About That Misuse Of Language…

In yesterday’s post, I focused on the Right’s habit of using words to mean their opposites, exemplified by MAGA’s insistence that working for social amity and equal treatment for all Americans was really playing “identity politics.” In reality, MAGA’s core belief–that the country should privilege White Christian men–is the essence of “identity politics.”

MAGA’s tactic of using language to undermine the actual meaning of the words being used isn’t limited to that one example. As an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education recently pointed out, in last year’s legislative session, Indiana Republicans provided another, even more egregious example. Under the pretext of protecting “intellectual diversity,” Indiana’s Act 202 is  aimed at limiting the plurality of viewpoints on campus. The Act is a frontal attack on academic freedom, masquerading as the opposite.

The essay began by noting the removal of a social work professor from her classroom for the unpardonable sin of making one graduate student “uncomfortable.” His discomfort was triggered by the instructor’s use of a chart distinguishing between overt and covert racism. The chart included “Make America Great Again” as one of several slogans that can be used as covert white supremacy, and it was used in a class on “Diversity, Human Rights and Social Justice.”

As the essay pointed out, IU’s suspension of the instructor (after the student complained to Indiana’s ultra-MAGA Senator Jim Banks) actually violated the clear terms of the act, both procedurally and under terms which prohibit institutions from limiting the freedom of faculty members “teaching, researching, or writing publications about diversity, equity, and inclusion or other topics.” (This language was intended to protect critics of DEI, but it clearly applies here.)

As the essay’s author points out, attacks on universities on pretexts of protecting intellectual diversity have a long history.

The right has taken the language of the left, mockingly imitating the words and then turning them into tools of repression.

In 2003, David Horowitz urged conservatives to “use the language that the left has deployed” and declare that there is “a lack of ‘intellectual diversity’ on college faculties.” Horowitz tried to invoke “academic freedom” to justify suppressing it, creating the Academic Bill of Rights and his “Students for Academic Freedom,” claiming that protecting the rights of students meant banning professors from expressing political views.

Act 202 undermines both intellectual diversity and due process by permitting university trustees to fire professors deemed “likely to subject students to political or ideological views and opinions that are unrelated to the faculty member’s academic discipline or assigned course of instruction.” Note that no evidence of actual misconduct is needed, simply a belief–founded or not– that a professor might be “likely” to say something forbidden.

Act 202 also prohibits professors from saying anything unrelated to their classes. Anything. That’s in clear contrast to AAUP’s appropriate standard, which is for “teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.”

It’s not the presence of any ideas unrelated to a class that violates academic norms, but only persistently intruding material. And this rule must be applied in a viewpoint neutral manner. Colleges cannot punish unrelated speech about politics more than they punish unrelated speech about football or the weather or any other topic. By targeting political viewpoints alone for penalties, SB 202 clearly violates the First Amendment.

Act 202 also weakens tenure protections–protections that were specifically created to protect intellectual diversity. Act 202 requires–okay, threatens– a “post-tenure review” by trustees–officials with no demonstrated competence to judge academic work. A professor’s work should be judged by academic peers rather than unqualified political appointees.

I can attest to the chilling effect of these provisions and IU’s over-eager implementation of them. During numerous conversations, former colleagues have shared dismay and discomfort, given that–under the Act’s language– it is impossible to know what ideas might be deemed “unrelated” to a professor’s academic field by a trustee who knows nothing about that field. (And in Indiana, where our MAGA Governor has personally chosen all of the trustees, that ignorance is pretty much a given.)

The tactical brilliance of laws like Act 202 is obvious. People resisting a law that is dishonestly framed as protective of intellectual diversity invites critics to charge that they are denouncing the concept rather than trying to protect it.

Indiana’s legislature may be accomplishing the true purpose of Act 202. The state is losing some of its best academic minds, who are decamping to institutions willing to protect genuine intellectual diversity, and under its current administration, a formerly proud and storied academic institution is poised to descend to the self-satisfied mediocrity of that legislature.

Comments

The Real Identity Politics

One of the many things that exasperate me about what currently passes for political dialogue is the substitution of labels for efforts to communicate. (And yes, I find myself engaging in that practice from time to time–it’s easier to call the administration “fascist” than to carefully describe the behaviors that lead me to affix that label. Mea culpa.)

Although people on all sides of the political divide indulge in this dismissive exchange of epithets, there’s one particularly dishonest label that is increasingly employed by MAGA and the Right: Identity politics. The accusation is a companion to the “woke” label and the persistent attacks on DEI and similar efforts meant to erase the bigotries that have made life more difficult for women and minorities.

