The Long Game

Historians and scholars have pointed out that the current, previously unthinkable assault on America’s Constitution–especially on Separation of Church and State–and the accompanying war on science and education aren’t sudden eruptions. Recent documentaries like “Bad Faith” have focused on those I think of as the “anti-Founders,” the men who began their theocratic and plutocratic efforts more than fifty years ago, willing to play the long game.

A game that is now bearing (rotten) fruit.

I was intrigued to come across a description of one strand of that long game, written in 2023 for Inside Higher Educatiion by Linda Stamato. Linda is an unusually perceptive scholar with whom I’ve become a sometime-email-correspondent, and her analysis focused on a much-discussed memorandum written by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell–a memorandum “credited” with triggering the long corporate war against the nation’s universities and public education.

There is significant recognition of the way Powell’s memo jump-started the war on public education via the so-called “privatization” of the nation’s public schools through the vouchers that send our tax dollars to private, overwhelmingly religious, schools. In this essay, Stamato focuses on the less widely recognized influence of that memo on the current, ferocious assault on higher education. 

As she wrote,

The “war” on higher education in the U.S.—and the status it once held as a public good—has been going on for decades. This war no doubt has many points of origin. One can be found in a once-obscure, intended-to-be-confidential document, written for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1971 by Lewis F. Powell Jr., shortly before he ascended to the nation’s highest court.

Decidedly conservative, and dead set against the academy, the Powell memo, titled “Attack on American Free Enterprise System,” placed higher education in its crosshairs.

Powell’s manifesto—the focus of this essay—laid the groundwork for much of what we now see in the efforts to undermine tenure, to prohibit faculty from appearing as expert witnesses to share their professional knowledge in legal proceedings and to undermine the autonomy of institutional governing boards, not to mention the explosion of bills and laws emanating from state legislatures that would dictate what is to be taught in college and university classrooms.

Powell’s memo began with the thesis that “the American economic system is under broad attack,” and he outlined what Stamato described as “a comprehensive, coordinated counteroffensive on the part of the American business community in response.” That response singled out “the Campus” as a source of those attacks.

Powell saw “bright young men,” from campuses across the country,” who were seeking “opportunities to change a system which they have been taught to distrust … if not, indeed, despise.” They sought these opportunities to challenge free market ideology through employment in “the centers of the real power and influence in our country”—namely the news media; in government, as staff and consultants; in elective politics; as lecturers and writers; and on the faculties of educational institutions.

Stamato describes Powell’s prescriptions for battling what we might now call a “woke” ideology–measures that we can now see in a variety Red state efforts to “balance” faculty ideologies and monitor what can be taught in America’s academic institutions. 

As Stamato reports, Powell’s memo prompted corporate interests to take up the challenge, and college campuses have been targets ever since. 

Richard Vedder, writing in Forbes, lays out the conservative campus movement—and it is that—as taking “at least four forms: entire schools where conservative or traditional values dominate campus life, national organizations promoting conservative ideas, foundations which support conservative or libertarian enclaves on campus, and non-university think tanks and research centers which provide conservative analysis of the world outside the traditional Ivory Tower.”

The article describes the ways in which the rise of conservative think tanks have influenced not just educational institutions, but the courts–and their success in creating language that obscures their ideological intent. Terms such as “intellectual freedom” and “viewpoint diversity” are used to justify restricting intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity. (One thinks of Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word, it means what I say it means…”)

The article is well worth your time to click through and read in its entirety.

The Powell memo, along with racism and fundamentalist hysteria over the growing secularization of society, spawned the current resistance to “elitism”–i.e., knowledge and expertise.  America’s current dysfunctions and the elevation of dangerous and embarrassing ignoramuses to positions of authority are rooted in efforts that began a long time ago. 

You really need to read the whole essay.

Comments

Soft Secession

I recently came across a lengthy Substack post from The Existential Republic, titled “It’s Time for Americans to Start Talking About ‘Soft Secession.”  It was fascinating–and (assuming the accuracy of the reporting) immensely comforting. If even half of the sub-rosa efforts reportedly underway really are underway, the resistance is far more robust than I had imagined.

Evidently, Blue state leaders have been “war-gaming” a variety of scenarios.

For many state Attorney Generals and Governors, the legal briefs are already drafted. The strategy sessions have been running since December. “We saw this coming, even though we hoped it wouldn’t,” former Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum told The 19th days after Trump’s inauguration.

This is what American federalism looks like in 2025: Democratic governors holding emergency sessions on encrypted apps, attorneys general filing lawsuits within hours of executive orders, and state legislatures quietly passing laws that amount to nullification of federal mandates. Oregon is stockpiling abortion medication in secret warehouses. Illinois is exploring digital sovereignty. California has $76 billion in reserves and is deciding how to deploy it. Three sources on those daily Zoom calls between Democratic AGs say the same phrase keeps coming up, though nobody wants to say it publicly: soft secession.

