Category Archives: Random Blogging

What Did You Do In The War?

Ah, the parallels…

Those of us of a “certain age” can recall media reports of post-World War II German children asking their grandparents very uncomfortable questions, mostly versions of “What did you do during the war, grandpa?” We may well be approaching a time in the United States where a version of that question becomes widespread.

A year or so ago, Saturday Night Live aired a mock interview with a German woman who responded to a question about America’s “alt-right” MAGA movement by saying “In America you call it the alt-right, in Germany we call it ‘why Grandpapa lives in Argentina now.'”

A number of historians have documented the embarrassing connections between America’s Jim Crow laws and Nazi anti-semitic legislation. I will admit to being one of the clueless folks who believed we had surmounted–okay, begun to surmount–the ignorance and prejudices of former generations. If the current Trump/Musk assault on basic American principles proves anything, it proves how very wrong that belief has turned out to be. You really have to be purposefully blind to ignore the virulent bigotry that allowed Trump to win election (narrowly, to be sure) and reward his supporters with his anti-diversity rampage, or to downplay the pro-Nazi enthusiasm of Elon Musk, which was evident well before his “heil Hitler” salute.

So here we are. And assuming (as I devoutly hope) that this horrific time will pass and reasonable people will once again gain control, those of us experiencing this effort to re-install the Dark Ages should expect that same post-Nazi question: what did we do to counter the assault on American values? How did we respond to the neo-Nazi ugliness threatening our Constitutional liberties and social progress?

What did we do during this war for America’s soul?

I thought about that question when I came to the end of one of Robert Hubbell’s daily letters. Hubbell had been writing about Trump’s effort to punish law firms for the unforgivable sin of representing people he considers enemies. But as he concluded, the challenge to our most deeply-shared moral commitments extends more widely.

We are living through a consequential moment in our nation’s history. There is a “right” side and a “wrong” side to that history. Someday in the not-too-distant future, there will be a reckoning in which everyone—individuals and institutions—will be called to justify their response in a moment when democracy was under attack.

Institutions with proud histories will be forced to explain why they abandoned their commitments to fairness, justice, and human decency at the first opportunity. Were they afraid? Or greedy? Both? Or—worst of all—did they not care?

Were their lofty “mission statements” mere PR exercises to make themselves feel good and attract young talent with false promises about the firm’s values? Were their commitments to equality and inclusion something they never truly believed? Was it all “for show”?

Those are uncomfortable questions with deeply troubling answers.

We must choose to be on the right side of history—because it is the right thing to do. Do not surrender to fear or intimidation. Lift up those who are being attacked for defending the rule of law. And make known your displeasure with the products and services of those who are sponsoring Trump’s frontal assault on the rule of law.

But most importantly, make a personal commitment to do everything you can to help defend democracy in its hour of need. Make your future self proud by doing the right thing at a time when doing so takes courage and determination!

The most anguished question I get from readers of this blog–and I get it almost every day–is “what can I do?” And it’s a fair question. Most of us have limited means of protesting, and the means we do have are arguably of limited effectiveness. Still, when we get that “what did you do” question, at the very least we should be able to answer that we repeatedly called our elected officials, attended town halls, worked with one or more of the burgeoning number of grassroots organizations, attended protests and participated in boycotts of companies and firms that are knuckling under.

We should also be able to say that we shared factual information with friends and family members living in those “alternative” realities.

Repeat after me: real Americans are identified by their devotion to and protection of the American Idea-– not their skin color or religion. When your grandchildren or great grandchildren ask what you did when Trump/Musk attacked the American Idea, be sure you don’t have to answer from Argentina.

Comments

Who Do You Distrust?

In 2009, I wrote a book titled “Distrust, American Style.” The publisher’s blurb summed up its theme: “When people wake up every morning to a system that doesn’t respond to their efforts or accomodate their most basic needs, it should not be surprising that they don’t face the day with an abundance of trust.”

Declining trust has ominous implications for something that sociologists call social capital--the relationships among members of society that facilitate individual and/or collective action. The term refers to networks of human relationships that are characterized by reciprocity and trust. As one scholarly paper has put it, social capital is the lubricant that facilitates getting things done, that allows people to work together and benefit from social relationships. It is absolutely essential to the internal coherence of society– the “glue” that facilitates social and economic functioning.

