Category Archives: Random Blogging

It’s Murder, Not the 2d Amendment

Interestingly named Whitestown is one of several bedroom communities around Indianapolis, in central Indiana. It is 93% White. It is also the site of a recent murder–and I use that term intentionally.

The facts–at least, the readily ascertainable ones– have been widely reported. Members of a cleaning crew went to the wrong house in what has been described as a “cookie cutter” neighborhood. Two of them–a Hispanic couple–knocked on the door of that incorrect address, and in response, someone shot the woman through the door, killing her.

As of a week later, no charges had been filed by the county prosecutor, although the Indianapolis Star reports that the homeowner had hired a “Second-Amendment lawyer.” (Update: since I wrote this, the prosecutor has brought charges against the homeowner.)

The owners of the Whitestown home where a 32-year-old woman was shot and killed have hired one of Indiana’s most prominent constitutional lawyers.

Guy Relford, also known for his weekly “Gun Guy” show on WIBC, has practiced law for more than four decades. He specializes in the Second Amendment.

As the Star also reported,

The shooter — who has not been identified by law enforcement — could face criminal charges in connection with Maria Florinda Ríos Pérez’s death, pending the outcome of an ongoing review by the Boone County Prosecutor’s Office. Authorities have not confirmed whether the homeowner was the shooter.

Other than identifying the person who actually fired that gun, I cannot imagine what an “ongoing review” could uncover–and I certainly can’t imagine what defense “gun guy” will be able to offer. (Perhaps the shooter’s mental illness??)

I write these blog posts a few days ahead, so perhaps we’ll know more by the time this is published, but as I write this, it seems pretty clear that what we’ve seen in Whitestown is the merging of America’s racism and gun culture. The person inside that home saw two Hispanic people, and evidently equated “Hispanic” with “home invasion,” although I rather doubt that many home invaders knock on a home’s front door.

As the Star reported, Indiana has a Castle Doctrine law–one of those “stand your ground” statutes that give people the right to use deadly force to prevent unlawful entry into their homes. But even under those laws, the shooter’s belief of imminent danger must be “reasonable.” I find it extremely difficult to label shooting a woman knocking on one’s front door as “reasonable”–even if that woman’s skin color means she doesn’t look like a resident of Whitestown.

Of course, if far too many Americans weren’t in possession of firearms, incidents like this would be less likely. Having a gun in the house rather obviously increases the likelihood that that gun will be used–and in many cases, used inappropriately. Studies have found that 58% of gun deaths are the result of suicide, and the CDC has reported that nearly two out of every 10 non-lethal firearm injuries are unintentional–the result of accidents. (The CDC also reports that people who survive a firearm-related injury typically experience long-term problems with memory, thinking and PTSD, even if they don’t have permanent physical disabilities or paralysis.)

Maria Perez was a 32-year-old house cleaner, and the mother of four. An immigrant from Guatemala, she died in the arms of her husband when they arrived at what was definitely the wrong house–a house occupied by someone who was armed and evidently terrified of or hostile to people who looked “different.”

So here we are.

Four children no longer have a mother. A husband is left with memories of holding his dying wife in his arms. I’m sorry, but no “Castle Doctrine” can justify this; no “gun guy” can find a defense even in a Second Amendment that has been reinterpreted from its initial meaning in order to protect the gun industry and America’s gun fetishists.

There is no excuse.

Comments

The President As Mob Boss

Before I retired, I spent 21 years teaching Law and Public Policy to students who wanted to know about those topics, and I can confirm that even individuals with an interest in government often had a hard time following the intricacies of the policy process. When we come to the population at large–people who (as Jon Stewart once memorably explained) “have shit to do”–it isn’t surprising that much of what this blog addresses might just as well be written in ancient Aramaic. Policy nerds like yours truly talk about Trump violating the Emoluments Clause, and the average American wonders what that is.

Widespread ignorance of the laws–of America’s so-called “guardrails”–has allowed Trump to violate all manner of constitutional and statutory rules without generating an appropriate amount of concern. But sometimes, visual evidence of the arrogance and self-dealing breaks through. That’s what we are seeing with the destruction of the East Wing of the People’s house and its planned replacement with a gaudy and inappropriate ballroom, funded by people who have business with the government, and whose “contributions” are rather clearly bribes.

As Jennifer Rubin recently wrote in the Contrarian,

If you were watching any of the voter-on-the-street interviews Tuesday, you might have been surprised to hear how many Americans are deeply disturbed, furious even, about Donald Trump’s bulldozing of the White House to make way for a garish $330M donor-paid ballroom. It may not be the most egregious offense of the Trump regime (which has kidnapped people off the streets, sent them to foreign hell holes, and cut off SNAP benefits, among other outrages). It is not even the worst case of corruption, given the estimated $5B or so in wealth Trump and his family have hauled in from (among other sources) foreign buyers of crypto. But the ballroom is the most visible, easily explained, and visually disgusting evidence of Trump’s destruction of our democracy and the public’s ownership of our institutions.

