Americans who follow the news even slightly, are aware of the daily, major assaults from this administration on the Constitution and our liberties. We’re aware of RFK, Jr.’s insane attacks on medical science and the likely negative effects on our health, the assaults on ships from foreign countries in defiance of international law, the economic damage being caused by Trump’s insane (and illegal) tariffs and his war on immigrants, and the administration’s vicious and escalating attacks on journalism and free speech.
What most Americans tend to miss are Trump’s entirely illegal refusals to honor spending decisions made by Congress, despite the fact that the Constitution vests those decisions solely in the legislative branch, not in the executive. The sudden cut-offs of thousands of promised grants will hobble all sorts of research for many years to come–including research into cures for diseases like cancer and Alzheimers–and the negative consequences will go far beyond medical science research.
A former academic colleague recently shared a notice that the Trump administration is withholding payment of the final year of a four-year grant–a grant to a program at Indiana University that has been continuously supported by the federal government since 1959. That ongoing support was based upon a determination that the program was an important part of the United States’ defense effort, as described in the post-Sputnik National Security in Education Act of 1958, and the subsequent David L. Boren National Security Education Act (NSEA) passed in 1991.
IU’s program supported students studying several of the foreign languages that enable American diplomats to communicate with and recognize threats from individuals and governments of foreign countries. The grants were intended to “address the U.S. shortfall in experts with critical language and international area knowledge needed for national security,” and were intended to enable students to “study languages and regions vital to national security.”
The remnants of the Department of Education informed IU that the final year of the grant would not be forthcoming, because “the international and foreign language education grant programs are not a priority of the administration,” and that the programs are “inconsistent with administration priorities and do not advance American interests or values.”
As a result of the funding cut-off, a number of graduate students will be unable to continue their graduate studies. It is yet another facet of this administration’s unremitting attack on education at all levels.
How do arbitrary and capricious–and patently illegal–actions like this harm American interests? Let us count the ways…
Rather obviously, the lack of individuals able to understand foreign communications will make it more difficult to conduct international affairs and to recognize threats to U.S. interests. Those interests may not be a “priority” of this administration, but they’ve been a very high priority of previous administrations–and of the legislators who continued to authorize and fund the programs.
It’s unlikely that most Americans will ever hear of the discontinuation of this particular program, or the negative results that will flow from the significant number of other abruptly terminated education programs and research projects. What we will experience, however, is a steady diminution in national health and in economic well-being, and a substantially reduced ability to protect American interests internationally.
Of course, as the missive from the Department of Education candidly admitted, the protection of America’s interests are not a priority of this administration. That has been obvious for some time. The clear priority of Trump and his collection of clowns, misfits and grifters is the exercise of power and the ability to line their pockets–the corruption of this administration puts Teapot Dome to shame.
The even clearer priority of Trump’s MAGA followers is reversing the legal and social gains of women and minorities–rooting out efforts to level the playing field for non-Whites, non-Christians and non-males. They neither know nor care that those priorities weaken America.
We need to turn out eleven million protestors for the second “No Kings” Day on October 18th.
A while back, the Indianapolis Capital Chronicle published an article reminding readers of the importance of the nation’s public schools. The article began with an acknowledgement of the war being waged on those public schools by the Trump Administration and the Christian Nationalists responsible for Project 2025, and it followed that acknowledgement by underscoring what the nation stands to lose if that war succeeds. The authors reminded readers that the nation’s public schools have been responsible for creating an educated workforce–and far more importantly, for inculcating generations of students with the United States’ fundamental values of liberty, equality, fairness and concern for the common good.
As the great political scientist Benjamin Barber wrote, the public schools have been constitutive of a public–they have forged a community of Americans from the diverse families who sent their children into those public school classrooms.
Education is a public good; it doesn’t simply benefit individual students, it benefits the country. The authors quote Horace Mann–often dubbed the father of our public school system–for the assertion that universal, publicly funded, nonsectarian public schools would help sustain American political institutions, expand the economy and fend off social disorder. Mann’s words really resonate right now, as the years of persistent war on public schools and the diversion of tax dollars to primarily religious schools has contributed greatly to the current polarization and tribalization of the American public, and contributed to our growing social disorder.
The authors of the article noted that they’d written a book titled “How Government Built America,” and they shared two lessons they took from their research for that book.
One is that the U.S. investment in public education over the past 150 years has created a well-educated workforce that has fueled innovation and unparalleled prosperity.
