Fauci, whom Trump has ridiculed as a “disaster” and an idiot and Desai derided as one of many “demonstrably fallible ‘experts.’” Last week, administration officials also redirected two federal websites, once used to share information on COVID-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines, to a page promoting the idea that the coronavirus pandemic began as a lab leak, rather than Fauci’s “preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.”

MAGA’s revolt against science is an important part of the GOP’s continuing rejection of the “reality-based” community.

A psychiatrist friend defines denial of reality as insanity. (See yesterday’s post…)

Comments

Cultural Revolution?

In a recent newsletter, Paul Krugman compared the Trump administration’s anti-DEI (i.e., pro-racism & misogyny) efforts to China’s cultural revolution under Mao.

Once you’ve seen the parallel between what MAGA is trying to do and China’s Cultural Revolution, the similarities are everywhere. Maoists sent schoolteachers to do farm labor; Trumpists are talking about putting civil servants to work in factories.

The Cultural Revolution was, of course, a huge disaster for China. It inflicted vast suffering on its targets and also devastated the economy. But the Maoists didn’t care. Revenge was their priority, never mind the effects on GDP.

As we’ve seen, China’s efforts failed–albeit not without years of unnecessary suffering. As I’ve previously opined, changing a nation’s culture rarely if ever works. But our would-be king–unhampered by anything suggesting intellect or competent appointees within his “administration,” is certainly trying to fulfill the most ardent wish of his MAGA base–taking American society back to the 1950s (or perhaps before), when women were pushing out babies and doing the dishes in the kitchen, and Black Americans were subject to segregation and confined to subservient positions.

That effort requires eliminating evidence of the worth and competence of women and Blacks. Accordingly, I did a search for federal websites that have been scrubbed of references to the contributions of women and black people.

Here’s what I found.

The Department of Defense undertook a significant purge of DEI-related content, resulting in the removal of profiles and articles about Army Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers, a Black Medal of Honor recipient; the Japanese American 442nd Regimental Combat Team; the Navajo Code Talkers (including profiles of Indigenous veterans; women veterans such as Lisa Jaster, the first female Army Reserve graduate of Ranger School); historical figures like Jackie Robinson, who served in the Army during World War II; the Tuskegee Airmen and Women Airforce Service Pilots; and notable gravesites of Hispanic and Black service members at Arlington National Cemetery.

Some content has been restored following public outcry, but many of those pages remain inaccessible .​

NASA removed profiles of women and people of color from its website. The profile of Rose Ferreira, a Dominican-American intern, was taken down and later reinstated after public backlash. However, the restoration led to harassment directed at Ferreira, highlighting the challenges faced by individuals whose stories were previously celebrated .​

The National Park Service revised its content to align with the administration’s directives. Those erasures included the removal of mentions of transgender individuals from articles about the suffragist movement; changing terminology from “LGBT” to “LGB” and omitting the word “queer;” altering language in articles about the Underground Railroad, including removing a quote and image of Harriet Tubman and the term “slavery.”

The Small Business Administration removed a photograph from its website depicting a diverse group of individuals, including women and people of color, in front of a whiteboard.

Other federal agencies that have complied include the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has removed content related to LGBTQ+ veterans; the Federal Trade Commission, which has deleted over 300 posts, including those reporting on antitrust actions against tech giants; and the State Department, which altered the language in international travel advisories, replacing “LGBTQ+” with “LGB” and omitting references to safety concerns for transgender Americans abroad.

I have no idea how many Americans visit these sites; certainly, the information that has been deleted is widely available elsewhere. (In the age of the Internet, erasure of information previously available is a pipe dream…) That said, these alterations provide additional evidence (as if we needed it) of the central preoccupation of the White Christian Nationalists and other assorted bigots who form the majority of MAGA adherents.

It remains to be seen whether those who supported Trump because he promised to reward their racism–to return them to social dominance– will be steadfast in that support despite the chaos and damage being done to the economy, public health, science, education and the rule of law, among other elements of accelerating collateral damage.

As Krugman admonished readers, looking for rational strategy in Trump’s hysterical assault on DEI and “woke-ism” (aka equality and humanity) is a fool’s errand. “Don’t try to sanewash what’s happening. It’s evil, but it isn’t calculated evil. That is, it’s not a considered political strategy, with a clear end goal. It’s a visceral response from people who, as Thomas Edsall puts it, are addicted to revenge.”

Mao couldn’t change his culture. I don’t think Trump will change America’s, either. But we’ll suffer while he tries.

Comments

A Battle Plan

Twice in the month of April, thousands of people turned out to protest the Trump coup. Here in Red Indiana, thousands gathered on April 5th and again on the 19th, despite cold, rainy weather. They gathered with clever (and not-so-clever) signs, and with determination (some in wheelchairs or with walkers). They came with small children and elderly parents. And they came in surprisingly large numbers.

There are plenty of nay-sayers who dismiss protests of this sort as wasted effort. They’re wrong, for a number of reasons. At the very least, those of us who have participated in these events come away with heightened resolve, recognizing that our concerns and anger are widely shared, that we stand in solidarity with others who are determined to protect what I have called The American Idea.

There are many avenues that citizens can use to resist and hopefully defeat a national turn to autocracy. In a recent Bulwark article, J.V. Last published a “battle plan for dissidents.” That plan was “half mass mobilization and half asymmetric warfare,” in recognition that– during the coming year– such tactics “will matter more than traditional political messaging as it has been practiced here in living memory.”

