Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Ethics

If there is one thing Trump actually understands, it’s the utility of the “firehose” championed by Steve Bannon–the tactic of spraying the country with so much excrement each day that the body politic misses behaviors that would, in ordinary times, be scandalous.

Permit me an example.

While we have been distracted by “little things” like an illegal war on Iran, Pam Bondi’s transparent efforts to keep the lid on Trump’s multiple and damning appearances in the Epstein files, and the re-emergence of measles thanks to RNK, Jr.’s war on medical science, the goofball who is currently in charge of the Pentagon has been in a standoff with Anthropic, a tech company opposed to unregulated and unethical use of its AI product, Claude.

As the Atlantic has reported, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued an ultimatum to Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei. He ordered the company to strip the ethical guardrails from its AI models “or face the full weight of the state.” Hegseth accompanied that order with a threat that, unless Anthropic allowed the Pentagon “all lawful uses” of its Claude models, he would designate Anthropic “a supply-chain risk,” effectively blacklisting the company  from doing business with “any entity that touches the Department of Defense.”

To his eternal credit, Amodei refused, explaining that while he believed “deeply in the existential importance of using AI to defend the United States and other democracies, and to defeat our autocratic adversaries,” there is a narrow set of cases in which AI can “undermine, rather than defend, democratic values.” He concluded that the Pentagon’s “threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

As the linked article argues, the company’s stance represents a principled objection to the use of its AI for mass surveillance.

It is not opposed to autonomous weapons per se and has already carved out exemptions for missile defense and cyber operations. The company’s hesitation regarding autonomy is technical: Large language models are simply not yet reliable enough to operate without a human in the loop. Pushing them too far, too quickly, invites a mistake that could prove disastrous. Anthropic is asking for an exclusion on autonomous weapons not out of an ideological refusal to fight, but to allow for the research and development necessary to make such systems safe.

People in the Trump administration, however, are impervious to both logic and ethics. Not long after the Atlantic published its article about the dispute, the Washington Post reported that Anthropic had been cut off from all government contracts. The Post reported that the action “shook the tech industry” and hardened the political and cultural battle lines across Silicon Valley over military use of artificial intelligence.

As the article noted, Trump has now put all of Silicon Valley on notice: if tech companies want to do business with the  Pentagon they should be prepared to accede to any and all administration policies and hand over control of how their technology is used.

Less ethical rivals of Anthropic (including–surprise!– Elon Musk) have rushed in to pledge that their own companies would not question Pentagon policies, styling themselves as “loyal patriots.”

It isn’t surprising that Trump’s transactional administration would favor companies willing to trade their ethical concerns for lucrative contracts.  Last fall, the administration characterized Anthropic’s ethical concerns as attempts to manipulate the government with “fear mongering” about AI technology. Media outlets reported that the White House was “displeased” when Anthropic raised ethical objections to the ways in which the administration wanted to use its technology–especially its intent to use the company’s product for surveillance. 

The Atlantic article called this ethical quandary over domestic surveillance an “unbridgeable divide.”

Under an administration that invoked the Insurrection Act, or that sought to map domestic dissent, the Pentagon’s demand for “all lawful uses” of Anthropic’s models could become a skeleton key. Amodei articulated this danger in a recent interview with Ross Douthat, noting that, although it isn’t illegal to record conversations in public spaces, the sheer scale of AI changes the nature of the act. As Amodei put it, AI could transcribe speech and correlate it in a way that would not only identify one member of the opposition but “make a map of all 100 million. And so, are you going to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment by the technology finding technical ways around it?”

The answer to that question is obvious. The fascist regime that currently controls America’s federal government–and the Silicon Valley “bros” who are rushing to ignore those pesky ethical concerns–will be happy to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment.

Comments

Pro-America?

Americans have engaged in a longstanding argument about the nature of patriotism–and how it differs from nationalism. I agree with those who argue that a true patriotism requires allegiance to the nation’s founding principles, and includes an obligation to protest official actions that violate those original commitments. Nationalism, on the other hand, requires belief in “my country right or wrong”–blind support for wherever the nation’s leaders take us.

It has become abundantly clear that the various members of the Trump administration fall into the second camp, which brings me to the nationalist idiocy of FCC Chair Brendan Carr.

As a Daily Beast headline accurately put it, “Trump Goon Demands ‘Pro-America’ Content from the Networks.” Among Carr’s suggestions: broadcasters should start each broadcast day with the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ or Pledge of Allegiance” and offer viewers daily “Today in American History” announcements that explain “significant events that took place on that day in history.” (Somehow, I doubt that those history lessons would include the My Lai massacre or Emmitt Till’s murder…) Carr wants “patriotic, pro-America content that celebrates the American journey and inspires its citizens.”