As our book documents, for example, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries the states expanded public education to include high school to meet the increasing demand for a more educated citizenry as a result of the Industrial Revolution. And the GI Bill made it possible for returning veterans to earn college degrees or train for vocations, support young families and buy homes, farms or businesses, and it encouraged them to become more engaged citizens, making “U.S. democracy more vibrant in the middle of the twentieth century.”
The other, equally significant lesson is that the democratic and republican principles that propelled Mann’s vision of the common school have colored many Americans’ assumptions about public schooling ever since. Mann’s goal was a “virtuous republican citizenry” – that is, a citizenry educated in “good citizenship, democratic participation and societal well-being.”
Mann believed there was nothing more important than “the proper training of the rising generation,” calling it the country’s “highest earthly duty.”
The people currently in positions of authority have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest whatsoever in that “rising generation,” neither its training nor its very survival. From the replacement of medical science with quackery likely to cost children’s lives to denial of the climate change that threatens the livability of the planet, the grifters and con men currently in power are interested only in what they can extract during their time in office. They are perfectly happy to advance Christian Nationalists goals, including the destruction of “government” schools and their replacement with “godly academies” that deepen America’s social divisions.
Trump’s dismantling of the Department of Education has been accompanied by pious statements about returning control to the states, but in direct contradiction to that rhetoric, the administration has also been busy mandating what can and cannot be taught in public schools. It continues to threaten funding for school districts that fail to penalize transgender children or that teach about slavery and contemporary forms of discrimination. The White House is demanding a curriculum highlighting “patriotic” education–a curriculum that ignores the less admirable parts of our history and instead depicts the founding of the U.S. as “unifying, inspiring and ennobling.”
A shining City on a hill…
Trump and MAGA fear true education. Instead, they want to indoctrinate–and the material they want to impart is (to put in mildly) inconsistent with reality.
The weakening and eventual destruction of America’s public schools is an essential part of the Christian Nationalist/MAGA/Project 2025 plan to privilege (certain) White Christians and turn others into second-class citizens.
The assault on our universities has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, and the assaults on our public schools have nothing to do with the quality of education.
In the wake of the Charlie Kirk slaying, Micah Beckwith–Indiana’s Christian Nationalist Lieutenant Governor– reportedly said “From the history of mankind, there’s always been truth-speakers who have been speaking God’s truth and the enemy comes at them – the devil and his lies. They’ll try to silence those people. Charlie was one of those people. He was speaking truth and the enemy, the devil and his minions, try to silence him. I think what’s happening is actually the exact opposite effect. I think what you’re going to see is that there are going to be many more like him that are now going to rise up and start speaking where he left off. There’s a saying in the church throughout Christendom, ‘The blood of the martyr is the seed of the church.”
I was heartened by a recent poll (paywall) that pegged Beckwith’s support in Indiana at a robust 9%. Still, I think it’s worthwhile to examine some of the “truths” that Beckwith thinks Kirk was speaking.
Kirk was a counterrevolutionary, a revanchist, who deftly exploited a vision of a lost American gender ideal and the accompanying feelings of dislocation and humiliation on the part of men. Specifically, he wanted to reverse what Claudia Goldin (winner of the Nobel in Economics in 2023) has called the “quiet revolution” in women’s role in American society that occurred between the late 1970s and early 1990s.
Krugman points out that Goldin’s “quiet revolution” didn’t refer to the increasing numbers of women in the paid labor force, a trend that had begun in the 1940s, and had mostly culminated by the late 1970s. Rather, it referred to a radical change in the nature of the kinds of jobs that American women held.
While many women held paid jobs by the early 1970s, young women still tended to see work outside the home as occasional and provisional, as a way to earn modest amounts of money rather than as a fundamental part of their identity. The revolution, according to Goldin, happened when young women began to think about jobs in the same way young men always had — that it wasn’t simply “work” but a career.
As a result, women lived their lives differently. And as Krugman notes, that change has had large ramifications for men.
The changes in women’s status were results of access to contraception and the passage of anti-discrimination laws, and what Krugman describes as a “multiplier effect”— the more that women delayed marriage and childbirth, the more they trained for careers, the easier it became for others to do the same. And as he also pointed out, “rising divorce rates led many women to doubt whether marriage was a safe haven that obviated the need for an independent career.”
Charlie Kirk argued strenuously that this was all a mistake and should be reversed. Krugman quotes him: “Having children is more important than having a good career.”
Kirk was calling on America to stop being the society it is and go back to being the kind of society it hasn’t been for generations. Or, rather, he wanted us to enact his fantasy about what our society once was like. If you imagine that America before the quiet revolution was a nation in which all marriages were happy and all stay-at-home wives were contented, you should read Betty Friedan — or the novels of John Updike.
