We Ain’t Buying It

Boycotts can be hard to organize, especially in a digital age when consumers find shopping at large, national retailers so easy and convenient.

During the past several months, we’ve seen the power of grassroots resistance to Trump and MAGA (I’m sure Jimmy Kimmel would agree), but getting people to forego a streaming channel or participate in a No Kings rally is easier than asking them to disrupt their daily shopping routines for weeks or months.

We Ain’t Buying It may have hit on a middle ground–a limited-time boycott that will send a message without requiring participants to engage in long-term withdrawals. As the Contrarian recently explained, a group of resistance organizers are promoting a brief consumer boycott over the Thanksgiving holiday. The boycott is focused on three companies: Amazon, Home Depot, and Target. The intent is to send a pointed and unmistakable message to three companies that have been identified as Trump regime enablers.

We Ain’t Buying It proposes to mobilize the collective power of the grassroots this Thanksgiving through Cyber Monday. As the alliance announced,

President Trump and his corporate allies continue to relentlessly attack our communities—from mass firings of federal workers to corporate pressure to dismantle DEI to ICE raids targeting our neighbors to a government shutdown that left 42 million people without needed food….

Together we will hold accountable corporations like Target, Home Depot, and Amazon, that continue to enable and profit from this administration’s relentless and cruel attacks on working people and our families.

As a co-founder of Black Voters Matter explained, “We’re watching corporations bend over backwards to appease an administration and gain tax breaks, even when it hurts their own customers.”  As she also pointed out, they’ve ignored a significant fact: “tax breaks don’t matter when sales collapse.”

Choosing Thanksgiving weekend through Cyber Monday will give ordinary people an opportunity to send a very pointed message–that they have the power to direct their patronage and dollars to companies that have demonstrated a commitment to the people who build their bottom lines. And brief boycotts can be very effective.

In the case of Disney/ABC, “Data from research firm Antenna found that during September, the number of U.S. consumers who canceled their Disney+ subscriptions averaged 8%, which is double the 4% estimate for the prior two months,” The Street reported. Also, Hulu’s average cancellation rate was “twice the 5% rate for the previous two months.” (Among all its streaming services, Disney reportedly lost 1.7 million subscribers.) In addition, Disney suffered a dip in market capitalization of $4.2 billion at one point.

The article describes how, through our history, various boycotts have changed corporate conduct and publicized citizens’  grievances. They’ve given ordinary people a sense of personal agency, at the same time “incentivizing” companies to think twice before enabling an autocratic regime.

Indivisible, which is one of the organizations sponsoring the boycott, has a website devoted to the effort. Their “ask” is simple: “Target, Home Depot, and Amazon must stop undermining our democracy by collaborating with, and enabling, the Trump administration. Reinstate their DEI policies, refuse to cooperate with ICE, and withhold funding to Trump’s authoritarian regime. ”

The collective action they endorse is equally simple:

Join us for a full Thanksgiving black out. From Thanksgiving Day through Cyber Monday (11/27 – 12/1), don’t buy anything from Target, Amazon, or Home Depot. Don’t give any money to the companies that are undermining our democracy.

Instead, support small, local businesses or mutual aid efforts in your community.

We Ain’t Buying It chose Thanksgiving weekend for an obvious reason; it’s a peak shopping time. As the site recounts, more than 196 million Americans shopped over last year’s holiday weekend, making it a perfect opportunity to send a message– to notify Target, Home Depot, and Amazon that collaborating with Trump imposes a cost. We won’t shop with you. If they don’t get the record numbers of shoppers they’re anticipating, they’ll notice!

I stopped shopping at Target when they gave in to Right-wing criticisms and limited their Gay Pride merchandise. I haven’t shopped at Home Depot since I learned their founder was a huge Trump donor. Admittedly, I’d find it very difficult to entirely stop shopping at Amazon, but I can certainly refrain from visiting that site for the few days of the boycott. And I can–and will– also refrain from buying my Christmas and Chanukah gifts there, something I’ve done for the past several years.

