Category Archives: Random Blogging

What If?

A couple of years ago–even before the new “Dark Ages” we are experiencing under the Trump Administration–I posted about a question that has obsessed me much of my adult life: what is the common good? What would a truly good society look like, and why does it matter?

I came across that post a couple of days ago, and decided that–if anything–those questions have become even more pertinent today.

As I wrote then, maybe it’s advancing age, or–even more likely– my growing concern that I may be watching human civilization disintegrate around me, but I increasingly find myself mulling over what i call the “fundamental questions.” How should humans live together? What sorts of institutional and governmental arrangements are fairest? What sort of society is most likely to facilitate human flourishing? What sort of economic system might ensure the subsistence of all members of a society without depressing innovation and productivity?

These aren’t new questions. But for those of us with grandchildren who will have to navigate this increasingly chaotic and angry world, they are critical.

Aristotle described the good society as one that encouraged and facilitated human flourishing. It’s been awhile, so I no longer recall how–or whether–he defined “flourishing,” but I can’t imagine people flourishing (however defined) under a system that ignored the requisites of what we call the common good.

I favor John Rawls’ approach to questions of the common good. Rawls–the pre-eminent political philosopher of the 20th Century–begins by insisting upon a “veil of ignorance.” The veil of ignorance is a scenario in which  individuals are placed behind a metaphorical veil that strips them of knowledge about who they will be and where they will live; they cannot know whether they’ll be rich or poor, talented or not, brilliant or mentally disabled, healthy or sickly, etc. From behind that veil of ignorance, the individual must design a society that they  would consider to be a just one no matter where they landed and no matter what their personal attributes.

The goal of the veil device, rather obviously, is to encourage respondents to think deeply about the structure of society, and to ignore to the extent possible the influence of his/her actual attributes and situation.

If Rawls is a bit too theoretical for you, several years ago my friend Morton Marcus penned a more accessible but no less important set of questions. Morton distilled the study of economics and economic systems into the question “Who Gets What?” In that essay, he pointed out that social and material goods are allocated in a more complicated fashion than most of us recognize. Depending upon the good being accessed, it might be allocated on a “first come, first served basis” or via the force/authority exerted by one’s government or family. The allocation might or might not be tied to merit–or at least, what society at a given time regards as merit.

Morton’s exposition was lengthy, but its major contribution consists of the reminder that “who gets what?” is a question that permeates our social and legal relationships and involves multiple decisions by government and the private sector.

Humans have a habit of thinking that the culture into which they’ve been socialized is “natural”–it’s “the way things are.” When “the way things are” is challenged– by technology, displacement, social change, whatever–most people will dig in, defending our world-views and beliefs about the way things should be. Typically, we believe they should be the way we think they’ve always been–the familiar cultural touchstones to which we’ve become accustomed and with which we’re comfortable.

What if we used these scary, unsettled times to consider what human flourishing entails, and to think about the kinds of systematic and social supports that would encourage individual flourishing?

What if we responded to the uncertainty and chaos in Washington, D.C. and around the globe by purposefully retreating behind Rawls’ veil of ignorance, and trying to envision the outlines of a better, more just society?

What if we didn’t respond to uncertainty and fear by clinging more tightly to what we know, to our fears and prejudices and ideas about what constitutes merit, and instead pictured different ways of allocating goods, of answering the question “Who gets what?”

What if?

Comments

The Best Thing That’s Happened To the Nazis

Last week, a friend alerted me to a Reuters article exploring the recent rise of explicitly Nazi organizations–a rise attributed to the favorable climate produced by the Trump administration. The lede really says it all:

HOCHATOWN, Oklahoma – Wearing cargo shorts, flip-flops and a baseball cap shading his eyes from the sun, Dalton Henry Stout blends in easily in rural America.

Except for the insignia on his hat. It bears the skull and crossbones of the infamous “Death’s Head” SS units that oversaw Nazi Germany’s concentration camps – and the initials “AFN,” short for Aryan Freedom Network, the neo-Nazi group Stout leads with his partner.