Krugman and others have pointed out that Kirk never bothered to offer serious policy proposals. But his hostility to women’s equality clearly resonated with many young white men — “men who resent their status in modern America and believe that their lives would be better if we returned to an older social order.”
Krugman concluded by recognizing that, in today’s America, we have “a society that appears to be problematic for many men.” There is a reason Kirk’s revanchism grew his support among them.
Appealing to resentments is the whole strategy of MAGA, Trumpworld and Christian Nationalism–not by suggesting ways to ameliorate unsatisfactory situations, not by advancing policy proposals that might mitigate such situations, but by the far simpler tactic of finding some “other” to blame.
It’s a strategy that evidently works with a significant number of Americans, and it explains the rise of “religious” zealots like Micah Beckwith and clever grifters like Charlie Kirk–opportunists who wage war on women, immigrants, gay people and people of color…
Yesterday, I was honored to keynote NOW’s state convention. Here’s the message I delivered. (And yes, it’s another long post. Sorry…)
__________
These really are the times that try women’s souls.
I don’t need to tell this audience how long and hard women have fought to be treated like human beings entitled to the Equal Protection of the Laws. And I don’t need to explain to anyone here why this is an incredibly dangerous, pivotal moment—not just for women’s rights, but for the entire American experiment.
As I wrote in a recent book, we are living in a time when the defenders of patriarchy are arguing for a return to traditional family roles; a time when the US Supreme Court is dominated by rogue justices who are overprotective of claims that women’s rights are inconsistent with religious freedom and who are dramatically under-protective of women’s basic civil liberties. We live in a time when a once-respectable political party has morphed into a profoundly racist, misogynist Christian Nationalist cult with retrograde beliefs about “women’s place.”
All of these efforts are part and parcel of a hysterical resistance to the social changes that have accompanied modern life– resistance to America’s growing diversity and especially to the progress of women and minority groups—a resistance led by men (largely but not exclusively White men) who resent the loss of the automatic social and legal dominance they once enjoyed simply by virtue of their skin color and gender.
So—how did we get here? Specifically, how have women gotten here? How have we advanced, and how threatening is the current, massive opposition to our hard-won status as almost-equals?
Let me begin by suggesting that there’s a very good reason that those waging a war on women have focused so single-mindedly on reversing our reproductive rights. It is impossible to overstate the effect that reliable birth control—control of reproduction—has had on women’s fight for equality.
The original longtime subservience of the female gender was the result of two major biological facts: first, women, on average, have less brute strength than men on average; and second, we get pregnant. During the many decades that workforce participation largely required brute strength, men were advantaged. And when any sexual encounter could result in pregnancy, women were disadvantaged; as a result, for generations, the female of the species was largely confined to childbearing and child-rearing.
Both of those things have changed.
Over the years, as technology has advanced, fewer and fewer jobs have required physical strength—instead, today’s work world overwhelmingly requires education, intellect and a variety of specialized skills, qualifications that are distributed far more equally between the sexes. I don’t want to minimize the importance of that changing work environment–as a result of those changes in the economy, women have been able to enter the workforce in ever greater numbers.
But by far the most important advance—the development that has allowed millions of women to navigate the economic waters—was the birth control pill and other associated innovations that gave us the tools to control our own reproduction. Before the advent of reliable birth control, every sexual encounter carried the risk of pregnancy, and pregnancy generally meant the end of women’s economic independence.
A pregnant woman was almost always unemployable, and so was a married woman in her childbearing years, since there was always the threat of pregnancy—and childcare was seen (and let’s be honest, is still largely seen) as a uniquely female responsibility. As a result, most married women were entirely economically dependent upon their husbands. If the marriage was unhappy—or worse, violent—a woman with children was literally enslaved. Since she was unable to enter the workforce to support herself or her children, unless she had independent means, she was totally dependent upon her husband, no matter how abusive or otherwise inadequate that husband might be.
Once women had access to reliable birth control, the whole world changed. If women could choose when to procreate, we could also choose when NOT to procreate. We could schedule our reproduction around educational and career opportunities. And even beyond the economic tsunami caused by the availability of birth control, the widespread use of contraception coupled with Supreme Court decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade accompanied significant changes in social attitudes that led to legal changes advancing women’s ability to participate not just in the economy, but also in America’s political and civic life.