Rubin cited a report from Public Citizen that–as she wrote–“captures the stomach-turning effort to transform the White House into a monument to private greed and public corruption.” Among other things, the report found that 16 out of 24 donors hold government contracts. Overall, those corporate donors benefited from nearly $43 billion in contracts just last year and $279 billion over the past five years.

More significantly, most of those donors—14 out of 24—are either currently facing federal enforcement actions “and/or have had federal enforcement actions suspended by the Trump administration,” including major antitrust actions, labor rights cases and SEC matters. The report also noted that these companies and wealthy individual donors have invested “gargantuan sums in combined lobbying and political contributions, totaling more than $960 million during the last election cycle and $1.6 billion over the last five years.”

In other words, those generous donations to Trump’s bad taste are rather obviously bribes.

You can almost hear the mob boss crooning into the ears of the supplicants: “you want this little enforcement problem to go away? Want another cushy contract? Just pony up for my ballroom and government will look out for you.” Trump is frequently described as “transactional,” a nice word for a mob boss approach that begins with “what’s in it for me?”

Citizens may not have noticed other corruption. Take the Trump family’s crypto scams, for example. Through their World Liberty Financial, they launched Trump-branded “tokens”–coins with no intrinsic value, purchases of which are efforts to gain or retain the good graces of our would-be King (aka bribes). Unlike those and similar transactions, the visual–and visceral–impact of East Wing destruction is hard to ignore. It’s an entirely appropriate metaphor for Trump’s mob boss regime.

As Rubin argues:

Certainly, any 2028 Democratic candidate worth his or her salt would need to advance a mammoth anti-corruption plan to tackle not only this outrage (“Tear it down, rebuild democracy!” would make a lively campaign chant) but to severely regulate crypto, recover unconstitutionally acquired foreign emoluments, restore prosecution of foreign bribery statutes and other white collar crimes, and undergo an exhaustive investigation and prosecution of any bribery that took place in the Trump regime.

As with other autocratic atrocities, the corruption issue is too important to leave solely to the politicians. Shareholders of these companies could demand a full accounting and pursue shareholder suits if appropriate. Consumers can organize public campaigns to expose and embarrass these companies or conduct targeted boycotts (e.g., cancel Amazon Prime, do not patronize Hard Rock Casinos and restaurants). And further No Kings events should keep corruption front and center.

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words.

Comments

Cultural Nostalgia

Sometimes I read an essay or an op-ed that hits me–a sentence or paragraph or analysis that seems so on-target that I feel impelled to share it. That was my reaction to a recent op-ed by Fareed Zakaria (always one of my favorites) in the Washington Post.

Zakaria began by noting that partisanship has become the lens through which Americans interpret reality.  Although a majority of voters still say the economy is their top concern, for example, they interpret the state of the economy through that partisan lens. “When their party is in power, they think the economy is strong; when the other side takes over, that same economy suddenly looks dire. In effect, politics now shapes people’s sense of economic reality, not the other way around.”

And as Zakaria notes, people have chosen their political tribe guided by “two markers the left has long struggled to navigate: culture and class.”

Those two markers aren’t unique to the U.S.–they are global. Social changes wrought by globalization, the increasingly digital nature of our environment, immigration, and the emergence of new gender and identity norms have engendered a cultural backlash.

Over the past 40 years, billions entered the world market, millions crossed borders, the internet collapsed distance and hierarchy, and women and minorities claimed long-denied rights. Scholars celebrate this as progress, integration, emancipation. Yet to many, it feels like dislocation — a dissolving of familiar identities and moral coordinates. A 2023 Ipsos Global Trends survey showed that in many advanced democracies, large majorities think the world is changing too fast, including 75 percent in Germany and nearly 90 percent in South Korea. In the United States, a 2023 Gallup poll showed that more than 80 percent of Americans believe the nation’s moral values are getting worse. These numbers cut across income and region; they reflect not poverty but that much of America feels culturally adrift.

Hence the paradox: Populism thrives in countries that are, by virtually every measure, richer, safer and freer than at any point in history. Its fuel is not deprivation but disorientation. The right has learned to weaponize that unease, offering a story that is emotionally coherent even when factually thin. It promises a return to the world many people remember — a society of stable hierarchies, recognizable roles and shared norms — if only the global elites are cast down. It is, in essence, the politics of nostalgia.

Zakaria points out that this isn’t new. A similar “cultural nostalgia” erupted in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution, when figures like Benjamin Disraeli and Otto von Bismarck appealed to the working class through “nationalism, religion and pride, pairing social reform with cultural conservatism.” Our contemporary populists are following the same formula.