Last lists eight recommended tactics:

  1. Demonstrate popular power in the provinces through large-scale rallies.
  2. Use these events to organize the resistance into a mass movement that can be called into action.
  3. Direct the mass movement into targeted political strikes: Getting blowout wins in special elections; boycotts of Tesla; etc.
  4. Politicize everything: Attack the authoritarians for every bad thing that happens, anywhere in the world. Flood the zone.
  5. Elevate the corruption/graft in a way that pits the billionaire insiders against the “forgotten man.”
  6. When the moment is right, bring this movement to the Capital for a show of strength.
  7. Use this demonstration as a slingshot to take back legislative power in the 2026 elections.
  8. More importantly, use it to send a message to the institutional actors that people will have their back if they show courage..

While I agree with all eight, it is important to recognize that numbers 1, 2, and 8 are dependent upon the sorts of peaceful mass demonstrations we’re now experiencing. Large turnouts by everyday Americans of the sort we are seeing are a demonstration of power–people who are willing to get off their couches, create signs, gather and march with others are people who will cast ballots in upcoming elections.

The mechanisms used to inform citizens of these upcoming demonstrations will also serve as the initial organizing machinery for further actions–boycotts or strikes, for example. (I will note that those mechanisms need to be greatly expanded; significant numbers of people, many of whom would have been likely to participate, remained totally unaware of April’s protests. As the grass-roots groups sponsoring these events build out their informational webs, that will undoubtedly change.)

But Number 8 is by far the most important of the three identified purposes of these mass protests.

We would not be in the position we’re in if the GOP invertebrates We the People have elected to Congress were doing their jobs. Granted, some of these officials are as bigoted and ignorant as the current administration. Some are “out and proud” White Christian Nationalists rejecting modernity and enthusiastically applauding the destruction of the federal government. (Here in Indiana, that cohort includes Senator Jim Banks.) But a significant number of those elected officials have placed their ability to retain their positions–and escape the ire of the would-be King–over their obligations to the Constitution and fidelity to their oaths of office.

It is that latter group of “institutional actors” that can be moved by mass public demonstrations–by evidence that large numbers of their constituents will “have their backs” if they oppose the ongoing coup, but will vote against them if they continue to cower. (Are you listening, Senator Young?)

There is one other value to these gatherings that the essay failed to note, probably because it is hard to document, and that’s the informational value inherent in such events. In a world where people get their information from wildly disparate sources, significant numbers of Americans remain unaware of the actions of this administration and the very dangerous implications of those actions. When fellow citizens protest in great numbers, some of the uninformed will encounter information they didn’t previously have.

For that matter, protestors angered by specific issues are frequently unaware of the full range of Trump’s bad actions, given their rapidity and number. The speeches and signs at mass events expand participants’ understanding of the threats we face.

Education occurs in many venues. Protests are one of them.

Comments

Defending The Rule Of Law

As the Trump administration careens drunkenly from outrage to outrage, laying waste to the American Idea, there is one “through line” to the Dear Leader’s petulant and bizarre Executive Orders and (ungrammatical) pronouncements: virtually all of them violate the laws of the land. (My husband will read of some Trumpian action and ask me, “Can he do that?” and my response is usually, “It’s against the law, if that matters.”)

The Constitutional crisis we are currently experiencing is Trump’s disregard–not just for the laws he is ignoring–but for Court orders requiring him to obey them.

I don’t know how this crisis will turn out. I have hopes that the increasing numbers of protests will encourage at least some Republican Senators and Representatives to re-grow their spines (although here in Indiana,  Senator Jim Banks–a dim, smug self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist–is beyond hope). In the meantime, there are emerging signs that the legal community is prepared to defend the rule of law against our Mad King and his merry band of lunatics.

I was particularly pleased to read a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, because it confirmed a point I’ve repeatedly made on this site: whatever descriptors you want to apply to Trumpism and MAGA, “conservative” isn’t one of them.

As Josh Marshall wrote at Talking Points Memo 

If you had told me in 2005 that 20 years hence federal appeals court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III would be writing a paean to our lost liberties and freedoms under a Republican president, I may have politely suggested you seek some help.

The entire order is worth reading. Wilkinson clings to the hope that the judiciary’s “brethren in the Executive Branch” will recognize that the rule of law is “vital to the American ethos.”

Wilkinson’s defense of the rule of law is being joined by individual lawyers. R. William Jonas, Jr., a partner in a law firm in Mishawaka, Indiana, recently shared the following letter he’d written to the Indiana Bar Association.

I write today as a member and Past President of the Indiana State Bar Association, and as an officer of the court who swore on Oct. 9, 1981, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the State of Indiana. To fulfill my oath, I write today in the wake of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit attached here.

The U.S. government “snatched” Kilmar Abrego Garcia from his home state of Maryland, and, in utter disregard of his constitutional right to due process and a specific court order, and transported him to an infamous prison in El Salvador where it is now claimed that he is beyond the power of our courts. We know from reading the Fifth Amendment that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” And “no person” means exactly that – it includes everyone from Jesus Christ and the twelve disciples to Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy or Gertrude Baniszewski.

 It is the duty of the Indiana State Bar Association, to speak in support of the opinion of the court and the right of due process which is at the very heart of the rule of law. Some might say that we should be silent because we shouldn’t be taking political positions or because it might cause people to terminate their memberships. To these folks, I say that we all have sworn to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. This association is rightly proud of its efforts to promote leadership through the Leadership Development Academy and civic education through the Indiana Bar Foundation’s civic education program “We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution.” If we remain silent, what message do we send about leadership? About civic duty? If not us, who? If not now, when?

              Judge Wilkinson wrote

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but itmay present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believeour good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

Now is the opportunity for the ISBA to speak up in support of the right to due process and the rule of law, and to urge the local bars of Indianapolis, Evansville, Allen County, Lake County and St. Joseph County to take similar action. It is an opportunity to urge the faculties of Indiana’s law schools to join the chorus – as Judge Wilkinson says “while there is still time.”

Now is the time for all of us to speak up–and resist.

Comments