Those changes that benefitted women, however, ran headlong into fundamentalist religion and Christian Nationalism. And if you think these fanatics simply oppose abortion—that their opposition to birth control has moderated—be disabused. Let me share just two examples of the zealotry with which the Right is attacking not just abortion but contraception. A bill recently introduced in South Carolina would criminalize hormonal contraception, defining birth control as abortion. The “logic” of the bill comes straight from fetal personhood dogma, which is a theological rather than a scientific concept, and it isn’t limited to South Carolina. There are plenty of other Red state legislators—including here in Indiana—who support legislating that theology into state law. And just last week, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration had destroyed ten million dollars’ worth of birth control pills and other contraceptives that had been destined for people in low-income countries. The administration also announced that the U.S. would no longer fund the purchase of birth control products for low-income countries. What is even more egregious, the government was determined to destroy these contraceptives despite the fact that several international organizations, including the Gates Foundation, had offered to buy them, which would have allowed the government to recoup taxpayer funds. Instead, the administration was willing to spend $167,000 to destroy them and make sure no one used them. Interestingly, after the media reported the destruction, officials in Belgium reported that they were holding them in a warehouse and trying to facilitate their sale so that they could eventually be used in low-income countries. So far, it’s a standoff with the Trump administration continuing to insist that they be destroyed.
They’re coming after contraception, and they haven’t reduced their focus on abortion. Despite the deeply dishonest rhetoric of Justice Alito in Boggs, that opposition is historically relatively recent; state laws forbidding abortion were scarce until the late 1800s. After their passage, however, women could only end unwanted pregnancies in overwhelmingly dangerous and unsafe ways. As officials at Planned Parenthood like to remind us, Roe wasn’t the beginning of abortion; it was the beginning of medically safe abortions.
Together with ready access to birth control, the ability to obtain safe, medically appropriate abortions empowered women to control their own lives to an extent that had previously been unthinkable—and I would suggest to you that it is women’s increased ability to exercise personal autonomy that really powers the forced birth movement.
Even though public opinion is strongly opposed to the ruling in Dobbs, what is not widely recognized is that the forced birth movement that finally toppled Roe did not grow out of genuine religious sentiment, as most people assume, but out of resistance to racial integration.
As noted religion scholar Randall Balmer has reported, America’s anti-abortion movement began in 1979—a full six years after Roe v, Wade was decided. Evangelical leaders, goaded by Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion as a rallying-cry in what was actually a segregationist effort to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term—an effort that was in reaction to the passage of civil rights laws during the Carter administration. Objecting to abortion—talking piously about “baby killing”– was seen as “more palatable” than what was really motivating the Religious Right at the time, which was protection of the segregated schools they had established following the decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
Both before and for several years after the decision in Roe, evangelical Christians had been overwhelmingly indifferent to the subject of abortion, which they considered a “Catholic issue.” In 1968, for instance, a symposium sponsored by the Christian Medical Society and Christianity Today refused to characterize abortion as sinful, citing “individual health, family welfare, and social responsibility” as justifications for ending a pregnancy. In 1971, delegates to the Southern Baptist Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, passed a resolution encouraging “Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother.” The convention reaffirmed that position in 1974, one year after Roe, and again in 1976.
As Ballmer and other historians have reported, what really prompted Evangelical participation in politics was anger at tax and civil rights laws aimed at their segregation academies. Falwell and Weyrich decided to tap into the ire of the racist evangelical leaders who had established those schools, but they were savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would probably be a non-starter. The anti-integration message worked for evangelical leadership, but they needed a different issue to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale. Abortion fit the bill.
In short, historians agree that the catalyst for the Christian Right’s political activism was not, as often claimed, Roe v. Wade and opposition to abortion. The real roots of Christian Nationalism are found in the movement’s racism—and in the furious resistance of White males to the social changes that had allowed women, gay citizens and people of color to exercise increased autonomy and to compete with straight White men on an increasingly level playing field.
As Morton Marcus and I wrote in our recent book on the women’s movement, the Dobbs decision was nothing less than a frontal assault on human liberty. The decision is generally—and accurately—seen as an attack on women’s right to self-determination, but we need to recognize that it was much, much more than that. It was the expression of the growing, profoundly anti-liberty worldview that permeates Project 2025 and poses an existential danger to America’s constitutional values.
What Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade had recognized was the importance of a constitutional doctrine called substantive due process. Dobbs was a frontal attack on that doctrine, which we often call the “right to privacy.” Substantive Due Process, or the right to privacy, confirms the American principle that certain “intimate” individual decisions—including one’s choice of sexual partners or the decision to use contraception– are none of government’s business.
