Category Archives: Public Policy and Governance

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

The Legislature That Won’t Stay In Its Lane

Indiana’s legislature is preparing for its 2026 session. Despite the Indiana Senate’s recent, surprising show of integrity in refusing to bow to Trump’s gerrymandering order, my expectations remain low. 

For the past several years, Rightwing Republicans (a large number of whom are White Christian nationalists) have enjoyed a super-majority in Indiana’s General Assembly. They haven’t simply ignored the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment’s Separation of Church and State, they”ve also demonstrated their total disdain for federalism–the constitutional division of authority that accords different powers to those managing local, state and federal jurisdictions.

Indiana’s legislators seem unable to grasp the fact that they are state legislators, not mayors and/or city counselors.

The Indianapolis Star recently shared research by the Indiana Coalition for Human Services, research that focused only on policies regarding the “social determinants of health.” The report included analysis of things like economic stability, health care and public safety, and the researchers found that roughly three dozen so-called “preemption” laws have been passed since 2010. Virtually all of those measures are examples of our radically Rightwing legislature stepping in to overrule policies our legislative overlords consider progressive or–horror of horrors–“woke.”

As Gary Snyder recently wrote on his “Snyde Report,” 

Indiana lawmakers keep insisting they believe in “local control,” right up until a city tries to do literally anything remotely progressive. A new report finds the Statehouse has quietly stacked more than 50 laws designed to block cities like Indianapolis from raising wages, protecting renters, regulating guns, or extending basic protections to LGBTQ Hoosiers — all in the name of making sure nobody accidentally improves quality of life without legislative permission. Since 2010, roughly three dozen of these preemption laws have been passed, part of a national trend where Republican supermajorities treat local governments less like partners and more like misbehaving children who need their policy toys confiscated.

The official excuse is “business-friendly uniformity,” but the results look a lot like wage stagnation, housing shortages, and two in five Indiana households unable to afford the basics where they live. Cities can’t raise the minimum wage, require affordable housing, or even ban puppy mills without the Statehouse swooping in to say no — yet lawmakers remain baffled by Indiana’s poor rankings on gun deaths, pollution, voter turnout, and overall quality of life. With a fresh wave of bills queued up to crack down on immigration, ban ranked-choice voting, police homelessness, and even let legislators impeach locally elected prosecutors, the message is clear: Hoosiers can have local government — just not local solutions.

My only quibble with that summary would be with its last sentence. Thanks to a legislature that refuses to stay in its own lane, Hoosiers don’t even have genuine local government–we just elect local “functionaries” who must obey the dictates of their legislative masters. As the Coalition for Human Services found, Indiana’s state lawmakers have repeatedly used the doctrine of preemption to target policies that could help lower-income Hoosiers and others in vulnerable groups, but sometimes, the reasons for preempting local government decisions don’t seem ideological–why, for example, did the legislature overrule at least 20 local ordinances meant to combat puppy mills? Is saving puppies “woke”? (My best guess: lobbyists and contributions from the owners of those establishments.)

In 2016, I was infuriated when Indiana’s legislators banned local governments from restricting the use of plastic bags at stores. The law prohibited local governments from banning (or taxing or placing fees on) plastic bags and similar single-use “auxiliary containers.” In a measure that clearly demonstrated that “home rule” is a fiction in Indiana, the law amended Indiana’s toothless home-rule statute to expressly bar local units of government from adopting “any prohibition, restriction, fee, or tax on items like plastic bags, paper bags, cups, boxes, or other one-time use packaging at stores.”

In Indiana, local governments retain that mythical “home rule” only so long as our legislative overlords approve of their “home rules.” Since our legislature is filled with MAGA Republicans who refuse to believe that climate change is a real thing, efforts by local folks to ameliorate environmental threats–even through such modest steps as banning the use of plastic bags–simply cannot be tolerated. 

When you live in a Red state, you soon learn that your legislature considers federalism–along with the protections of the Bill of Rights– optional.