It isn’t really necessary to understand the functioning and varieties of social capital to understand the importance of trust. Think about your daily activities: you drop your favorite sweater off at the cleaners, trusting that it will be returned–clean. You deposit your paycheck in your bank, trusting that the funds will be credited to your account and available to spend. You  pick up a prescription, trusting that the medication has been properly prepared and is safe. At the grocery, you trust that food you buy is safe to eat. You board a plane, trusting that it will not crash into another mid-air.

You get the picture. In the absence of trust, society and the economy cannot function. And an enormous amount of that trust is based upon effective and competent government regulation of banks, food processors and air traffic (among other things).

In my book, I examined the decline of social trust, and the theories being offered for that decline. Robert Putnam suggested that growing diversity had eroded interpersonal trust; my own research pointed to a different culprit: the prominent failures of religious,  business and governmental institutions. When I wrote the book, America was in the midst of widely-reported scandals: Enron and other major companies engaging in illegal activities, sports figures taking performance-enhancing drugs, the Catholic Church covering up priestly child molestation, and several others. We were just emerging from an Iraq war widely understood to have been waged on specious grounds.

My conclusion was that fish rot from the head–that when a citizenry is no longer able to trust its economic and governing and religious institutions–especially its governing institutions– that lack of trust threatens essential elements of social functioning.

In the years since, our entire environment has become rife with distrust. White Christian Nationalists suspect and reject most elements of modernity; we’re faced with the enormous gap between the rich and the rest (and evidence that not all the rich amassed those fortunes ethically or legally); we have a rogue judiciary, a castrated Congress, and most recently a federal coup by mentally-ill autocrats intent upon destroying the government agencies that have been most effective at earning citizens’ trust.

A recent Gallup Poll surveyed the trust landscape, to determine who we still trust–and who we don’t.

Three in four Americans consider nurses highly honest and ethical, making them the most trusted of 23 professions rated in Gallup’s annual measurement. Grade-school teachers rank second, with 61% viewing them highly, while military officers, pharmacists and medical doctors also earn high trust from majorities of Americans.

The least trusted professions, with more than half of U.S. adults saying their ethics are low or very low, are lobbyists, members of Congress and TV reporters.

Of the remaining occupations measured in the Dec. 2-18, 2024, poll, six (including police officers, clergy and judges) are viewed more positively than negatively by Americans, although with positive ratings not reaching the majority level. The other nine, notably including bankers, lawyers and business executives, are seen more negatively than positively, with  more than 50% rating their ethics low.

That poll was conducted before the takeover of our government by Trump and Musk, before the clearly illegal, unethical and untruthful activities that have–in Steve Bannon’s immortal words–“flooded the zone with shit.” Even before that assault, Gallup reported that there had been a serious long-term decline in Americans’ confidence in U.S. institutions. Trust in Judges, police and clergy has plummeted.

In that 2009 book, I wrote that the trustworthiness of business and nonprofit enterprises depends on the ability of government to play its essential role as “umpire,’ impartially applying and reliably enforcing the rules. When government is not trustworthy, when citizens cannot rely on the Food and Drug Administration, the FAA or the Social Security Administration, among others, trust and social capital decline.

We’re back to Hobbes’ state of nature.

Comments

When They Decline To Face The Music

The Trump/Musk administration has been in power for a mere two months, and during that time we’ve been treated to a firehose of destruction and illegality. Two months isn’t much time for people to begin recognizing the threats to their lives, their finances and their wellbeing posed by these insane incursions. Most people have busy daily lives–family to care for, jobs to do, obligations to meet….the would-be autocrats wreaking havoc with our lives have undoubtedly been counting on those distractions to delay resistance to their wrecking ball.

Meanwhile, the GOP cowards in Congress who have obediently bent the knee to those autocrats have decided to avoid face-to-face confrontations with We the People who elected them. However, as awareness and resistance have gained momentum, local organizations have decided to hold Town Halls anyway.

Hoosiers4Democracy and Central Indiana Indivisible will each hold an “empty chair” Town Hall at Broadway Methodist Church during the Congressional Recess.

Indivisible of Central Indiana has tried for the past few weeks to obtain an agreement from Senator Young to attend a Town Hall– without success. Accordingly, that organization will hold an “Empty Chair” Town Hall on Wednesday, March 19th, at Broadway United Methodist Church. Hoosiers will be able to address an empty chair (an emptiness that will signify not only Senator Young’s unwillingness to face his constituents, but the appalling emptiness/non-existence of his backbone in the face of Trump’s assaults on constitutional governance.) That event will also feature brief introductory presentations on the dire consequences of various elements of the Trump/Musk assault. (Yours truly will address the constitutional issues–others will explain assaults on Medicaid, etc.)