From a modest ranch house in Texas, the couple oversee a network they say has been turbocharged by President Donald Trump’s return to the White House. They point to Trump’s rhetoric – his attacks on diversity initiatives, his hardline stance on immigration and his invocation of “Western values” – as driving a surge in interest and recruitment.

Trump “awakened a lot of people to the issues we’ve been raising for years,” Stout told Reuters. “He’s the best thing that’s happened to us.”

As the article reports, Trump’s re-election turbo-charged the activism of America’s neo-Nazi organizations. Trump’s rhetoric, especially, has served to galvanize far-right and white supremacist activists, and encouraged growth in their numbers. That growth has been abetted by a variety of Trump’s actions: his pardons of the January 6 rioters, his use of ICE and federal law enforcement to terrorize and “disappear” immigrants of color, the virtual abandonment of federal investigations into white nationalism–and, of course, the administration’s consistent attacks on diversity and inclusion.

The Trump administration has scaled back efforts to counter domestic extremism, redirecting resources toward immigration enforcement and citing the southern border as the top security threat. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has reduced staffing in its Domestic Terrorism Operations Section. The Department of Homeland Security has cut personnel in its violence prevention office.

The article also reported what most observers (especially those of us who once called ourselves Republican) have seen; Ideas that were once considered ridiculous, unAmerican and fringe, have moved into the mainstream of Republican politics.  Election denialism and rhetoric portraying immigrants as “invaders”–joined by Trump’s public support and pardons for far-right figures–have served to normalize those views with today’s Republican voters. There is no longer a bright line between “mainstream Republicanism” and the neo-fascist far right.

That shift has coincided with a surge in white nationalist activity. White extremists are committing a growing proportion of U.S. political violence, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data project, a nonprofit research outfit that tracks global conflicts. In 2020, such groups were linked to 13% of all U.S. extremist-related demonstrations and acts of political violence, or 57 of the events ACLED tracked. By 2024, they accounted for nearly 80%, or 154 events.

The article reports that Stout’s beliefs, and the beliefs of many of the neo-Nazi groups, are rooted in the Christian Identity movement. That movement claims that white Europeans, not Jews, are the true Israelites of the bible and are therefore God’s chosen people. They also claim that Black Americans, under Jewish influence, are leading a Communist revolution – a fusion of racial supremacy ideology with far-right conspiracy theories.

The pseudoscientific notion of a superior white Aryan race – essentially Germanic – was a core tenet of Hitler’s Nazi regime. AFN gatherings brim with Nazi memes: Swastikas are ritually set ablaze and chants of “white power” echo through the woods. AFN’s website pays specific tribute to violent white supremacist groups of the past, including The Order, whose members killed a Jewish radio host in 1984.

The article documents the relationship of these emerging neo-Nazi groups to the KKK, and documents both their recent growth and their advocacy of race war.

When Stout was asked about why he believes these groups have been gaining momentum, he offered a chilling explanation:
“Our side won the election.”

Yes, it did.

Comments

It’s About Time!

Regular readers of this blog know that, when I address the threats posed by Christian Nationalism, I always put quotation marks around the word Christian. I do so because the movement we call Christian Nationalism seems–to this non-Christian–incredibly unChristian. I have several friends in the clergy, and they are admirable humans who follow a very different religious path from the proponents of bigotry and White Supremacy who have appropriated the title.

But because I do know wonderful people who identify as Christian, I have been frustrated by what I have seen as a tepid response by the genuinely Christian community to the usurpation of their identity. I would have expected members of the kind and thoughtful congregations that I know are “out there” to respond forcefully to those who are militarizing and distorting the tradition, but until very recently, there has been minimal pushback from people who are entitled to call themselves Christian.

It wasn’t until 2019 that Christians Against Christian Nationalism was formed, the first welcome sign of organized resistance of which I’m aware. And now, in an equally welcome response to ICE and its efforts to rid the country of Black and Brown people by categorizing them as “illegal immigrants,” a network of 5000 churches has organized to protect worshippers.

As The Bulwark has reported, a network of five thousand faith communities is now disseminating a blueprint for clergy and lay leaders who want to push back against what Trump and the agents of his newly emboldened ICE are doing to immigrants across the country.