Evidently, truly “pro-American” material would exclude televised interviews with Democratic candidates, since the memo followed a widely-publicized episode in which Stephen Colbert was forbidden to air a segment with Texas Democrat James Talarico, who is running for the Senate. Colbert had been told by CBS lawyers that airing the interview would run afoul of Carr’s decision to enforce the FCC’s “equal time” rule for talk shows, which had traditionally been exempt from that rule. This was not a one-off; a couple of weeks before this incident, Carr had launched an investigation into The View after it broadcast an interview with Talarico.

Carr is evidently as stupid as the rest of Trump’s appointees: Colbert published the video on his YouTube channel, where it has garnered more than 8 million views to date–far more than most of his late-night interviews. (It also generated $2.5 million for Talarico’s campaign in a mere 24 hours.)

An article in The Independent also covered Carr’s request that broadcasters join his Pledge America Campaign–a promise to air “patriotic, pro-America content that celebrates the American journey and inspires its citizens by highlighting the historic accomplishments of this great nation from our founding through the Trump Administration today.”

Carr rather clearly doesn’t understand what it means to be a truly patriotic “pro American.” Anna Gomez–who is the only Democratic Commissioner at the FCC, took to X to school him, writing that “Nothing is more American than defending our constitutional rights against those who would erode our civil liberties. If broadcasters choose to participate in this FCC campaign, they can do so by defending their First Amendment rights and refusing government interference.”

Carr and his tone-deaf efforts to undermine the First Amendment are just one aspect of the Trump administration’s nationalism–a nationalism that is far from patriotic. Historians and political scientists define patriotism as affection, pride, and support for the shared values of one’s country, and a commitment to support national improvement. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a devotion to “blood and soil.” It emphasizes the superiority of the nation over others, and fosters exclusionary, competitive, and aggressive attitudes toward foreign nations.

There’s an excellent quote attributed to someone named Sydney Harris: “the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does.” Precisely.

After the close of the Olympics, the New York Times published an article titled “At the Olympics, I Saw the Difference Between Nationalism and Patriotism.” It traced that distinction with references to the conduct of both athletes and audiences, and strongly rebutted J.D. Vance’s insistence that America’s “distinct national culture is part of what makes international institutions suspect, immigration threatening and alliances based on shared principles unwise.” The essay concluded:

With our wallets, our attention, our time and our collective groans with every fall and cheers for every newly realized lifelong dream, the world’s citizens are sending a message: We proudly root for our countries, but we are more than just our countries. And in many cases we are better — much better — than the governments in charge of them.

To be “pro America” is to be patriotic–not nationalistic. Too bad Trump and Carr don’t understand the difference.

Comments

Who’s Benefitting?

The corruption on display by the Trump administration just keeps growing. Metastasizing, actually.

A reader recently sent me a video that reported on a little-noted element of ICE’s efforts to acquire warehouses. There’s been a lot of pushback from locals who object to the purchases on the grounds that they will be barely-veiled concentration camps, but I had not previously encountered a different objection, an itemization of the obscene overpayments being made— sales prices that are wildly inflated over assessed values and/or recent, previous acquisition costs, with the identity of those profiting from these transactions difficult to determine.

The woman in the linked video asks a reasonable question: who’s benefiting from this boondoggle?

It’s difficult to grasp the astonishing degree of corruption of the Trump administration–not just the official favors being done for the president’s billionaire cronies (the tax cuts and official permits and terminations of investigations begun under previous administrations), but the numerous outright bribes from foreign countries and domestic fat cats. (The Center for American Progress estimates the Trump family has taken in 1.8 billion in cash and gifts.)

This outright looting has certainly not been accompanied by any moves benefitting the American people. It’s a shame that the length of Trump’s meandering, bloated and mendacious State of the Union speech kept so many people from seeing or hearing the Democratic rebuttal presented by Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger–as a recent post from the Contrarian reported, it was a concise and effective 13 minutes.

Spanberger began with three simple questions: Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family?Is the president working to keep Americans safe — both at home and abroad? Is the President working for YOU? She proceeded to point out that Trump’s reckless trade policies have cost American families an average of $1,700 each. (Despite Trump’s insistence that tariffs are paid by foreign countries, they aren’t–as every economist, liberal or conservative, has pointed out, they are a tax on Americans, intended to offset the revenues lost thanks to the deep tax cuts for the wealthy.)  