The Indivisible Town Hall will be held from 6:00 to 8:00, and registration will be required (they anticipate a large turnout, and while the sanctuary is spacious, space is still limited). You can access the Mobilize link here to register.

Hoosiers 4 Democracy will sponsor the second of those events. Here is the information provided by H4D:

Congress will be in recess from March 15-23, when representatives typically return home to engage with constituents. However, despite our repeated efforts, we have not received confirmation of any town halls hosted by Senators Jim Banks or Todd Young.  There is a possibility that Representative Victoria Spartz will hold an event in Muncie, but that has not been confirmed.

Meanwhile, the Braun administration has aligned itself with the Trump/Vance/Musk agenda, further jeopardizing our democracy. Now, more than ever, people must have a space to connect, share their experiences, and send a clear message to our leaders: their actions and policies are harming our lives and livelihoods.

To ensure our voices are heard, we are hosting a People’s Town Hall—a space for community members to come together, share their stories and concerns, and collectively demand accountability from our state and national representatives.

📅 Date: Saturday, March 22
🕛 Time: 12:00 PM – 2:00 PM
📍 Location: Broadway United Methodist Church, 609 E. 29th Street, Indianapolis.

If any of you reading this wants flyers to promote the event, you can access them here.

Kudos to Broadway United Methodist Church for demonstrating that there are actual Christians–not just White Christian Nationalists– in Indiana. I hope those of you reading this will attend one or both of these events. I certainly intend to participate in both.

I know that this blog is an example of “preaching to the choir,” but sometimes, the choir needs to be reminded to sing…

Comments

Makes Me Proud To Be A Lawyer!

Okay, a recovering lawyer…but still.

One of the worst aspects of this traitorous and criminal administration has been its willingness to spit in the eye of those who believe in and support the rule of law. After a period of stunned silence, lawyers who have retained their integrity have begun to respond. 

Above the Law has reported on a lawsuit that–as it says–“Drags the Trump Administratiion to Hell.” I am going to quote liberally from the complaint filed by Williams Connolly on behalf of another law firm–Perkins Coie–because I cannot improve on its language. Trump had issued one of his insane “Executive Orders,” purportedly stripping Perkins Coie lawyers of security clearances, and terminating government contracts with the firm.

From the Complaint:

The Order is an affront to the Constitution and our adversarial system of justice. Its plain purpose is to bully those who advocate points of view that the President perceives as adverse to the views of his Administration, whether those views are presented on behalf of paying or pro bono clients. Perkins Coie brings this case reluctantly. The firm is comprised of lawyers who advocate for clients; its attorneys and employees are not activists or partisans. But Perkins Coie’s ability to represent the interests of its clients—and its ability to operate as a legal-services business at all—are under direct and imminent threat. Perkins Coie cannot allow its clients to be bullied. The firm is committed to a resolute defense of the rule of law, without regard to party or ideology, and therefore brings this lawsuit to declare the Order unlawful and to enjoin its implementation.

The document notes that the Order’s “peculiar title” demonstrates that its purpose isn’t executive. “Rather, the Order reflects a purpose that is judicial—to adjudicate whether a handful of lawyers at Perkins Coie LLP engaged in misconduct in the course of litigation and then to punish them.” The purpose is, rather clearly, to deter law firms from representing clients antagonistic to Trump.

Above the Law judges the following lengthy paragraph to be the hardest-hitting:

Because the Order in effect adjudicates and punishes alleged misconduct by Perkins Coie, it is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Because it does so without notice and an opportunity to be heard, and because it punishes the entire firm for the purported misconduct of a handful of lawyers who are not employees of the firm, it is an unconstitutional violation of procedural due process and of the substantive due process right to practice one’s professional livelihood. Because the Order singles out Perkins Coie, it denies the firm the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order punishes the firm for the clients with which it has been associated and the legal positions it has taken on matters of election law, the Order constitutes retaliatory viewpoint discrimination and, therefore, violates the First Amendment rights of free expression and association, and the right to petition the government for redress. Because the Order compels disclosure of confidential information revealing the firm’s relationships with its clients, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order retaliates against Perkins Coie for its diversity-related speech, it violates the First Amendment. Because the Order is vague in proscribing what is prohibited “diversity, equity and inclusion,” it violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because the Order works to brand Perkins Coie as persona non grata and bar it from federal buildings, deny it the ability to communicate with federal employees, and terminate the government contracts of its clients, the Order violates the right to counsel afforded by the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

It isn’t just the lawyers.