Comments

Is Social Media A Drug?

Paul Krugman recently compared access to social media to the legalization of heroin–to what would happen if heroin was sold without any restrictions on its marketing or use.

Heroin distribution and sales would quickly become a huge, multibillion-dollar industry. They would become a significant part of GDP, even though heroin harms and often kills those who consume it. Given the increasingly naked corruption of U.S. politics, the heroin industry would be able to purchase massive political influence, enough to block any attempts to limit the harm it does — the harm it knows it does, because heroin industry executives would surely be aware of the damage their products inflict.

Through massive political donations — enabled by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling – and de facto bribery enabled via cryptocurrency deals, the industry would be able to enlist the U.S. government as an ally in its efforts to block regulation in other countries. For example, U.S. officials might threaten punitive tariffs against countries that try to limit and regulate heroin use.

Krugman insists that this fanciful exercise–which may seem “extreme and implausible”–is actually a pretty accurate description of the social media landscape. As evidence, he quotes a report issued in 2023 by the U.S. Surgeon General’s office, titled “Social Media and Youth Mental Health.” (Krugman advises downloading it quickly, before RFK Jr. suppresses it.) That publication summarized the now-extensive evidence that children and adolescents who consume excessive amounts of social media sustain mental health damage.

It isn’t as though the tech “bros” responsible for these platforms are unaware of the damage being done.

In 2021 the Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Facebook Knows Instagram is Toxic for Teen Girls, Documents Show: Its own in-depth research shows a significant teen mental-health issue that Facebook plays down in public.” In 2024 Meta finally introduced some relatively ineffectual limits on what teens can see.

The Journal reported that Meta’s own internal projections estimated it would earn 10% of its overall annual revenue – that’s $16 billion dollars– from advertising scams and banned goods. In other words, Meta’s platforms are knowingly pushing (and I use the word “pushing” intentionally) “fraudulent e-commerce and investment schemes, illegal online casinos, and the sale of banned medical products.”

And where have our intrepid Senators and Representatives been while these facts have emerged? Evidently, the same place they’ve been hiding while Trump dismantles the federal government.

Krugman writes that last year Congress was on the verge of passing the Kids Online Safety Act, a law that would have been the first to impose any rules on social media. The Act initially had bipartisan support; some ninety-one senators had signed on. But then, Krugman reports, “Mark Zuckerberg and his billions came to town, and the legislation died.”

Once again, other countries have done what the U.S. won’t. The European Union passed the Digital Services Act, which–among other things–requires large platforms to self-police and refrain from engaging in a variety of activities, including “dissemination of illegal content” and matter shown to have “negative consequences” for “physical and mental well-being.” Australia has recently passed a law that would prevent anyone under 16 from having a social media account. (I’ll admit to skepticism about the ability to enforce this, but at least Australia is trying.)

A couple of weeks ago, under its Digital Services Act, the European Union fined Musk’s X 120 million euros, based on several violations of that Act, including the fact that X’s “Blue checks” are a fraud. (X claims that a blue check means that the poster’s identity has been verified. But in fact X sells them and makes no effort to verify identity.) X also refuses to provide information on advertisements sufficient for users to identify scams, and refuses to make its public data available to researchers.

Unlike the EU, the Trump administration is pulling out the stops to support our tech titans’ resistance to European regulation.

Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary, has explicitly linked U.S. tariffs on European steel to demands that Europe weakens its digital regulations. If the EU tried to make comparable demands on the United States, we’d consider it an outrageous infringement on our national sovereignty. And I’m pretty sure that making this linkage violates U.S. trade law too. But rule of law is for the little people.

As Krugman argues, unregulated social media is a lot like unregulated drugs. Powerful social media billionaires are preventing us from protecting our children. They are also using that power to dictate U.S. foreign policy, “punishing our erstwhile allies for daring to limit their ability to push their product.”

America is now a digital narco-state.

Comments