Spanberger also highlighted the escalating closures of rural health clinics, thanks to provisions in Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” 

And tonight, the President celebrated this law — the one threatening rural hospitals, stripping healthcare from millions of Americans, and driving up costs in energy and housing. All while cutting food programs for hungry kids.

Spanberger–who was an intelligence officer with the CIA before entering politics–then turned to the question of public safety, pointing out that ICE’s time spent sowing fear is time “not spent investigating murders, crimes against children, or the criminals defrauding seniors of their life savings.” Worse still, Trump has destroyed America’s reputation as a force for good in the world–outcomes she attributed to the appointment of “deeply unserious people to our nation’s most serious positions.”

Turning to the third of her questions, Spanberger ticked off the multiple grifts of an administration that she quite accurately accused of being the most corrupt in memory. Not only is Trump enriching himself, his family, and his friends at a scale that is unprecedented–“cozying up to foreign princes for airplanes and billionaires for ballrooms”–there’s the ongoing cover-up of the Epstein files, the crypto scams, and the embarrassing plastering of his name and face on buildings all over our nation’s capital.

Spanberger ended her thirteen minutes by reminding her listeners that We the People have the power to stop the desecration of the American Idea. We have the power–and the obligation–to put an end to what is truly a massive theft, not just of our funds, but of America’s founding philosophy.

As she concluded,

George Washington warned us about the possibility of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men” rising to power. But he also encouraged us — all Americans — to unite in “a common cause” to move this nation forward.

That is our charge once more. And that is what we are seeing across the country.

It is deeply American and patriotic to do so, and it is how we ensure that the State of our Union remains strong, not just this year but for the next 250 years as well.

If we’ve learned anything from the slow drip of the Epstein files, it is that a class of wealthy and entitled individuals consider themselves above the laws that govern us “little people.” That sense of impunity has now led to unprecedented corruption and the wholesale looting of dollars meant to provide for the public good.

“It’s time for a change” has never been a more powerful slogan.

Comments

Rights Aren’t Just For People We LIke

One of the pithier explanations of the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment was written by Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in a case titled United States v. Schwimmer. In that opinion, Holmes wrote that “if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Holmes was acknowledging the obvious: majorities don’t seek to censor popular opinions. They seek to suppress the “ideas we hate,” the beliefs and utterances that they find offensive.

That lesson–that rights are universal, and not reserved for people with whom we agree or people we consider part of our “tribes”–was one of the most difficult for my undergraduate students to learn. Surely the government can sanction people we know are lying! Surely the City Council can pass ordinances against material we consider smut! Surely religious liberty doesn’t mean that atheists and Satanists have the same rights as good Christians!

That pesky principle–that rights also apply to disfavored folks–was the subject of a recent article in the Washington Post,describing yet another aspect of Trump’s inability to grasp that simple concept, or the fact that people he hates (and boy, there are a lot of them!) are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

This particular evidence of Trump’s ignorance involved the pardon power.

As Biden prepared to leave the presidency, he had used that power to commute the sentences of 37 of the 40 federal prisoners awaiting execution. He didn’t free them; the commutation meant that they will serve life in prison. The article reports that Trump “was outraged at this decision and set out to roll it back.”

Ironically, if Biden had pardoned the murderers altogether or had them released (which would have been constitutionally possible but politically scandalous), Trump couldn’t have done anything about it. But because they remain under life sentences, his administration can still influence their fates. It can’t lawfully kill them, but it can dictate the conditions of their confinement.

Our vicious President issued an executive order on his very first day back in office, declaring his intent to “ensure that these offenders are imprisoned in conditions consistent with the monstrosity of their crimes.” The Justice Department that he has turned into a weapon he controls proceeded to implement the directive by sending those prisoners to the most isolating imprisonment possible — “a ‘supermax’ facility that cuts inmates off from most human contact.”

A number of the affected prisoners brought suit.  U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee in the District of Columbia, ruled that the transfer violated the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, at least in their cases.

As the article points out, It’s a decision that “cuts to the heart of the rule of law.”

Kelly’s opinion is on appeal, and given the unprecedented leeway granted to Trump by the Supreme Court, there’s no telling what the final outcome will be. But as the article points out, Trump’s effort to undo Biden’s clemency is a warning about Trump’s own flagrant misuse of the pardon power, including the threat that it might encourage future presidential successors to “reach for more boundary-pushing ways to get around past pardons.”