While the legal profession takes to the courts, other Americans possessing specialized expertise are using that expertise on behalf of the resistance. Heather Cox Richardson recently reported on three recent outages of X, spanning more than six hours. She cited the former head of the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Center, who said that the outages appear to have been an attack called a “distributed denial of service,” attack– “an old technique in which hackers flood a server to prevent authentic users from reaching a website.” He added that he couldn’t “think of a company of the size and standing internationally of X that’s fallen over to a DDoS attack for a very long time,” adding that the outage “doesn’t reflect well on their cyber security.” (Musk, of course, blamed hackers in Ukraine for the outages, an accusation Martin called “pretty much garbage.”)

I think the resistance is just getting started…

Comments

A Functional Media?

Research strongly suggests that Americans are split between an informed electorate and those delicately referred to as “low information voters” (also known as “MAGA”). As I’ve pointed out repeatedly on this blog, our current information environment reinforces misinformation and disinformation, catering to those who simply want their prejudices confirmed. The Internet has proved to be a warm and fuzzy place for those whose “research” is confined to searches for confirmation of their pre-existing biases.

That reality allows Trump to engage in fact-free bloviating–also known as lies–secure in the knowledge that a multitude of propaganda sites will obediently echo them, no matter how ridiculous or easily and repeatedly debunked.

A recent essay from the Bulwark posits that today’s media falls into roughly three categories:

There’s the state media—Fox, Newsmax, the Federalist, HughHewitt.com—which have become pure propaganda outlets.

There’s the “neutral” media—the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC News, CBS News, CNN—which believe that politics should be covered as a sport with reports about who’s up and who’s down. Extraordinary efforts are made by these institutions to present both sides of every question, even if it means presenting the case for illiberalism or platforming people who the media orgs know are lying to their audience.

Finally, there’s pro-democracy media—outlets which understand that America is experiencing an ongoing authoritarian attempt and that they must stand on the side of small-l liberalism.

The author believes that maintaining these categories is unsustainable-that the three spheres will soon “collapse into just two: Media organizations that oppose authoritarianism and media organizations that accept it.” He quoted an editorial from a technical publication–Techdirt— which recently made a surprising announcement:

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had a few people reach out about our coverage these days . . . [and about] how much we were leaning into covering “politics.”

When the very institutions that made American innovation possible are being systematically dismantled, it’s not a “political” story anymore. It’s a story about whether the environment that enabled all the other stories we cover will continue to exist. . . .

We’re going to keep covering this story because, frankly, it’s the only story that matters right now, and one that not everyone manages to see clearly. The political press may not understand what’s happening (or may be too afraid to say it out loud), but those of us who’ve spent decades studying how technology and power interact? We see it and we can’t look away.

So, here’s the bottom line: when WaPo’s opinion pages are being gutted and tech CEOs are seeking pre-approval from authoritarians, the line between “tech coverage” and “saving democracy” has basically disappeared. It’s all the same thing.

Digital illiterate that I am, I had never heard of Techdirt. But the quoted language confirms something that most political scientists know instinctively: at base, everything is politics. The people who refuse to follow the news of what government is doing, who claim that they “aren’t political,” are kidding themselves.

When the federal government stops funding cancer research, when Social Security checks fail to appear in a timely manner, when government operatives are erasing efforts to counter discrimination (or, as they currently are, reinstating discriminatory messages and behaviors)–when federal officials are telling states to handle their own fires and floods, and threatening your employees with deportation, when insane policies are threatening to tank the economy and erode your retirement–it is no longer possible to tell yourself that “politics” is irrelevant to your life.

The article suggests that tech outlets are among the first to speak out because “they have specialized knowledge—and because they don’t have relationships with people in politics to tend to.”  They are able to see clearly what is happening and willing to speak out against it.

We have seen the exact same thing with some specialized legal publications. Lawfare and JustSecurity.org were once destination sites for law nerds. Today they have become two of the most essential media organizations in America.

Why? Because since these people specialize in the law they know exactly how serious Trump’s attack on the rule of law is—and how dangerous it is.

Like Techdirt and Wired, serious people in the legal space are being radicalized—democracy pilled?—because they understand that this isn’t a game and that the liberal press does not have an obligation to present illiberalism as a point of view worthy of consideration.

The people in pro-democracy media understand that liberalism has a moral obligation to take its own side.

“Fair and Balanced” was never accurate, because “balance” by its very nature/definition cannot be accurate. And stenography–he said/she said–isn’t journalism.

Comments