If there is one tactic that the MAGA movement has perfected, it is calling out its opponents for behaviors that are actually its own. A recent article from the New Republic pointed out that it is the Right, not the Left or Center Left, that is consistently engaged in “identity politics.”  The article was a conversation with Kimberle Crenshaw, a noted scholar of America’s various forms of bigotry and their interrelationship.

Crenshaw began by discussing the anti-Black animus that is the core of Trump’s agenda and appeal–an animus that has become too obvious for the rest of us to ignore–and the way in which anti-Black and anti-woman bias worked to defeat Kamala Harris.

I found one observation especially “on target,” because it gets to the root of the way labeling often deflects reality. Crenshaw points out that when the Right screams “identity politics” it defines identity politics in “terms of women, queer people, and Black folks.”

When Trump and MAGA world say things like, If you want to get anything done, you have to put white men in charge, they don’t call that identity politics. When they take all the books off the shelves that they think are about identity politics and leave Mein Kampf on the shelves at the Naval Academy, that’s identity politics that they don’t talk about. So the identity politics that is at the core of the anxiety that MAGA builds itself into is never named.

So it’s clear that there’s a particular kind of identity politics that they are willing to wrap themselves in. And that’s an old-school, long part of the American faction that wanted to think about the United States as a white, male, Christian country, which has now shown up in white Christian nationalism. That is the identity politics of the moment.

It is in pursuit of protecting the prerogatives of that identity–White Christian male identity–that MAGA and the Trump administration are attacking any and all efforts to promote equity in what is, despite their hysterical denials, a multiracial society.

That is their identity politics now. It’s called the assault on improper ideology. And if you want to see what it looks like in real time, look at their assault on DEI. The assault on DEI is basically if people of color, if women, if any people who don’t look like us, are in any way involved in something that is bad, we can say that they are the fault of it.

And what does that mean? If you happen to be the mayor of Baltimore when a ship collides into your bridge, because you’re Black and you are there, we can pin the responsibility on you. If there’s an air disaster over Washington, D.C., we can pin it on DEI. No proof, no nothing. All we have to do is claim it.

When I read this, my first thought was “of course! Why didn’t I see this before?” When I thought about that question–why I hadn’t recognized the real identity politics–I had to (grudgingly) give the Right credit for learning the lessons taught years ago by Frank Luntz and first employed by Newt Gingrich.

Luntz advocated using vocabulary that was carefully crafted to produce a desired political effect (an effect that didn’t include descriptive accuracy). He counseled GOP strategists to use the term death tax instead of estate tax, for example. Luntz has described his specialty as “finding words that will help his clients sell their product or turn public opinion on an issue or a candidate.”

I don’t know whether Luntz was personally involved in the (mis)use of the term “identity politics,” but that tactic–accusing opponents of something you yourself are doing–certainly bears his hallmark.

And that hallmark is misdirection, not communication. 

Comments

False Equivalence

Most of us learned early in our lives that pointing out the misdeeds of others wasn’t going to persuade our parents to forgive our own misbehaviors. Evidently, a lot of political actors either never learned that lesson or have forgotten it, because one of the favored arguments of today’s partisans are accusations of false equivalence.

As Frank Bruni recently noted in an essay for The New York Times, those claims tend to claim a symmetry that doesn’t exist.

They’re equivalences not merely false but fantastical. They ignore the severity, the prevalence, the consequences of the misconduct in question. Imagine defending a suitor who’s a serial arsonist because the other guy has a jaywalking citation; both bachelors are lawbreakers, after all. That’s the perverse moral arithmetic of more than a few Trump apologists.

Bruni notes the dishonesty of claims that Trump is no worse than Biden–claims that send me up the wall. Biden was an institutionalist; his longstanding public service had given him a respect for the norms of American governance, the independence of the Department of Justice and the authority of the co-equal branches of our government. And the fact that Biden surrounded himself with highly competent officials meant that when he suffered the ravages of age, the country wasn’t plunged into chaos; the clown car that is the Trump administration has no ability to temper the damage done daily by Trump’s ignorance and increasingly obvious dementia.

As Bruni points out, nothing that occurred during the Biden administration is even remotely analogous to Trump’s purge of Justice Department lawyers who have been unwilling to pursue his improper thirst for vengeance–his insistence that lawsuits be brought against those who crossed him despite the lack of evidence of any wrongdoing.

The Trump supporters who swallowed the Big Lie that the 2020 election was “rigged” argue that partisanship, rather than  wrongdoing, motivated the legal cases against him. As Bruni writes,

To accept that magical thinking, you must erase the photographs of classified documents keeping company with a commode at Mar-a-Lago. You must delete the recording of Trump telling Brad Raffensperger, the top election official in Georgia, to figure out some way to reverse Biden’s victory there in 2020. And you must persuade yourself that Trump’s emphatic proclamations that the 2020 election was being stolen, his haranguing of former Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the election results and his support of Big Lie conspiracy theorists were just politics as usual. That’s a sequence of moral calisthenics so arduous they burn more calories than an hour at CrossFit.