We can all shop local this holiday weekend, helping smaller, local retailers and sending a very important message!

Comments

Observations Worth Quoting

I do a lot of “wordsmithing.” One of the consequences is that I appreciate –and am jealous of–examples of superior writing. I’ve referred before to Lincoln Square, and recently I’ve been absolutely gob-smacked by the excellence and clarity of that site’s prose.

I’m going to cede most of today’s blog to some of the most perceptive paragraphs–but I urge you to click through and read both essays in their entirety.

On November 20th, the essay was titled “The Party That Forgot How To Blink”

Trump didn’t bother courting the middle; he declared war on it. The man didn’t run a campaign — he ran a group-therapy session for people allergic to accountability. If you were broke, it wasn’t automation — it was immigrants “stealing jobs.” If you were single and couldn’t get laid, it wasn’t your personality — it was feminism. If you were uneducated, it wasn’t disinterest — it was “the elites.” If you didn’t get promoted, blame DEI. If you lost an argument online, blame CRT. His rallies were motivational seminars for men who think foreplay is a liberal conspiracy. Somewhere in that stew of insecurity, the manosphere — that digital wasteland of fragile masculinity and podcast mics — found its messiah.

On November 19th, from an essay titled “How the Monster Turned On Itself.”

The smiles are tighter. The knives are increasingly out, not for the hated “socialists” but for one another.

The people who once lived to “own the libs” spend more of each day subtweeting each other, accusing one another of being disloyal to MAGA, of being globalist plants, Soros puppets, or, worst of all in that ecosystem, insufficiently devoted to Dear Leader.

This is what happens when you build a movement on raw power and loyalty checks instead of principle, paranoia instead of policy, vibes instead of values.

Eventually, the purity tests get so extreme that no one can pass them. The circle keeps getting smaller until the last three guys in it are accusing each other of being communist Deep State sleeper agents.

As the essay then notes, MAGA has done incredible damage to America. It has also wrecked the GOP and hollowed out conservative institutions.

But once you train everyone to think in terms of enemies and traitors, of obedience and betrayal, they can’t stop when the Democrats are out of the room.

All the 2028 aspirants are shanking one another. The influencers are attacking the think tanks. The Groypers attacking the “respectable” right. The populists are attacking the donor class. The donor class is on an extractive sprint before Trump dies. The online true believers are attacking the politicians who actually need to win elections. It is a five-alarm, all-hands-on-deck circular firing squad.

It began in the Obama years.

They told themselves it was about deficits, the Constitution, and small government. It was not. It was about the pissy grievances of suburban and rural dudes with fake Oakleys and erectile dysfunction who are just positive their job was being taken by a Mexican, not a McKinsey consultant and a private equity firm.

It was about cultural panic. It was about race. It was about people who felt the country drifting away from them and wanted someone to promise they could roll history back to 1958 (or perhaps 1858) by yelling at immigrants on Fox.

Then Trump came down that escalator.

He distilled every bitter little resentment on the right into a single-malt of wretched hatred. Overnight, all the old constraints of Republican politics, the donor class, the gentry conservative think tanks, the “serious” media ecosystem, and the alleged principles of the religious wing went out the window.

The old Republican Party did not die on election night in 2016. It died in stages, slow, humiliating, and for some, lucrative. You’ve heard the tale by now: sure, everyone knew better, but they decided to play along.

There was no neutral ground. There was no “agree with him on policy, disagree on tone.” Remember those days? “I didn’t see the tweet” became “I read the tweet and had it tattooed on my back to show how much I love Donald Trump.”

You either wore the red hat or you were a traitor.

And here is the important thing: once you teach people that loyalty to a person is the highest good, they never stop hunting for disloyalty.

They started asking who is secretly a RINO. Who is secretly woke. Who is secretly “controlled opposition.” They started by looking sideways at one another and wondering who was going to be the next one thrown off the sled.