Trump has been nothing but “boundary-pushing.” Most pundits attribute that boundary-pushing–more properly labeled illegality–to Trump’s overwhelming desire for power, to the self-aggrandizement that he has displayed throughout his life. That explanation, however, assumes a degree of “knowingness”–a deliberate decision to ignore restraints that he doesn’t believe should apply to him.

I think that’s wrong.

If We the People have learned anything about this sad excuse for a human being, it is that he isn’t just mentally ill, isn’t just slipping into a senility that is getting harder and harder to ignore. He is also profoundly ignorant. He has consistently manifested a lack of understanding of–or even a basic familiarity with– the Constitution he took an oath to defend. He is quite clearly incapable of understanding the quote by Holmes with which I began this post, and if he did understand it, he would reject it.

What We the People have come to understand is the immense–and in many cases, irreversible– damage that can be done to a nation when it elevates a profoundly flawed, incompetent and thoroughly vicious man-child to a position of power.

Comments

How To Disenfranchise A Population

Every American who paid even the least amount of attention in history class is familiar with the phrase “No taxation without representation.” It was a rallying cry during the war for independence, and it has re-entered our national conversation. As economists have pointed out, Trump’s insane tariffs are really taxes on American consumers, taxes that our elected Senators and Representatives did not impose, despite that pesky constitutional provision to the effect that taxation is exclusively within the legislature’s jurisdiction.

Lincoln Square has recently considered the issue from another perspective. The linked essay argues that–thanks to systemic flaws–We the People no longer have representation. Neither the tax burden nor policy decisions are guided by the votes of citizens.

The analysis is persuasive. The essay points out that gerrymandering has diluted representation, that establishment of a 435-member ceiling for the House of Representatives caused representation to continually thin as the population grew, and that the Electoral College allows Presidents to be elected by a minority of voters. Add to that the growing malapportionment of the Senate and a variety of what the essay calls “veto points”–very much including the filibuster–and we have structures that have–little by little– given popular minorities durable governing power without requiring explicit legal disenfranchisement.

I keep thinking of that “frog in boiling water” analogy…

Under Trump, these flaws are being further exploited to permit wildly unpopular and damaging policies (environmental, health, ICE), and what the essay calls “conditional provision of services.” The administration has withheld or delayed delivery of congressionally authorized funds to institutions and programs of which Trump disapproves, and especially to Blue states. Taxation without representation? “When residents of those states continue to pay federal taxes while services are delayed, conditioned, or withdrawn, the resemblance to the original colonial grievance becomes difficult to ignore.”

It’s hard to dispute the author’s assertion that these structural flaws, resulting in minority rule, vote dilution, and conditional governance—have created a legitimacy crisis, and represent “the most serious institutional stress test of the American political system since the Civil War.”

The claim is structural: the United States has long maintained systems capable of separating contribution from control. Minority rule through malapportioned institutions. Vote dilution through engineered districts and capped representation. And—most destabilizing in practice—governance that becomes conditional, where baseline services and administrative capacity are experienced as leverage rather than as citizenship guarantees.

In a weird way, our present situation mirrors that of the Revolution. As the author notes, those participating in the Boston Tea Party weren’t just objecting to a tax. They were objecting to a system in which “representation existed in theory but not in practice.” American victory in the Revolutionary War was followed by the establishment of a system that may have been democratic in aspiration, but was–as the essay asserts– oligarchic in structure, not to mention selectively enforced.

And as the essay reminds us, those undemocratic mechanisms are still with us, albeit in altered form. Gerrymandering has replaced the explicit disenfranchisement of disfavored populations with “engineered outcomes.” The cap on House membership has diluted representation. The Senate is the epitome of minority rule–states with some thirty percent of the population have the same number of Senators as states with seventy percent, while the Electoral College enables presidents to assume office despite losing a majority of the vote.

In other words, while voting has persisted, power no longer follows. As the essay concludes, real representation has become lost within “a dense architecture of veto points capable of absorbing popular dissatisfaction without producing institutional change. Elections became mechanisms of rotation rather than accountability.”

At this point, America’s election outcomes increasingly fail to direct or even influence national policy. We have formal “democratic” participation, but actual power continues to be exercised by a wealthy, entitled and entrenched minority.

When the Trump circus implodes (and thankfully, there are signs that that blessed day is coming), we need to elect true democrats–small d–who will address the structural and systemic flaws that have turned American governance by We the People into a charade, and have once again created a situation in which we have taxation–and policy–without representation.

Comments