Most constitutional scholars agree that the individual’s right to personal autonomy has always been inherent in the Bill of Rights, but it was explicitly recognized in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Connecticut’s legislature had passed a law prohibiting the use of birth control by married couples. The law prohibited doctors from prescribing contraceptives and pharmacists from filling such prescriptions. The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding that whether a couple used contraceptives was not a decision government is entitled to make. (Fortunately, Samuel Alito wasn’t then on the Court..)
The court’s majority recognized that a right to personal autonomy—the right to self-government—is absolutely essential to the enforcement of other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Justices White and Harlan found explicit confirmation of it in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment—which is where the terminology “substantive due process” comes from. Wherever it resided–in a “penumbra” or the 14th Amendment—a majority of Justices agreed on both its presence and importance.
The doctrine of Substantive Due Process draws a line between decisions that government has the legitimate authority to make, and decisions which, in our system, must be left up to the individual. I used to tell my students that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to decide. What books you read, what opinions you form, what prayers you say (or don’t)—such matters are far outside the legitimate role of government. The issue isn’t whether that book is dangerous or inappropriate, or that religion is false, or whether you should marry someone of the same sex, or whether you should procreate: in America, the issue is who gets to make that decision. And in America, it is the individual, not the state.
Enabling autocracy–destroying our current system of a democratic majority restrained by the Bill of Rights—rather obviously requires eliminating substantive due process. The decision in Dobbs thus opened a pathway to an enormous expansion of government power, and that expansion threatens everyone—especially women, but also gay folks and racial and religious minorities.
So much for where we are. The obvious question—the important question—the question with which we are all struggling—is what can we do? What can an individual do in the face of this retrograde MAGA attack on the most foundational principles of the nation?
We can certainly participate in the growing number of protests being organized by groups like Indivisible and others. (The next “No Kings Day is October 18th. I hope to see you all there.) Don’t dismiss the efficacy of these events; there is scholarship showing that non-violent protests by a sufficient percentage of the population have succeeded in overcoming autocracies elsewhere. That research pegs a “sufficient percentage” at 3.5% of the population. In the U.S., that comes to just over 11 million people. Estimates of the turnout for the first “No Kings Day”—the first big protest– ranged from five to six million participants.
We can also come together with like-minded citizens who understand what is at stake. For example, it is encouraging to note that genuine Christians are finally challenging the White Christian Nationalists. Christians Against Christian Nationalism was formed in 2019, and in a very welcome response to ICE and its efforts to rid the country of Black and Brown people by categorizing them as “illegal immigrants,” a network of 5000 churches—many of them Evangelical– has organized to protect immigrant worshippers and frustrate ICE.
There is also the emerging Resolutions Project, patterned after a mechanism that helped build support for the American Revolution. In the runup to that conflict, those favoring Revolution in towns across the colonies introduced, debated and passed so-called “resolutions of condemnation” that focused on the gravity of the “injuries,” “abuses” and “usurpations” of Mad King George III. Those resolutions helped build support for the Revolution by creating local ownership of their big arguments in the fight for independence. As we speak, there are at least 75 resolutionsthat have either passed or are moving in 23 states + the District of Columbia.It’s an effort that NOW and other pro-democracy Indiana organizations should join!
Longer term, we desperately need to restore civic education and accurate history instruction, and we need to confront the collapse of responsible journalism and the exponential growth of internet propaganda and conspiracy theories. (Don’t ask me how we do that…)
Of course, unless we can stop Trump’s march to dictatorship, we may not have a “long term.” So that brings me to our best chance of derailing the not-so-slow-moving coup we are all watching in real time. That opportunity will come with next year’s midterm elections.
As you all know, more Americans failed to vote in 2024 than voted for either candidate. Getting the rational citizens among those non-voters to the polls next year has to be job number one. In Red states like ours, that means Democrats running a candidate in every district so that disaffected Republicans and apathetic Democrats have someone to vote for. It means a massive effort to increase registration and get out the vote of people who—for whatever reason (but especially the gerrymandering that’s convinced them there’s no point) haven’t been casting ballots; and it means developing messaging that will resonate with them, messaging that will give them both a reason to vote and a reason to believe that their vote will make a difference. And in most parts of the state, it really will make a difference! Let me explain why.