They trawled through millions of tweets, parsing every word, every connection, every bit of writing, peering with intent for any sign someone might not be true to the Dear Leader and the cause.

That is the DNA of the MAGA civil war. A movement built on loyalty, grievance, and paranoia eventually runs out of external enemies and starts eating its own.

I couldn’t have said these things half as well.

Comments

From The Street To A Home

This blog typically addresses national issues. I’m not apologizing for that–the Trump administration poses an existential threat to the America most of us want to retain. Its numerous evils are–to use Joe Biden’s characterization–a “BFD.” But the fact that our national structures are under assault doesn’t mean that local issues have disappeared or become unimportant.

And the fact that the American Idea is under assault by a Christian nationalist movement doesn’t mean that we should overlook–or diminish the importance of– the good works of genuine Christians and other people of faith.

Which brings me to Indianapolis, and the laudable work being done by GIMA–the Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance, and its “Streets to Homes” initiative, a multifaith call to end chronic homelessness in Indianapolis.

GIMA began as an interfaith effort to make Indianapolis a more collaborative and inclusive city, to make it a “more just and livable place.” In stark contrast to MAGA’s faux Christianity, the faith leaders who came together in GIMA represent the city’s diverse religious traditions, with the stated intent to form what the organization calls “a sacred friendship,” and to collaborate on civic projects that serve the common good of greater Indianapolis.

I first encountered GIMA when the organization was focused on Indianapolis’ eviction crisis, and was impressed both by its  judicious approach to that issue and the breadth of the organization’s religious membership. Representatives of central Indiana’s Black and White churches, synagogues and Mosques exhibited a fellowship and respect that have been glaringly missing from our national conversations– thanks primarily to MAGA’s determined Othering. They identified a civic problem and came together to address it.

The organization describes “Streets to Homes” as follows:

Following the successful community action led by the Black Church Coalition, Indy Action Coalition, and the Validus Movement, The Greater Indianapolis Multifaith Alliance (GIMA) is inviting congregations across Central Indiana to join a multifaith effort to support the Streets to Home Indy Initiative – a community- driven campaign to provide permanent housing and supportive services for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness. This initiative is part of a broader campaign to provide not just shelter, but lasting homes and supportive services for those most in need.

The goal of Streets to Homes is to house 350 currently unsheltered neighbors, and to do so by June of 2026 “through an evidence-based model that includes housing and supportive services.”

As the website explains,

Besides being the right thing to do? 20 years of data demonstrates that providing stability to these neighbors sets them on a path to upward mobility and independence, which ultimately strengthens our community, increases public safety, and reduces the economic impact of homelessness.

We can only do this through a community-wide commitment that includes the business community, philanthropic community, faith community, and civic support.

GIMA is asking faith community partners to contribute $270,000 as its part of the philanthropy community’s commitment of $2.7 million. That commitment “joins with equal pledges from the Housing to Recovery Fund and the city of Indianapolis” in what the organization calls “an unprecedented community-wide coalition.”

Rabbi Aaron Spiegel, the Executive Director of GIMA, tells me that area churches have responded with unprecedented generosity. (What he didn’t say–but I will–is that this diverse, interfaith effort has forced Indianapolis’ city government to become far more focused upon the effort to end homelessness than it had previously been.)

As regular readers of this blog know, I am very critical of the performative “Christians” who disdain both the adherents of other religions and “woke” efforts to ameliorate poverty and hopelessness. GIMA’s efforts are a reminder that there are millions of truly good people in every religious community who focus on the admonitions–common to all religions–to love one’s neighbors and to work for social justice. (MAGA to the contrary, it has been my observation that all genuine religiosity is “woke.”)

I would encourage readers who reside here in central Indiana to visit the linked GIMA and Streets to Homes websites. You need not be a believer, or a member of a congregation, to support this initiative, which is an excellent reminder to those of us who are not religious to avoid painting the folks who are with too broad a brush.

