One of the constants of Trumpism has been its war on women. Trump himself sees women only as sexual objects; the Christian Nationalists who support him see us as “feeders and breeders”– designed by God to submit to men and produce babies.
Trump has decimated boards that administer workplace anti-discrimination laws, rescinded prior Executive Orders against discrimination, reduced enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Act, and undercut civil rights and anti-discrimination laws across the government, with anti-DEI efforts front and center. The administration has cut funding for research on women’s health, erased vital information from federal websites, and eliminated the Gender Policy Council. It proposes huge cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other programs disproportionately depended upon by women and children. (There’s much more at the link.)
All of these measures are part of the Right’s hysterical resistance to culture change.
A significant minority of Americans feel existentially threatened by the progress of women and minorities. That progress challenges their worldviews, their beliefs about the “proper” order of the world. Trump was elected by those hysterical people. Even those who recognized his personal repulsiveness supported him because he promised to reverse what most of us consider social progress– to turn back the cultural changes that so frighten and infuriate them.
I wondered what research tells us about whether government can reverse cultural changes, so I looked into it.
Studies tell us that such efforts face significant structural, social, and generational resistance. It turns out that entrenched social changes are really difficult to reverse. Shifts of attitudes about race, gender roles, sexuality, and religion occured over generations, and as a result, contemporary perspectives on individual autonomy and diversity are unlikely to be reversed.
History also tells us that government rollbacks of specific rights–restrictions of LGBTQ rights, abortion bans, curricular censorship and the like– may pass legislatively, but actually tend to increase public opposition to the restrictions. Legal scholars point to what is called the “backlash thesis” in which attempts to undo affirmative action or reproductive rights more often than not galvanize counter-movements and intensify support for formerly protected rights that people had come to take for granted.
In other words, research shows that the “wedge” issues that frequently help win elections by motivating turnout by unhappy voters rarely lead to lasting changes.
Research has also identified the media and universities as primary counterweights to efforts to reverse culture change, a finding that helps to explain the ferocity of Trump’s assault on those institutions–and highlights the importance of protecting them.
When I was looking for academic research on the success or failure of efforts to change the direction of a culture, I came across two former examples of previous attempts that should offer rational Americans some comfort: prohibition (rather than ending drinking and drunkenness, it fostered organized crime and spawned a counterculture) and McCarthyism (which ultimately led to stronger norms around civil liberties and free speech).
Granted, that historical comfort is longer-term than most of us would like. But it does point to the fact that the frantic efforts to reverse the hard-won gains in civic equality made by women and minorities are unlikely to succeed in the long term.
Bottom line: retrograde and autocratic governments can slow, shape, or symbolically resist cultural change, but there are sound reasons long-term reversals are so rare. Cultures evolve in response to economic, demographic and technological changes–not from top-down political interventions. For example, as Morton Marcus and I detailed in “From Property to Partner,” once economic and technological changes made employment more dependant on brains than brawn, women entered the workforce in greater numbers.
In the long term, Trump’s misogyny is highly unlikely to remake America’s women into willing “tradwives.”
It’s easy to be critical of Indiana, and especially of the collection of ideologues, MAGA wanna-bes and invertebrates who dominate our state legislature, so it is especially gratifying when an Indiana organization speaks up for democratic governance and the rule of law.
That organization–hopefully, one among many to come–is the Indiana Bar, the organization that represents the legal profession in Indiana. A few days ago, the president of the Bar association released the following statement. In normal times, this statement would be anodyne–a “this is who we are” reminder to citizens who may not appreciate the role of law and lawyers in maintaining stability and civic fairness. But in the Age of Trump and MAGA, it is a heartfelt and incredibly important reaffirmation of the importance of the rule of law and the determination of lawyers to protect it.
Here is that letter.
Each year on May 1, Law Day offers a moment to reflect on the foundational principles that shape our democracy. Chief among them is the Rule of Law, a concept that not only guides our profession but ensures a just and orderly society.
But what exactly is the Rule of Law? And why does it matter?
At its core, the Rule of Law means that no one is above the law and that laws are applied fairly and consistently. It guarantees that our rights and liberties are protected through transparent legal processes. The Rule of Law empowers a parent to challenge a school policy, enables a small business owner to enforce a contract, and protects a citizen who questions government actions. It ensures that power is exercised within bounds, and that all individuals are held accountable under the same legal standards.