Soft, because we aren’t looking at secession Civil War style. This time around–again, according to the post–Blue states are building parallel systems and withholding cooperation. They are creating “facts on the ground that render federal authority meaningless within their borders.”

The infrastructure for this resistance already exists. Twenty-three Democratic attorneys general now gather on near-daily Zoom calls at 8 AM Pacific, which means the East Coast officials are already on their third coffee. They divide responsibilities and share templates for lawsuits they’ve been drafting since last spring.

Yale Law Professor Heather Gerken calls this “uncooperative federalism,” an approach that doesn’t require states to actively resist, merely refuse to help. And as the article points out, without state cooperation, much of the federal government’s agenda becomes unenforceable.

Eight states have already enacted State Voting Rights Acts that exceed federal protections. Twenty-two states have implemented automatic voter registration. Colorado has created what election security experts call the gold standard: risk-limiting audits with paper ballot requirements.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, who successfully sued Trump during his first term, promised she’s “ready to fight back again.” During Trump’s first term, Democratic attorneys general led more than 130 multistate lawsuits against the administration and won 83 percent of them…

Pritzker has his staff exploring how to force Apple and Google to disable location tracking for anyone crossing into Illinois for medical procedures, preventing any digital trail that could be subpoenaed. Multiple governors are studying whether they can legally deny federal agents access to state databases, airports, and even highways for immigration enforcement. The discussions, according to sources, have gone as far as evaluating state authority to close airspace to federal deportation flights. States are creating pharmaceutical stockpiles, climate agreements, immigration policies. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has secured 209 electoral votes. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s 11 states have reduced emissions by 50% while the federal government rolled back climate regulations. The U.S. Climate Alliance’s 24 governors represent 60% of the American economy.

California doesn’t wait for Washington anymore. Neither does New York. Or Illinois. They’re building functioning governmental systems that operate independently of federal authority.

I strongly encourage you to click through and read the rest of the lengthy post, which has multiple examples of the ways in which “the same constitutional structure that allows red states to ban abortion permits blue states to stockpile abortion pills. The same Tenth Amendment that lets Texas deploy its National Guard to the border prevents Trump from commandeering state police for deportations.”

Of course, as we repeatedly see, constitutional restrictions mean nothing to our Mad King, and our rogue Supreme Court has signaled a willingness to overrule many of the eminently correct decisions of the lower federal courts. Nevertheless, I found the extent of the coordinated activities of America’s Blue states to be immensely hopeful, especially since the majority of Americans live in those states–and since (as the article also documents) the country’s Red states are economically dependant on Blue state taxpayers.

As the post concludes:

The phrase “soft secession” makes Democrats nervous. They prefer “resistance” or “federalism” or any other euphemism that doesn’t acknowledge what’s happening. But when democracy fails, when fair elections become impossible in certain states, when federal funds are withheld as political punishment, states don’t have many options left.

The infrastructure is built. The legal precedents are established. The money is there. Blue states have spent two years sharpening these tools…

As blue states prepare to deny federal agents access to their databases, their highways, maybe even their airspace, the soft secession isn’t coming. It’s here.

Comments

Indiana’s “Christian” Soldiers…

Elections have consequences–and in Indiana, those consequences are potentially frightening.

Thanks to gerrymandering and the refusal of rural voters to cast a ballot for anyone who doesn’t have an R by their name, the state is currently “governed” (note quotation marks) by  a slate of pathetic wanna-bes and Christian Nationalists. We have a governor who is clearly more interested in the title (and in staying in Trump/MAGA’s good graces) than in policy; an Attorney General who evidently skipped his law school class on ethics, and who has turned the office into a performative culture war outpost; a Secretary of State who was elected despite obvious incompetence and corruption and has continued to exhibit both.

And then, of course, there is our Lieutenant Governor, Micah Beckwith, who consistently displays his ignorance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights while working to turn Indiana into a Christian theocracy.

The Statehouse File recently reported on meetings Beckwith has been having with others in the Christian Taliban.

At a closed-door meeting in April, Micah Beckwith and members of what the Indiana lieutenant governor called his Anti-Woke Advisory Committee laid out an aggressive strategy to expand conservative influence in public schools and push back against what the group identified as “woke policy creep.”

The committee detailed plans to launch conservative student clubs, reshape teacher training programs, and identify school districts where diversity and pro-LGBTQ+ policies are in place, according to meeting notes obtained by The Indiana Citizen and verified as authentic by a person familiar with the committee. Many of the discussion topics were aimed at ramping up political pressure on school boards.