This rapid-response action plan for churches and faith communities to protect people during ICE raids is the brainchild of evangelical pastor Doug Pagitt and his group Vote Common Good, which is not only providing these resources to the faith communities in his network, but also sending an open letter to the White House Faith Office calling for justice and compassion for immigrants, and slamming plans to open more detention centers like Florida’s Everglades detention facility. Thousands of faith leaders and congregations cosigned the letter.

The plan includes formation of rapid-response teams of volunteers willing to monitor reports of raids, verify them, and show up to raids as “moral witnesses.” They also coordinate shelter, transportation, and legal aid for vulnerable immigrants.

The activism of these congregations is largely in reaction to Trump’s over-reach: Churches are no longer safe from ICE incursions. But whatever the trigger, my reaction is “better late than never.”

The question that confronts adherents of all religions is deceptively simple: do you actively defend the core values of your faith, or do you simply wear the label? When that label is appropriated by people whose actions are diametrically opposed to the most fundamental values of your religion, what do you do? (It isn’t just American Christians who must choose a path under those circumstances; Jews in Israel who see Netanyahu’s actions as fundamentally inconsistent with Jewish values face the same decision.)

Of course, it isn’t just religious folks. When the fascists come calling, we are all obligated to choose a side. Lawyers must decide how dedicated they really are to the rule of law; university personnel must stand–or not–for intellectual freedom. These really are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls–the times that challenge us to decide where our values really lie and how willing we are to defend them.

Pagitt, the founder of Vote Common Good, has been disappointed to see the way church groups have been co-opted and bullied during Trump’s second term. He isn’t the only one.

“Much to my sadness, we’ve seen faith communities quiver and shake and be afraid like universities and law firms and so many institutions,” he said. “We want to be on the other side of that and say to skeptical people of good conscience to not play the silent hypocrite card.”

It’s encouraging to see the real Christians begin to stand up. The rest of us need to emulate them.

Comments

Follow The Money–Hulk Hogan Version

Regular readers of this blog know that I focus a lot on what I call the “information environment,” and its immense effect on our politics and government. I particularly worry about the increasingly fragmented nature of that environment, and the ability the Internet offers to occupy a “reality” of our individual choosing.

It isn’t only the proliferation of what we might call “alternative fact” sources, and the ease of accessing them. The so-called “legacy media” hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory. Respectable outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times have–for one reason or another (Jeff Bezos or ??) normalized the distinctly abnormal demented and deteriorating President. The recent rise of alternative sources like Substack has included some excellent truth-tellers, but most Americans lack the time, interest or background information needed to seek them out.

To call the present overall media environment unsatisfactory–to point out that the absence of truth-telling journalism endangers democratic decision-making–does not seem an overstatement.

Given the reality of all this, I was intrigued by a recent essay by Josh Marshall in Talking Points Memo (which is one of the reliable and perceptive alternative sources available.) That essay attributed much of the currently unsatisfactory nature of our media to Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker, which the essay called “a seminal event prefiguring and laying the groundwork for much of what has happened in the last decade.”

The facts are simple. Hogan was a tabloid celebrity. Gawker published a tape of him having sex with a woman who wasn’t his wife. Hogan sued Gawker for invasion of privacy. At the time, as Marshall wrote, “It was hard to take seriously that this was a righteous fight for the First Amendment…. publishing someone’s sex tape struck me as reckless, difficult to justify in journalistic terms and frankly hard to defend.”

Hogan got a $140 million judgement…. Without $140 million, Gawker couldn’t appeal. The company and its owner, Denton, were forced into bankruptcy. And that was the end of Gawker and its stable of sites. Some of those — Jezebel, Gizmodo, Deadspin, even the Gawker site proper (Gawker Inc. was the company that owned all these sites) have had post-bankruptcy zombie existences. But basically that was it.

That lawsuit was a critical event of our time, and Gawker’s destruction was a body blow to the First Amendment. Hogan’s lawyer, Charles Harder, wasn’t just any libel lawyer. He had whole new ways of going about it. After Harder’s victory for Hogan, his new approaches to attacking media companies were quickly folded into the Trump political movement, not just the strategies but Harder’s firm itself. You see them again and again in numerous Trump and MAGA world lawsuits.