The Rule of Law also depends on an impartial and independent judiciary. It is enshrined in both our U.S. and Indiana Constitutions and has long served as a safeguard against tyranny and injustice. Further, under our system of justice, everyone has a right to representation. Lawyers must be free to represent clients without fear of retribution, and clients must be free to choose their counsel without worry of sanction. Our country’s founders, having lived through systems of unchecked authority, built our country rooted in the idea that the rule of law must govern.
Speaking during the first National Law Day in 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “The clearest way to show what the Rule of Law means to us in everyday life is to be reminded of what happens when there is no Rule of Law.” He saw this firsthand during World War II while battling Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. His words remain relevant as we consider the global and domestic challenges that test the strength of our institutions today.
Respect for the Rule of Law is not a given; it must be valued and actively upheld by each generation. One of the greatest threats today is a growing misunderstanding of the Rule of Law. We see its benefits in every trial and every instance of due process. As legal professionals, we have a duty not only to follow the law, but to promote it. That means defending judicial independence, the ability of attorneys to zealously represent clients, and protecting the right of all people to be heard.
President Ronald Reagan put it succinctly: “True peace rests on the pillars of individual freedom, human rights, national self-determination, and respect for the Rule of Law.”
President John F. Kennedy likewise offered this reminder: “Only a respect for the law makes it possible for free people to dwell together in peace and progress… Certain other countries may respect the rule of force. We respect the Rule of Law.”
These ideals are not partisan. They are foundational.
The Indiana State Bar Association stands firm in this commitment. We believe that the Rule of Law is more than a professional ideal, it is the bedrock of our civic life. And we call on every Hoosier attorney, judge, legal professional, and citizen to join us in protecting and promoting it. If the Rule of Law suffers, we all suffer. If the Rule of Law is threatened, we are all threatened. By deeply understanding its significance, honoring its principles, and vigorously defending it, we ensure that the Rule of Law, America’s foundation, endures undiminished.
Let this Law Day be not only a commemoration, but a recommitment.
I recently happened on a post I wrote in the run-up to the 2000 election, addressing a question that had been posed to me during a speaking event. The question was “What does it mean to be an American, and how will the answer to that question matter in the 2020 election?
I argued that being American requires understanding, supporting and protecting what I have frequently referred to as “The American Idea”– the essential elements of our country’s version of liberal democracy: majority rule and the libertarian brake on that majority rule, aka the Bill of Rights. American identity isn’t based upon race or religion or country of origin–it is based upon support of the American Idea.
I also argued that, in order to protect the legitimacy of U.S. government, we needed to address the escalating assaults on majority rule– gerrymandering (the practice whereby legislators choose their voters, rather than the other way around); the growth of vote suppression tactics (everything from voter ID laws to the spread of disinformation); the disproportionate influence of rural voters thanks to the operation of the Electoral College; the growing (mis)use of the filibuster, which now requires a Senate supermajority to pass anything; and the enormous influence of money in politics, especially in the wake of Citizens United.
Those assaults on democratic legitimacy were troubling enough in 2020. They clearly enabled the further assault on American democracy that we are experiencing under a mentally-ill would-be autocrat and his MAGA cult in 2025.
Trump hasn’t limited his efforts to the assault on majority rule. He has also taken Musk’s chainsaw to the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, refusing to recognize–let alone honor– fundamental rights to due process, free speech and (above all) civic equality.
Individual liberty in the United States is protected by the constraints on majority rule required by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Those provisions–those protections–mirror the libertarian principle that animated the nation’s Founders: the right of all people to live as they see fit, so long as they do not thereby harm the person or property of others, and so long as they are willing to grant an equal liberty to others. That “live and let live” principle doesn’t just require limitations on government overreach; it requires that we combat official sanctions of racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, misogyny, Islamophobia…all of the “isms” that deprive some citizens of equal civic status and that operate to deny them their individual liberties.
It’s one thing to understand Trump himself: he’s obviously damaged– needy, massively ignorant, intellectually limited, declining into dementia. The harder question is, what explains the MAGA cult? What leads millions of presumably sane Americans to cheer on Trump’s defiantly anti-American efforts?
Part of the answer is civic ignorance; understanding and protecting both majority rule and individual rights requires an informed citizenry–something we don’t have, as mountains of data clearly show. When people don’t know how their government is supposed to work, they are less likely to recognize assaults on its governing philosophy. But civic illiteracy doesn’t explain MAGA, although it undoubtedly feeds it.