Indiana has long been gerrymandered, but over the years, our rural areas have been steadily emptying out, meaning that the margins enjoyed by Republicans in those “safe” districts have been thinning. That’s one reason. But there’s another. Gerrymandering’s biggest effect is voter suppression. Belief that their district is safe for the GOP, non-voters who might vote for Democrats or Independents have been convinced that there’s no point, so why bother. (When the Democrats fail to run a candidate, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.) In reality, if turnout improved significantly, many of those districts wouldn’t be safe. It isn’t only the demographic shifts; in many districts, there are substantial numbers of Democrats and Independents who have previously failed to turn out. Gerrymandering requires the line drawers to begin with data from prior elections. The failure of discouraged Democrats and Independents to vote has skewed that data by artificially inflating the Republican advantage. We need to take that message to discouraged Indiana voters.
Just let me conclude with the bottom line:
If there has ever been a time for political activism, this is it. If there has ever been a time for all people who oppose the cult that has replaced the Republican party to come together, to abandon our policy differences and work in concert to save the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it’s now.
I know the people in this room will do that work. We just need to encourage the citizens who have been apathetic to join us—and thanks to the daily, unconstitutional, anti-democratic and absolutely horrific behaviors of the Trump administration, a lot of those citizens are no longer apathetic. We can do this.
Virtually all of my conversations with friends and family these days eventually descend into “gloom and doom” focused on the state of our politics, the erosion of American liberty and the effect of the administration’s insane policies on the country’s economic health. All of those reasons for despair–and more–are very real, and the need to be persistent in our fight to reclaim the American Idea is urgent, but we really shouldn’t let our obsession with the forces of repression and regression obscure the fact that there are also lots of good things happening.
Take, for example, some welcome news about the nation’s public schools. A recent study focused on the emergence of “community schools”–a movement that has shown great promise in both educational outcomes and community support. The introduction to the study explains what makes a public school a community school:
Community schools are public schools that use the community school approach to transform into a place where educators, local community members, families, and students work together to strengthen conditions for student learning and healthy development. They provide services and support to fit each community’s needs, guided by the people who know students best— families, teachers, and the students themselves. They often partner with outside organizations and local governments to support the entirety of a student’s well-being to ensure they are healthy, well-fed, safe, and in a better position to learn.
The researchers included a number of examples of community schools that have improved student educational outcomes, increased attendance, improved peer/adult relationships and attitudes toward school, and reduced racial and economic achievement gaps. They estimated that for every dollar invested in a community school, the community received $15 back in improved economic performance and well-being, and they offered a collection of stories about community schools that are transforming the way they function and demonstrating progress on a wide variety of outcome measures.
It isn’t only education. The Trump administration may deny the reality of climate change and be intent on enriching fossil fuel companies, but environmental engineers and scientists around the world are announcing breakthroughs every day.
For example, concern about climate change requires significant attention to construction materials. (The concrete and steel industries together are responsible for as much as 15% of global C02 emissions.) But there has been real progress in this area.
Researchers in Australia have created cement from the hundreds of thousands of tons of glass that is no longer being processed in a failing recycling system. They report that the resulting cement is cheaper, stronger and lighter than traditional cement and delivers functional insulation, fire-resistance and a lower emissions threshold. Other researchers are using brown seaweed to create unfired clay bricks as an alternative to conventional fired bricks and concrete blocks, and Swiss researchers are also moving cement-bonded wood products into the realm of weight-bearing wood-based concrete. There are several others.
There’s also good news in the effort to electrify air travel. One solar-powered around-the-world-flight already took place in 2016. And although replacing larger fossil-fuel powered airplanes probably won’t be a reality until at least 2050, there are already electrified short-range planes built for a small number of passengers.
A really exciting innovation is solar glass– windows and doors that can provide electric power to homes and buildings. Researchers at the University of Michigan have invented a solar glass for windows, doors, skylights and other building-related glass applications.
There’s much, much more. We humans continue to demonstrate real brilliance in solving our more technical and environmental problems. I wonder what it would take to apply that brilliance to our political and social life.
That said, even on the political front, there’s encouraging news. The national resistance is growing, and in Indiana, where we’re all too aware of the problems created by one-party rule, an emerging phenomenon is a sign that MAGA can’t take residents of Red states for granted. Indiana has seen a surge in independent candidacies, and those Independents are winning more often than many people realize—52% of those who made the ballot in 2023–24 were successful.
Nearly half of Indiana’s voters identify as independent, and a growing number of Republicans are repelled by Republican candidates who are increasingly MAGA and Christian Nationalist zealots. (Too many of them still can’t bring themselves to vote for a Democrat, but evidently they will vote for an Independent.)