Thankfully, genuine Christians aren’t like Micah Beckwith, genuine Jews aren’t like Bibi Netanyahu, and genuine Muslims abhor jihadists. They’re all pretty “woke”– and the rest of us need to remember that.

Comments

The Real World Consequences

A majority of Americans are aware of the damage being done by this disastrous administration to our governing institutions,  the rule of law, and the economy. I think far fewer are aware of the thousands of preventable deaths caused by Trump’s version of “policy.”

The most visible are those caused by the defunding of USAID. USAID funding helped save an estimated 91 million lives over the past 20 years. Now, a peer-reviewed study tells us that Trump’s defunding of the agency will lead to more than 14 million preventable deaths globally by 2030, a number that includes more than 4.5 million children under the age of five.

Far less visible–but equally horrific– are the likely consequences of Trump’s indiscriminate war on medical science, and his termination of grants supporting clinical trials. A recent article from the Washington Post explored those terminations. Citing research published in JAMA Internal Medicine, the article reported that funding for 383 clinical trials had been pulled, and that the funding disruptions affected more than 74,000 trial participants. The researchers found that the cuts disproportionately affected trials focused on infectious diseases (such as covid-19 and HIV); prevention; and behavioral interventions. More than 100 of the canceled grants supported cancer research.

Robert Hopkins, medical director for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases, said the study showed that funding cuts disproportionately hit areas “that are critical to public health.”

“Clinical research is a long game,” he said. “Developing new vaccines, antivirals and treatments takes years, often decades. Cutting funding now risks slowing progress on interventions that could help save lives for years to come.”

Some of the clinical trials that lost their grants sued, and several got their funding back, but they experienced delays during the course of the trials that are likely to have significant negative impacts on the studies and on their participants. As one researcher explained, “If you pause an experiment, especially when it comes to experiments involving drugs and patients where you need a consistent dose over time and consistent measurements, it’s possible that you just screwed up the entire research.” Another noted that much of the clinical infrastructure was crippled or entirely destroyed during the grant terminations, making it very difficult to resume the research. 

And of course, when clinical trials are delayed or canceled, the patients who were enrolled often lose access to care.

The funding terminations weren’t limited to clinical trials; numerous other research studies also lost funding. A study published in JAMA Internal Medicine in May found that between February and April, nearly 700 NIH grants had been terminated across 24 of the federal agency’s 26 institutes and centers. (It shouldn’t come as a surprise that studies focused on minorities–especially those investigating health concerns of non-Whites and LGBTQ+ citizens–appear to have been disproportionately targeted.)

Partners in Health addressed the likely consequences–and the importance of clinical research to public health.

Some of the greatest advancements made through research include vaccines, insulin, anesthesia, and treatments for infectious diseases. From laboratory studies to clinical trials and epidemiological investigations, scientists around the world use different methods of research to advance disease treatment, enhance diagnostics, and improve our overall understanding of diseases.  

“Research is the key to advancing health on the individual, community, national, and global level,” said Cora Cunningham, PIH Engage member, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health student, and research assistant with the Lantagne Group at Tufts University. “Whether about drinking water quality, disease dynamics, health systems, or the patient experience, research in public and global health is what allows us to access, receive, or deliver quality and patient-centered health care.”

Without research, there would be no breakthroughs, no clinical advancements, and no new cures. Despite its importance to humankind, biomedical research—particularly research funded through the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—has been targeted by the current U.S. administration.

The bottom line is that years of progress in public health have been disrupted. Thanks to a combination of frozen funding, the erection of new, onerous roadblocks to financing, and imposition of overly complicated new procedures, experts predict that the setbacks in research will cause generations of delays in breakthroughs and cures. As the linked article from Partners in Health warns, “patients who were part of clinical trials will face health risks due to the abrupt end to their treatment and support. Advancements made on cures and treatments for various diseases will be squandered. Jobs will be lost, and public health will suffer.”