Attendees at the meeting included the Executive Director and Education Director of the far-ritht Indiana Family Institute, Former Attorney General Curtis Hill ( you will recall his law license was suspended over groping allegations),  Jay Hart, a Morgan County conservative who unsuccessfully challenged state Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray in a 2024 Republican primary, State Senator Craig Haggard, a Republican from Mooresville, and several other Christian Nationalist activists.

The committee was formed by Beckwith, who self-identifies as a Christian nationalist, and the Statehouse File reports that the meeting focused on “specific steps to launch conservative clubs in schools and target teachers, education colleges, and programs they see as promoting pro-LGBTQ+ content or “leftist ideology.”

Beckwith’s animus toward the gay community and his efforts to marginalize the members of that community are longstanding, and the committee spent considerable time focusing on potential anti-gay measures. Participants noted that some teachers continue to display LGBTQ+ flags and classroom décor to signal inclusion, which they described as a way to “push agendas.”

I guess it’s only an “agenda” when it isn’t consistent with your effort to “Christianize” the state, an effort that somehow isn’t an “agenda.”

The committee extended its focus beyond classrooms to nonprofit organizations, recommending audits of groups with state-issued specialty license plates to ensure they were in compliance with what they called “anti-DEI executive orders.” The Indianapolis Youth Group, which provides services and support to LGBTQ+ youth, was specifically named for review.

The linked report also documents Beckwith’s relationships with figures of several national far-right groups.

During the meeting, members proposed a quarterly “Woke Radar Report” to track what they consider “problem districts” and suggested mechanisms that would give Beckwith a platform to pressure local school boards. According to the article, the institution of such a report “would function both as a watchdog tool and a political instrument, spotlighting schools where progressive policies are growing.”

The article has much more–all pretty terrifying, and absolutely none of it consistent with the job description of the office of Lieutenant Governor. That office is charged with heading up the Indiana State Department of Agriculture, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, and the Office of Community and Rural Affairs. (I believe it also heads up efforts to increase tourism.) Nowhere does that portfolio include the Christianizing of the schools.

Of course, the Lieutenant Governor also becomes Governor if the sitting governor dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to serve. I’m no fan of empty suit Mike Braun, but I certainly hope he’s healthy…

These sorry excuses for state “leadership” sure don’t make me proud to be a Hoosier….

Comments

Told You So…Repeatedly

WFYI recently reported on a new business alliance focused on improving civic education. It’s a welcome development.

The Indiana Business Alliance for Civics will provide resources and work with businesses to encourage employees to register and vote, and will provide education about civics. It will also connect businesses with schools, to encourage civics education. The alliance is led by Business For America, a national nonprofit. 

As long-time readers of this blog know, civics education has been a primary focus for me for a long time. During my tenure at IUPUI (now IU-Indy), I founded the Center for Civic Literacy, which explored ways to reverse Americans’ really shocking lack of knowledge about the most basic elements of their Constitutional, political and legal systems. 

A recent Substack attributed the lack of emphasis on civics–and really, all of the humanities–to the growing emphasis on STEM, which the authors traced back to the shock of Sputnik. As they wrote,

it’s not enough for students only to study math, technology, and the sciences. It’s not enough for our country to have the top earners, or the top innovators of weapons and warfare. We all need to be educated citizens, knowledgeable about history and civics as well as science and technology.

If you think the over-emphasis on STEM and the neglect of civics is overstated, you need only follow the money.

At the start of the Biden administration, the federal government was spending more than $50 per student on STEM education, versus only $0.50 per student per year on civic education (and even that represents a tenfold increase from a few years earlier). You get what you pay for: on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) civics assessment, American students have been scoring pretty dismally for decades now. And as of August 2025, the Trump administration has cut $12 billion for K-12 education (including some STEM programs) and merged funds for civic education with other areas, so that some states may not spend any money on civic education at all.

One paragraph really says it all–it explains how our woeful lack of civic knowledge has contributed to the success of the MAGA/Trump assault on America’s democratic institutions.

Democracy is reliant on a culture of civic participation. Governing ourselves takes work and commitment. So if we’re going to renovate our constitutional democracy and institutions in the United States to work better for everyone, we also need to do some serious work on our culture of citizenship, to make sure that we are ready to play our part well. Civic education is how we restore and grow that culture.

When you don’t know how the system is supposed to work, you are a prime target for disinformation.

I attribute the over-emphasis on STEM and the corresponding lack of concern for civic literacy to what is a hot-button issue for me: the widely-accepted belief that education is basically a consumer good–that it is indistinguishable from job training. Ratings of colleges focus on the earnings of graduates, not the depth of knowledge communicated in classrooms–a fatal misunderstanding of the educational mission. Not only is genuine education a far broader benefit to the individual, it is a public good that builds the capacity of the nation to govern itself.