Bruni offers many other examples; he focuses especially on the “relentless, boundless and unabashed Trump’s monetization and merchandising of his political station.” It’s worth clicking through and reading the entire, sorry story.

The wrongheadedness of these efforts to draw false and phony equivalences is part of the larger effort to normalize behavior that is abhorrent, criminal and decided uncivil. The truth of the matter is that, in the history of this country, there has never been a President or an administration remotely like this one. (“Tricky Dick” Nixon was, indeed, a crook–but at least he had a sense of propriety that motivated him to pretend that he wasn’t.)

The offenses that Bruni focuses on, and the many–many–others that we read about daily, are unprecedented. Much of what this administration is doing is blatantly criminal. But allow me to indulge in my own version of a false equivalence by suggesting that Trump’s crass and boorish language and behavior–his utter lack of any civility–may be equally damaging to the body politic.

No former President has used the sort of demeaning language that Trump routinely employs; no former public servant would have survived an episode in which he called a reporter “piggy.” It isn’t simply the looney, misspelled and ungrammatical tweets–it’s the utter lack of propriety and respect, what we used to call (dismissively, to be sure) “political correctness” that is taking America into a gutter of animus and our public discourse to the level of a third-grade playground.

Granted, the loss of civility isn’t killing people– RFK, Jr., the DOGE cuts, and the Big Beautiful Bill are doing that. But the decline of civility isn’t a small matter; it’s an invitation to barbarism, to attitudes and behaviors inconsistent with a civilized society.

When we finally eject this abominable administration and begin the necessary legal and policy remedies, we also need to insist that our elected officials demonstrate the civility required by a democratic polity. (Good grammar would be a plus…)

Comments

Federalism

In the United States, states have a long history of being considerably less than united. The Articles of Confederation were so focused on protecting the prerogatives of the individual colonies that they proved unworkable, and were replaced by a Constitution that made its own significant concessions to “states’ rights.”

As the country modernized and experienced increasing economic and social integration, the need for national standards became more obvious. Lawmakers recognized that federal agencies regulating things like health or clean air and water needed to issue regulations that would operate similarly in all the states. The Uniform Law Commission (also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), was created to draft legislation that would bring stability and conformity to state statutory law in areas where such uniformity is seen as desirable and practical. And there is an obvious need for federal law enforcement to enforce its criminal laws nationally.

But there is still room for considerable variation. Justice Brandeis memorably called the states in our federalist system “laboratories of democracy.”

Americans increasingly operate, live and do business in multiple states–a situation that led me to discount the importance of federalism for a long time. (Different laws in different states, after all, caused some very silly situations; before the Supreme Court found same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right, people who were married in one state weren’t considered married in others.) I focused on the downside and failed to appreciate the upside.

The Trump administration has reminded me of federalism’s importance. Governors like Jay Pritzker in Illinois and Gavin Newsom in California, among others, have illustrated that importance, and a recent article from Vox called federalism a “hidden constraint” on Trump.

So far, the biggest successes against President Donald Trump’s second-term assault on democracy have come not from Congress and the Supreme Court, but more unusual sources: lower-court judges, “No Kings” protests, a Disney+ subscriber boycott, and Trump’s own indiscipline and incompetence.

After the 2025 elections, we can add the states to the list. And in some ways, this avenue of resistance may prove to be the most consequential one.

The article noted that the United States’ federalist system is unusual among backsliding democracies– and that it creates some “major opportunities for institutional pushback” that aren’t possible elsewhere. It also notes the irony of where we are today, since for most of our history, states (especially in the South) “have been places where pockets of authoritarianism could exist in a nationally democratic society.”

Certain of the powers that are, in our system, remitted to the states — very much including control over the administration of elections — are mechanisms through which we can resist this administration’s authoritarian power grab. We can see this most vividly in Trump’s effort to rig the upcoming midterm elections by asking Red states to engage in improper mid-cycle gerrymanders.

Because election administration is almost entirely devolved to the states in the American system, Trump has very limited powers to actually try and rig elections from DC. Instead, gerrymandering at the state level — threatening and cajoling governors and state legislatures into drawing as many safe seats for Republicans as possible — is his best shot at actually stacking the deck in the GOP’s favor in 2026.

As we are seeing, that effort is currently failing. Not only have Blue states “counter-gerrymandered,” but legislators in Red states like Indiana have (at least so far) refused to go along, deferring to the huge majorities of their constituents who disapprove.