The question is: why? This particular vendetta wasn’t a response to citizen demands. It isn’t even likely to line the pockets of the billionaires to whom this administration disproportionately caters. Like the destruction of USAID, it is simply gratuitously cruel.

Like Trump. 


 

 

 
Comments

Josh Marshall Hits A Home Run

Talking Points Memo just celebrated 25 years of online political reporting. It’s a “go-to” source for many, if not most, political observers. Heather Cox Richardson, among others, frequently cites publisher Josh Marshall, and TPM is one of my trusted sources for insightful political analysis.

In a recent column, Marshall proposed a basis for evaluating Senators, and I strongly agreed with his criteria for “purging” those who don’t pass his tests. He identifies a series of issues that he says can give voters “a clear indication of whether they are serious about confronting the challenge of the moment or battling back from Trumpism.” He analogizes the process to a status interview you might hold if you were a new manager hired to turn around a failing company–a “sit down” with every employee to determine whether they’re part of the solution or part of the problem.

Marshall identifies five issues. The first is the filibuster. He writes that lawmakers who support keeping the filibuster “are not serious about moving the country forward in any positive direction.” Support for the filibuster means that Senator should be primaried and removed from office, because absolutely none of the legislation that is required to repair America’s government can happen with the filibuster in place. As he writes, “If you support the filibuster that means that your response to Trumpite autocracy is to do nothing and hope for the best. That’s unacceptable and you need to go.”

The second identified issue is Supreme Court reform. Marshall notes that it is only within the past two or three years that he has reluctantly come to that conclusion, which has been forced by the corruption of the Court majority.

They have cut free not only from precedent but from any consistent or coherent theory of the Constitution, no matter how wrongheaded. The purpose of the high court is not to run the country. It is to render decisions on points of constitutional and legal ambiguity in a good faith and broadly consistent manner. It is now engaged in purely outcome-driven reasoning, mixing and matching doctrines and modes of jurisprudence depending on the desired ends, with the aim of furthering autocratic and Republican rule. That is the heart of the corruption. Passing laws doesn’t matter if they can and will be discarded simply because six lifetime appointees don’t like them. That’s a perversion of the constitutional order. I know this one is hard to swallow for many people. It doesn’t come easily to me either. But the facts of the situation and fidelity to the Constitution require it.

Like Marshall, this conclusion was difficult for me, but the sheer intellectual dishonesty of the majority has convinced me that we will not return to the rule of law without substantial Court reform.

Those first two criterions are Marshall’s “most important,” because without them, the next three won’t happen.

Number three is (finally!) making DC and Puerto Rico into states. He acknowledges that this isn’t as essential as the first two, but it’s very important, and it’s the right thing to do. DC and Puerto Rico should in fact be states. It really is bizarre–and unfair–that citizens living in two U.S. jurisdictions simply don’t have the political rights that every other American enjoys.

We now know that Marshall’s number four is especially important. He calls it “clearing the law books.”

As we’ve seen over the last year, the U.S. federal code is full of laws which assume the sitting president broadly supports the federal Constitution, civic democracy and the best interests of all American citizens. We know now that that is a dangerous assumption. There are lots of laws which grant the president vast powers if things get super weird. And the president is in charge of deciding whether they’re weird. A lot of this is the dirty work of the corrupt Republican majority on the Supreme Court. But a lot of the laws are genuinely far too ambiguous. We need to change all of those laws. That involves potentially creating different harms by weakening the presidency. There are cases when you want a president to be able to move expeditiously and effectively in emergencies. Laws will have to be revised with that contrary danger in mind. But right now the balance is far too much in the direction of presidential power.

And number five? Here, Marshall proposes something near and dear to my heart: outlawing gerrymandering with a federal legal framework governing how maps can be legitimately drawn.

As Marshall acknowledges, it’s not an exhaustive list. But it would be a strong beginning.

Comments