As Robert Reich wrote in a 2022 essay,

Such an education must encourage civic virtue. It should explain and illustrate the profound differences between doing whatever it takes to win, and acting for the common good; between getting as much as one can get for oneself, and giving back to society; between seeking personal celebrity, wealth, or power, and helping build a better society for all. And why the latter choices are morally necessary.

Finally, civic virtue must be practiced. Two years of required public service would give young people an opportunity to learn civic responsibility by serving the common good directly. It should be a duty of citizenship.

A concerted emphasis on civic virtue might even begin to change the nature of America’s social incentives, which now are disproportionately weighted toward rewarding greed and celebrity. And–again, as regular readers know–I have long been an advocate for a year or two of mandatory public service.

It’s a positive sign when business leaders recognize the dangers of our civic deficit and take action to combat it. If and when we defeat MAGA’s assault on the principles that made America America, strengthening civics instruction should be a very high priority.

Comments

Rigging The Vote, Thanks To A Rogue Court

A number of pundits have pointed out that Donald Trump is a prime example of projection; that when he accuses someone of bad behavior, it is almost always behavior in which he, himself, has engaged. His current effort to get Red states to redistrict mid-cycle is a perfect example. Ever since he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden, Trump has insisted that he couldn’t possibly have lost “fair and square,” that the election had been rigged. So, in typical Trump fashion, he is engaging in an effort to rig the upcoming midterms.

As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has recently written,

Texas Republicans are in the midst of making their state even more of a mockery of the concept of representative democracy than it already was. In an attempt to preserve the GOP’s narrow House majority in the 2026 midterms, lawmakers are tinkering with the boundaries of the state’s 38 congressional districts to create five more safe Republican seats, forcing several Democratic incumbents to seek re-election next year in districts that are suddenly, alarmingly red. Scrambling the map in this manner would ensure that in a state in which Trump earned 56 percent of the vote in 2024, Republicans would lock up 80 percent of the state’s representation in Congress for the rest of the decade.

The effort to give Republican candidates unearned advantages isn’t limited to Texas–Trump is currently leaning on other Red states, notably Florida and Indiana–to engage in the same gerrymandering, which he clearly believes will forestall a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. (He really shouldn’t be so confident; in a special election just last Tuesday, a Democrat won a seat in the Iowa legislature with 55% of the vote–in a district that Trump had carried by 11 points. But recognition of nuance and complexity aren’t among Trump’s very limited intellectual skills.)

As Marshall quite correctly notes, “you can draw a straight line between this frantic gerrymandering arms race and a mind-bendingly stupid decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.” That “mind-bendingly stupid decision” was a 5-4 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2019 case in which the five Republican justices held that partisan gerrymanders are a “political question”—that is, an issue that must be left to the democratic process. “Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the Constitution yields no workable standard for determining when a given gerrymander goes too far to be legal.”

In what is, in my view, still one of the most embarrassing paragraphs to appear in the pages of the United States Reporter, Roberts wraps in Rucho by noting that the holding constrains only federal courts; Congress, he says, would remain free to enact anti-gerrymandering legislation, as would lawmakers at the state level. The argument here is that voters who are dissatisfied with corruption in the political process don’t actually need John Roberts’s help, because they can always seek redress of their grievances via the aforementioned corrupt political process. This is roughly analogous to the fire department pulling up to a burning house, attaching the hoses to fire hydrants, and then politely informing the owner that it could rain any minute.

As Marshall points out, and as I have previously written, there definitely are standards the Court might have applied. The decision was clearly partisan. Republicans control 59 of the 99 state-level legislative chambers, and both the legislature and the governorship in 24 of those states. That compares with just 15 for Democrats. Despite the fact that most Blue states have significantly larger populations than the more numerous Red states, Republicans have power over the line-drawing process in more places than the Democrats–a power that allows the GOP to win elections despite garnering fewer votes overall.

It’s hard to argue with Marshall’s conclusion that what is happening in Texas and California and elsewhere right now “demonstrates just how vapid and hollow the reasoning in Rucho always was. You do not have to have a law degree to understand that a Texas map that transforms a 56-42 advantage into a 79-21 blowout is not, in any meaningful sense, fair.”

But it isn’t just Rucho. The Roberts Court will go down in history (assuming we have a history) as a disgraceful, rogue Court in which a blatantly partisan majority enabled an autocrat and undermined the democratic process in multiple decisions contrary to years of judicial precedents.

If and when the Democrats control Congress, they need to impose term limits on the justices, and expand the Court.

Comments