Racism, White Christian Nationalism and other associated bigotries are at the root of MAGA and Trumpism. America has never been able to overcome the periodic emergence of primal hatreds that motivated the Confederacy and the KKK, despite the fact that those hatreds are contrary to everything that defines Americanism.
Back in that 2020 talk, I said I was convinced that our civic challenge was about America’s structural and systemic distortions—that (assuming a Biden victory) our first order of business should be to confront the misuses of power that make fair and productive political debate about substantive issues impossible–that these failures of American governance needed to be addressed before any of the policymakers we might elect would be able to discuss, let alone pass, rational, evidence-based policies.
The need to address those systemic distortions has become more imperative, as we watch Trump take advantage of them to turn America into a very different country. As I said in 2020, you can’t drive a car if it’s lost its wheels, and you can’t govern if your institutions have lost their legitimacy.
Unless the systems are fair, unless we can rely on obedience to the rule of law by those in office, no minority of any sort–political, religious, racial, economic–is safe.
Assuming we emerge from this lawless and destructive administration more or less intact, we have our work cut out for us.
Ah, Indiana! Long understood by sentient Hoosiers as the middle finger of the south, a state trying valiantly to replace Mississippi at the bottom of the civic barrel.
I thought about Indiana’s retrograde governance when I came across an article from The Bulwark, arguing that while Trumpism is clearly incompatible with liberal democracy, it is quite compatible with the governance of states that have never quite emerged from the Confederacy.
Liberal democracy has never put down deep roots in the South in the way it did across the rest of the country. The region never really abandoned its warped electoral politics and inclination to single-party cronyism, a Southern political instinct that helps explain how Democratic dominance transformed so completely into Republican one-party rule following the civil rights era. Inequality continues to define economic life in the region. Southern states have remained hostile to many minority groups, particularly LGBTQ Americans, and they are wildly out of step with most other states on reproductive rights. And incarceration in the South remains both less humane and more common than in other regions.
Trumpism is intent upon “southernizing” America. (Okay, I know that isn’t really a word…) The article quoted our creepy vice-president, JD Vance, who during the campaign opined that “American history is a constant war between Northern Yankees and Southern Bourbons” and went on to conclude that “whichever side the hillbillies are on, wins.” He added that he applies that image to America’s current politics , because–in his (Yale-educated) hillbilly view– ” the Northern Yankees are now the hyperwoke, coastal elites.”
The Bourbons, in this understanding, were the Southern planters and professionals who opposed Reconstruction. They fomented discord among poor whites to ensure that they would focus their political energies on their peers rather than those who were their de facto rulers. That elite applauded when, In 1896, the Supreme Court approved segregation with the principle of “separate but equal.”
In 1898, America’s first coup d’etat took place as the Democrats of Wilmington, North Carolina issued a “White Declaration of Independence.” They were attacking the coalition of black Republicans and white Populists that had control of the local government in the 1890s, which the old Confederates of the city found intolerable. With their resentment and rage being fueled by white Democratic powerbrokers, two thousand armed men forced out the duly elected government. None were more pleased by this result than their Bourbon backers.
The article reports that this “banker-planter-lawyer” class is largely responsible for the South’s political and economic underdevelopment–that it was “ostensibly pro-business but viciously self-interested” and that as a consequence, the South as a region still lags economically—pinned down by poverty and hobbled by the absence of public investments. The states have few worker protections, and its working classes have difficulty earning a living wage, making It “virtually impossible” to exist on the income of a single, low-wage, 40-hour-a-week job, especially in the absence of social welfare/healthcare.
That paragraph could have been written about Indiana.
From “Right to Work” (for less) legislation, to one of the nation’s most regressive tax systems, to the legislature’s constant knee-bending to landlords who prey on the poor, to vicious cuts in Medicaid, to restrictions on abortion that are sending medical practitioners out of the state, to the theft of tax dollars from public schools in order to subsidize wealthy Hoosiers and religious schools…the list goes on.
Some years ago, I wrote about ALICE, an acronym for Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed; it applies to households with income above the federal poverty level, but below the actual, basic cost of living. United Way of Indiana found that more than one in three Hoosier households was unable to afford the basics of housing, food, health care and transportation, despite working hard, that 37% of households lived below the Alice threshold, (14% below the poverty level and another 23% above poverty but below the cost of living), that these were families and individuals with jobs, so most didn’t qualify for social services in Indiana, and that the jobs they fill are critically important–these are child care workers, laborers, movers, home health aides, heavy truck drivers, store clerks, repair workers and office assistants—and they are unsure if they’ll be able to put dinner on the table each night.