There is, Zakaria tells us, one difference: what constitutes class in today’s societies. Today’s divide is no longer between capitalists and workers; it’s between people who flourish in a credential-driven economy and those who don’t.

The commanding heights of business, media and government have converged into a single, credentialed class. In principle, it is open to all; in practice, it has become self-replicating…. And the party that once spoke for the working class is now seen — fairly or not — as the party of the professional elite: urban, secular and fluent in the idioms of globalization.

The reactionary Right has exploited that cultural resentment. Trump’s cabinets– packed with billionaires– have been “ferociously anti-elitist.”

His enemy is not the hedge-funder but the Harvard professor, not the CEO but the columnist. “The professors are the enemy,” Richard M. Nixon once quipped, and JD Vance has repeated the line. Trump turned it into strategy, waging war on America’s cultural institutions — universities, the press, the federal bureaucracy — and convincing millions that the real ruling class was not the wealthy but the educated…

That divide isn’t imaginary.

Among White voters without a college degree, Republicans now win by more than 25 points. Democrats typically win nationally by around 16 points among college graduates. The urban-rural divide is at heart a class divide that has become a political one as well.

There are ways, Zakaria insists, to bridge these gaps. We can build a more democratic meritocracy, one more open and welcoming. And Democrats can “embrace the party’s best instincts — compassion, inclusion, reform — with a tone of respect for those uneasy about rapid change.” Progressives can show their patriotism. Liberals can speak the “language of tradition.”

Right-wing populism is not destiny; it is nostalgia. Liberalism has been counted out many times before, only to prove itself remarkably resilient — because, in the end, it addresses the most powerful yearning of human beings: for betterment, progress and freedom.

Nostalgia, after all, isn’t progress. It’s a dead end.

Comments

This Made Me Feel Better

When I saw that eight “rogue” Democrats had bowed to Republican demands to end the government shutdown without a firm agreement to restore the ACA subsidies, I was depressed. And angry. I also was clearly not alone–the pundits I follow were almost uniformly furious.

But then I read Jonathan Last’s analysis in the Bulwark, and felt much better.

Last argues that the very best outcome for Democrats would have been to force Republicans to give them something that would alter the structural balance of power– something like D.C. statehood or the full release of the Epstein files. The next best, he says, would have been getting rid of the filibuster, which would have required Republicans to vote on every unpopular Trump proposal and cleared the way for Democrats to enact sweeping reforms if and when they regain power. The third best outcome would have been to win a tactical concession–perhaps outlawing masks on ICE agents.

Instead, Democrats got the fourth best outcome: Democrats caved without any concessions–while raising the salience of a terrible issue for Republicans.

This is basically what happened. Republicans will allow an ACA subsidy vote in the future, that is meaningless because the House will not pass the bill—and even if it somehow passed, Trump wouldn’t sign it.

But capitulating without getting anything of substance isn’t the worst thing in the world. It preserves the status quo and the status quo is—as last week’s elections showed—good for Democrats.

Trump has plummeted in the polls as the shutdown has dragged on. But what would happen if the Democrats had gotten what they were holding out for–extension of the ACA subsidies and restoration of the Medicaid cuts. Slashing those subsidies and drastically cutting Medicaid were mean-spirited provisions that were central to Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Last’s point is that such a “success” would have been a disaster for the Democrats, because it would have made Trump more popular.

The Democratic proposal was for Trump and Republicans to undo the most unpopular parts of their Big Beautiful Bill.

Had they succeeded, I am fairly certain that 2026 voters would not have given Democratic candidates credit for protecting them.

Why? Our COVID experience suggests that Americans have almost no capacity to grant credit for harms avoided.

Last reminds us that Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill created a political liability for him, because in order to keep GOP legislators onboard, he couldn’t enormously increase the deficit. He needed to include some cost-savings. In GOP land, the most politically palatable cuts are to other people’s health care.

The devil’s bargain Trump made with the BBB was that health insurance costs would rise dramatically for people covered by the ACA and health care access in rural areas would decrease as Medicaid was cut. These effects would be tangible for voters and would manifest months before the midterm elections….

The shutdown presented Trump with the opportunity to have his cake and eat it, too. Having given the holdout Republicans their health care cuts to pass the BBB, he could have undone those cuts as a “concession” to Democrats, thus nullifying their best issue for the 2026 campaign. Democrats would have had to sell voters on the idea that “Your healthcare costs would have gone up without us!”

Good luck with that.

It’s hard to argue with that analysis.