It turned out that Hogan himself was the cat’s paw of Peter Thiel who funded the entire litigation. Hogan himself must have been a wealthy man but the bills of a major libel suit is a very iffy investment. Denton had suspected that someone was footing the bill behind the scenes — perhaps even Thiel. Money seemed like no object in how the lawsuit proceeded. Thiel took all those worries and risks away. Thiel held a grudge over Gawker’s past negative coverage of him and had been plotting its destruction behind the scenes. Thiel’s use of Hogan presaged the current world of billionaire lawsuits in which limitless money can overcome the weakness of meritless litigation. (See the recent Times story on how Elon Musk and MAGA attorneys general have brought Media Matters to its knees.) The rich have always put their wealth on the scales of justice. But Thiel’s actions opened new terrain, as did the explosion of billionaire wealth taking shape at the same time…

Gawker wasn’t damaged. It was destroyed. It ceased to exist. For what was essentially pocket change, Thiel got his revenge. In that one suit, you can see the evil vapors of Trumpism and its oligarchic billionaire milieu congealing into solid matter for everything that was to come. In so doing, Harder and Thiel radically raised the stakes for all journalism in the United States. The combination of billionaire money, novel legal theories, venue shopping and quirks of civil litigation at the state level (the fact that Gawker was prevented from appealing a judgement that never would have survived appeal) changed everything that goes through a publisher’s mind when they click the publish button.

It’s the new Golden Rule: he who has the gold, rules…and sets the narrative…

Comments

Standing Up For Science

In February of this year, a new organization was formed to combat the anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge MAGA administration: Stand Up for Science. 

The organization has three policy goals, the most important of which (in my view) is the first: ending censorship and political interference in the conduct of science. As the website reminds readers, science can only thrive when there is open inquiry and evidence-based decision-making. Stand Up for Science therefore demands an end to government censorship, including restrictions on the topics of scientific research that are eligible for federal funding, the restoration of public access to the scientific information that has been scrubbed from federal websites, and full public access to primary scientific sources.

In addition, Stand Up wants legal safeguards against political interference to preserve the integrity of federal research and communication and a commitment to freedom of scientific expression– protection of scientists’ rights to communicate their findings freely, without fear of retaliation or suppression.

The organization also wants to protect government funding for scientific research, and wants the government to continue prior efforts to ensure that citizens of all backgrounds have an equal opportunity to become scientists.

The site describes several activities that citizens can take to display support for unbiased, rigorous scientific research. Most do not require a science background–just a belief in the importance of intellectual honesty. But perhaps the most significant effort currently being launched is Stand Up’s demand that Congress impeach and remove RFK, Jr. for lying to Congress under oath and for failing to uphold the mission of the department under his charge.

You can read the organization’s entire letter to Congress on its website. A couple of paragraphs will convey the tenor:

Since being sworn in as HHS Secretary, Kennedy has falsely claimed that the Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine causes death, terminated $500 million in mRNA research contracts, canceled studies in vaccine hesitancy, dismissed all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and dictated changes to vaccine recommendations and timelines without scientific evidence. The list below—which we update daily—outlines key evidence supporting our charges.

During his brief tenure, Kennedy has continued a years long disinformation campaign promoting pseudo-science that has resulted in preventable deaths, the disruption of the world’s preeminent biomedical research ecosystem, violation of medical data privacy statutes and regulations, billions of dollars in economic losses, removal of public data, ethical and research misconduct in the production of government reports, the adoption of public health policies and guidelines that are in direct opposition of scientific evidence, and the unlawful termination of thousands of dedicated public servants.

I spend a lot of time on this platform advocating resistance. I realize that it isn’t always easy to find opportunities to participate in that resistance, but supporting groups like Stand Up for Science by adding one’s name to their declaration is clearly one such opportunity.

It’s probably too much to hope that the invertebrate Republicans currently dominating Congress will actually act in the people’s interest and rid our government of this massively unfit and dangerous conspiracy theorist, but the louder the calls for his removal and the wider the promulgation of information about why he poses such a threat to the well-being of all Americans can only help Democrats dislodge those poor excuses for legislators during the midterm elections.

Comments