As the article points out, would-be autocrats follow a well-worn path that requires consolidating formal power in their own hands and neutering independent checks on their authority. It’s a lot harder to rig elections or prosecute your political opponents when you don’t control the necessary levels of power. True, strong federalism cannot guarantee democracy: (Our history has ample examples of authoritarianism flourishing at local levels) But that system creates “opportunities for contestation” when the national government is moving in an unAmerican direction.

It’s hard to imagine a more unAmerican–not to mention demented– administration than the one we currently have. In just the last week, our mad would-be King has accepted a bribe from Saudi Arabia, authorized extra-judicial killings of Venezuelan fishermen, called for the death of political opponents who had the temerity to remind our troops that they took an oath to defy manifestly illegal orders, and responded to a legitimate question from a reporter by calling her “piggy.”

Given the fact that we have a Congress of eunuchs and a corrupt majority on the Supreme Court, I have a new appreciation for the role of federalism in America’s system of checks and balances.

Comments

Heritage’s History

Those of us who know about Project 2025–and were properly horrified by it–also know that those 900+ pages attacking everything that makes America America was a product of the Heritage Foundation. (Now we know just what sort of “heritage” that organization was created to protect.)

Earlier this month, Paul Krugman traced the Foundation’s history, in a newsletter he titled “The Decline and Fall of the Heritage Foundation.”

Krugman began with the “fall” part– the recent controversy triggered by the response of Keven Roberts, Heritage’s president, to Tucker Carlson’s interview of rabid neo-Nazi and anti-Semite, Nick Fuentes. In a video, Roberts defended Carlson and attributed the uproar to “the globalist class,” a turn of phrase that–as Krugman notes–is routinely used to attack Jews.

Why did Roberts weigh in on the Carlson-Fuentes controversy? He obviously felt he needed to express support for the right of conservatives to be conspiracy-theory antisemites — despite the fact that Heritage itself has an antisemitism task force. Unsurprisingly, many of the task force members have now resigned.

Media reporting on this story has been excellent and revealing. However, I believe that much of the commentary misjudges the true nature of Heritage, portraying it as a genuine think tank that picked the wrong leader or was corrupted by MAGA.

According to Krugman, Heritage has always been a fraud rather than a genuine think-tank,  “a propaganda mill cosplaying as a research institution.” Its problem now is that its “original scam” was designed for a different time. Back in the Reagan years the Right’s bigotry and intolerance were far more discreet; those prejudices were more subtly employed to elect Republicans who could then be counted on to deliver deregulation and tax cuts. Heritage was there to lend superficial respectability to policies that were regressive and discriminatory, and that overwhelmingly benefitted the rich.

Krugman writes that he first encountered Heritage when the organization was working for repeal of the Estate tax, arguing that the tax was a “massive burden on small businesses and farms, which was simply a lie.”

In 2004 only around 300 small businesses and farms owed any estate tax at all. No, I’m not missing zeroes. And the number has gone down over time. These days basically no small businesses or farms pay the tax.

So Heritage wasn’t doing research. It was just pumping out dishonest propaganda.

Krugman cited another example, this one from 2011, the year Heritage released widely ridiculed projections about the positive effects we might expect of Paul Ryan’s budget proposals–again, producing propaganda rather than economic research.

But telling lies on behalf of the wealthy isn’t enough in the MAGA era. To be a right-winger in good standing you also have to be a sexist, a racist, and an anti-Semite, while promoting QAnon and other conspiracy theories.

Krugman cites the “economists” employed by Heritage as examples of its true purpose. In 2014. it was Stephen Moore, a fixture in right-wing circles, who mainstream economists describe as utterly incompetent.  He was replaced by E.J. Antoni, who Trump tried to install as head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Antoni’s nomination was withdrawn after reports surfaced that his Twitter account was filled with “sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories, and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.” (CNN also reported that Antoni “repeatedly tweeted that liberal economist Paul Krugman was a pedophile, a smear for which there is no evidence – and one he also hurled at former President Joe Biden and former FBI director James Comey.”)

Heritage lists Antoni as its “Chief Economist.”

Krugman is correct when he insists that Heritage’s history is consistent with–and illustrative of– the story of the modern Right as a whole.

Heritage was never a respectable institution doing honest research. It was always in the business of telling lies on behalf of its wealthy supporters. But now it’s trying to turn itself into a MAGA/Groyper institution, less focused on telling economic lies and more focused on bigotry and conspiracy theories.

Krugman’s analyses are amply corroborated by Project 2025, which Wikipedia accurately describes as a political effort to “reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power in favor of right-wing policies.”

Roberts hasn’t changed the historic character of Heritage. He has merely–and probably accidentally– illustrated its true mission.

Comments