And just like those southern Bourbons, our elected overlords couldn’t care less. They focus instead upon deflecting responsibility by turning struggling Hoosiers against each other–hence the legislative attacks on trans children and DEI and moronic pronouncements that Black folks benefitted from the 3/5ths compromise.
The theory is, if we’re provided with scapegoats, perhaps we won’t notice the Bourbon corruption, or the lack of public investment in social and physical infrastructure…
Jay Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois recently made a speech in New Hampshire that has received significant–and merited–attention. Pritzker really “told it like it is.”
“It’s wrong to snatch a person off the street and ship them to a foreign gulag with no chance to defend themselves in a court of law.” This is not about immigration, he said, but about the Constitution. “Standing for the idea that the government doesn’t have the right to kidnap you without due process is arguably the MOST EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN SLOGAN IN HISTORY,” he said. “Today, it’s an immigrant with a tattoo. Tomorrow, it’s a citizen whose Facebook post annoys Trump.”
Pritzker called for “real, sensible immigration reform.”
“Immigration—with all its struggles and its complexities—is part of the secret sauce that makes America great, always. Immigrants strengthen our communities, enrich our neighborhoods, renew our passion for America’s greatness, enliven our music and our culture, enhance understanding of the world. The success of our economy depends upon immigrants. In fact, forty-six percent…of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants.”
Trump’s attacks on immigrants, he said, are likely to make the U.S. economy fail. Indeed, he suggested, making America fail is the point of the Trump administration’s actions.
“We have a Secretary of Education who hates teachers and schools. We have a Secretary of Transportation who hates public transit. We have an Attorney General who hates the Constitution. We have a Secretary of State, the son of naturalized citizens—a family of refugees—on a crusade to expel our country of both.
“We have a head of the Department of Government Efficiency— an immigrant granted the privilege of living and working here, a man who has made hundreds of billions of dollars after the government rescued his business for him—who is looking to destroy the American middle class to fund tax cuts for himself. And we have a President who claims to love America but who hates our military so much that he calls them ‘losers’ and ‘suckers’ and who can’t be bothered to delay his golf game to greet the bodies of four fallen US soldiers. And we have a Grand Old Party, founded by one of our nation’s bravest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln—who today would be a Democrat, I might add—… so afraid of the felon and the fraud that they put in the White House that they would sooner watch him destroy our country than lift a hand to save it.”
“It’s time to stop wondering if you can trust the nuclear codes to people who don’t know how to organize a group chat. It’s time to stop ignoring the hypocrisy in wearing a big gold cross while announcing the defunding of children’s cancer research. And time to stop thinking we can reason or negotiate with a madman. Time to stop apologizing when we were NOT wrong. Time to stop surrendering, when we need to fight.
“Our small businesses don’t deserve to be bankrupted by unsustainable tariffs. Our retirees don’t deserve to be left destitute by a Social Security Administration decimated by Elon Musk. Our citizens don’t deserve to lose healthcare coverage because Republicans want to hand a tax cut to billionaires. Our federal workers don’t deserve to have, well, a 19-year-old DOGE bro called Big Balls destroy their careers.
“Autistic kids and adults who are loving contributors to our society don’t deserve to be stigmatized by a weird nepo baby who once stashed a dead bear in the backseat of his car.
“Our military servicemembers don’t deserve to be told by a washed up Fox TV commentator, who drank too much and committed sexual assault before being appointed Secretary of Defense, that they can’t serve this country simply because they’re Black or gay or a woman.
“And If it sounds like I’m becoming contemptuous of Donald Trump and the people that he has elevated, it’s because… I am. You should be too. They are an affront to every value this country was founded upon.”
“I understand the tendency to give in to despair right now. But despair is an indulgence that we cannot afford in the times upon which history turns. Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.
“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box, and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones that when we survive this shameful episode of American history with our democracy intact—because we have no alternative but to do just that—that we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors.”
“Cowardice can be contagious. But so too can courage…. Just as the hope that we hold onto in the darkness, shines with its own…special light.
“Tonight, I’m telling you what I’m willing to do…is fight—for our democracy, for our liberty, for the opportunity for all our people to live lives that are meaningful and free. And I see around me tonight a roomful of people who are ready to do the same.”
“So I have one question for all of you. Are you ready for the fight?”