Democrats were doing what Democrats do–trying to avoid harm to the millions of Americans who will lose healthcare–or pay much, much more for it– thanks to Trump and his GOP sycophants. Would those Americans be grateful to the Democrats who saved them from those harms? Some undoubtedly would be–but, as Last contends, most wouldn’t. If the Democrats had won–if they’d forced GOP concessions on ACA subsidies and Medicaid, voters next November wouldn’t be experiencing a world of hurt, and Trump’s GOP would be the beneficiary of its absence.

Why didn’t Trump take this gigantic win? Because it would have meant laying down. He would have had to pretend that he’d been beaten and was capitulating to Chuck Schumer.

Trump’s obsession with strength and dominance simply would not permit that.

So where are we? Last says that– objectively speaking–Democrats emerge from the shutdown in a slightly better position than they entered it. They’ve damaged Trump politically. They’ve insured that health care costs will be a major issue in 2026.
The meaningless future vote on extending the ACA subsidies “will put Republican senators on the spot and create vulnerability for House Republicans when they refuse to take up the bill.”

I feel better. Unfortunately, a lot of Americans won’t…

Comments

My Mother Was Right

I was the product of a mixed marriage. My mother was a Republican and my father a Democrat–although they did hammer out their differences before most election days, in order to avoid, as my mother put it, “cancelling each other out.” 

My mother’s identification with the GOP was based almost entirely on her fiscal conservatism, and she frequently expressed concern about what was then the “crazy fringe” of the party, which she accurately saw as racist and anti-Semitic. She worried about what would happen if the fringe became more powerful, more a part of the party’s mainstream.

She was right to worry.

The party with which my mother and I once identified is long gone, subsumed into that angry and hate-filled fringe. And now, as the saying goes, the chickens are coming home to roost. Republicans who still retain the ability to understand that blatant bigotry isn’t a good look are reacting to the public anti-Semitism of some of the MAGA movement’s most prominent members.

As Charlie Sykes put it, the MAGA Right sowed dragon’s teeth for years, and is now horrified to discover they have grown an actual dragon.

Sykes was addressing what has been termed a MAGA “civil war” over the increasingly open and vicious right-wing antisemitism of the Trumpian Right. That warfare increased when Kevin Roberts, the current president of the Heritage Foundation, announced that the Foundation was standing by Tucker Carlson, who had just platformed neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes.

As some of us warned a decade ago, the problem of Donald Trump was not merely Trump himself, but the mouth-breathers he was bringing with him — the winking permissions he granted to the movement we once called the Alt-Right. For ten years, he’s brought them into the mainstream; applauded them, encouraged them, dined with and defended them. He shattered the guardrails; dismissed the gatekeepers; and opened the sluices of bigotry.

That reality is what frightened my mother so many years ago, and it’s what makes so much contemporary political debate irrelevant. That irrelevance is especially notable in the constant hand-wringing over whether the Democratic Party should be “centrist” or “progressive.” What that debate ignores is the nature of the center in today’s political world.

A perceptive essay from Lincoln Square honed in on that question.

Where, though, is the center between right-wing authoritarianism and freedom and democracy? As the “Republicans” careen ever farther off the pavement, across the right shoulder, through the guardrail, into the ditch off the right side of the road, the “center,” if that is taken to mean the midpoint, is pulled from the middle of the road ever farther to the extreme right. Should Democrats, then, seek to be in the center by offering “Fascism Lite” as an alternative to full-blown fascism?

The essay quoted Yeats’ famous poem, asserting that “the “rough beast” Yeats envisioned has already been born. “It could not be clearer that “The best lack all conviction, while the worst / Are full of passionate intensity.”  “Where is the center in such a time?”

Where is the center between the First Amendment and a government that seeks to control speech, assembly, and the media and is filled with Christian nationalists who want to establish a state church? Between the rule of law and a president who asserts, “I have the right to do anything I want to do. I’m the president of the United States”? Between protecting the right of all citizens to vote and seeking to repeal the Voting Rights Act and gerrymander to an absurd degree? Between consumer protection, environmental protection, scientific and medical research, and countless other government functions and maintaining the social safety net created in the 1930s, 1960s, and since and striving to “Take America Back” to the 1920s, the first Gilded Age in the late nineteenth century, or even farther? Between a president ordering the prosecution of anyone he does not like and equal application of the law? Between corruption on a previously unimaginable level and honest government? Between a fact-based examination of our history and making up a past to suit the ruler? Between government of the people, by the people, and for the people and government of the people, by an unchecked leader, and for the billionaires? 

As the essay concluded, the center is not always in the middle. The GOP fringe has been planning the current takeover since the 1970s. And as it has moved the party farther and farther to the right, the center— the midpoint between two ends — moved in the same direction.

Today, to be “progressive” is to be “woke” to that reality–and to refuse to move to that far-right midpoint.

Comments