Another Year Is Gone…

It’s New Year’s Eve. Another year is over.

And what a year! Not only did America not make progress, we woke every day to the rantings and transgressions of a profoundly ignorant, senile, mentally-ill maniac who–to our everlasting national shame–occupies the Oval Office.

The good news is that the Resistance grew stronger throughout the year. Seven million genuine patriots turned out for No Kings Day, and smaller protests around the country have continued weekly. The lower federal courts have continued to block the unconstitutional efforts to turn America into a fascist state. Jimmy Kimmel is still on the air, thanks to the millions of Americans who expressed their displeasure by dropping their Disney subscriptions. Democrats over-performed dramatically in virtually every election held in 2025, from school boards to governors. Law firms that “bent the knee” lost partners and clients to those that refused to do so. Even Rightwing pollsters show Trump’s approval far, far underwater–and continuing to decline. And the MAGA movement’s bigots are fighting each other.

All of that is good.

If we can hang on, minimize the ongoing, daily damage being done by this inept, lawless administration (and avoid a “wag the dog” war with Venezuela) maybe we can make it to the midterms and a big Blue wave. As we enter 2026, I’ve got my fingers crossed, hoping for an even more robust resistance. (Not just my fingers; I bought a voodoo doll…)

In what I think is a good sign, the Chattering Classes are beginning to focus on the “after”–on the reforms that will be necessary when this period of insanity is over. I think it’s another good sign that the conversation isn’t about returning to an admittedly non-ideal status quo. After all, if America hadn’t had genuine problems with our governance, if we hadn’t closed our collective eyes to the glaring evidence of economic unfairness, if we hadn’t ignored the growing lack of civic literacy and engagement, it’s unlikely that Trump would ever have been elected.

If we are very fortunate, and we emerge from the current nightmare having learned some valuable civics lessons, there will inevitably be arguments about what the necessary reforms should be. There is some uniformity on the structural side–guaranteeing the right to vote, overturning Citizens United, and getting rid of gerrymandering, the filibuster and the Electoral College, for starts.

And perhaps–just perhaps–we will have been sufficiently chastened by this current, profoundly embarrassing interregnum to admit to ourselves that America is far from “Number One” in social policy, and that we could learn a lot from those “high tax” countries whose citizens regularly rank as far happier than we are.

A resident of one of the Scandinavian countries was recently quoted pointing out something I’ve frequently noted: our fixation on “low taxes” ignores what he called the “real life” tax. As he said, when you add what we pay in taxes to what we pay for health insurance (and copays), college tuition and daycare (all of which are “free” in his country, in the sense that they are benefits paid for through their taxes), Americans not only end up paying considerably more than the citizens of those “high tax” countries, but our access to medical care, college and daycare is unequal. (When it comes to health care, our fragmented system also loses the substantial economies of scale–which is why we pay far more for far less than any other first-world country.)

Right now, of course, Americans aren’t debating policies, governmental or social. Right now, we’re just hoping to emerge from this cold civil war with enough of our constitutional infrastructure intact to make reform possible. So here’s my wish for the coming year: that the resistance continues to grow, that there is a huge Blue wave in November, and that an re-invigorated House and Senate discharge their constitutional duties of oversight and impeachment.

(Meanwhile, witch that I am, I’ll keep sticking pins in that voodoo doll…)

Comments

Disparate Impact

Nearly every day of the Trump II presidency provides another indisputable example of the White nationalism that fuels MAGA. The most recent example is the Justice Department’s elimination of its “disparate impact” regulations: As Politico has reported, “The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to end long-standing civil rights policies that prohibit local governments and organizations that receive federal funding from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color,” 

So what, you might ask, is “disparate impact”?

Disparate impact is a term describing practices that are facially neutral—in other words, practices or laws that do not explicitly discriminate—but that fall more harshly on a minority or disfavored group and can’t be justified by business or governmental necessity. 

Let’s say a rural county has a rule that, in order to become a licensed carpenter–one of the better jobs in that county– someone must be a high school graduate and weigh at least 180 pounds. Neutral, right? Except that in that county, Blacks are less likely to have completed high school, and women are far less likely to weigh at least 180 pounds. Proponents of the rule defend it by explaining that carpenters must be able to read plans and must be able to pick up at least 40 pounds of lumber.

Rather obviously, the rules mandating high school graduation and 180 pounds are ill-suited (at best) to ensure applicants will meet those goals. If that was really the (entirely appropriate) reason for imposing restrictions, applicants for licensure would be tested to see if they could read plans and asked to demonstrate their ability to heft the required pounds of lumber. Even if the discriminatory impact of the rules wasn’t due to intentional discrimination, their impact was clearly discriminatory. 

Allegations of intentional discrimination can be hard to prove. In my made-up example (based on an old case), absent probative evidence that the people creating the rules had intended to make it difficult for women and Black folks to become carpenters, a lawsuit alleging discrimination would fail.  The ability to base one’s case on a demonstration of the real-world effects of such rules, and the existence of reasonable alternatives better suited to the purported goals, would be far more likely to succeed. 

Which is why our racist and misogynist administration wants to go back to a time when it was necessary to prove intent.

The Department of Justice made the change in order to comply with one of Trump’s numerous executive orders. In an April Order, he explicitly called for an end to disparate-impact liability for discrimination and ordered federal agencies to stop enforcement of anti-discrimination laws based on disparate impact theories. 

The disparate impact rule has been in effect for over fifty years. It was based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and was firmly established in 1971, in the case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. Duke Power–the employer– required applicants to have a high school diploma and to take aptitude tests for certain jobs, requirements that were demonstrably not job-related and that disproportionately excluded Black applicants. The Supreme Court in that case held that Title VII “proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation.”

As Politico reported,

The Justice Department on Tuesday moved to end long-standing civil rights policies that prohibit local governments and organizations that receive federal funding from maintaining policies that disproportionately harm people of color.

Repealing the government’s 50-year-old “disparate impact” standards will make it harder to challenge potential bias in housing, criminal law, employment, environmental regulations and other policy areas.

Making it harder to challenge discrimination–making it easier to keep those “Others” in subservient positions– is both the basis of Trump’s support and the over-riding purpose of this profoundly unAmerican administration. 

I’d say “for shame!” if the horrible people in this administration were capable of feeling anything akin to shame–or even embarrassment.

Comments

She’s Right And She’s Right

A recent essay by Mona Charen in The Bulwark stirred an old memory. Many–many–years ago, I debated Charen at a local synagogue. I no longer recall the reason or the subject; we were both considered conservative Republicans at the time, although my very foggy recollection is that she was much farther to the Right (or wrong) on whatever issue it was. (Permit me to note that back then “the Right” was considerably more “woke” than it is today. As I often point out, I was pro-choice, pro gay rights and pro women serving in combat when I won a Republican primary in 1980.)

In any event, kudos to Charen these days. She is a vocal member of the Never Trump contingent, and an editor of The Bulwark, a decidedly anti-MAGA publication. In a recent essay, she critiqued Trump’s recent prime-time speech, under the headline “Can we get that 18 minutes back?” In the process, she made some very good points.

She began with an entirely appropriate sentiment, quoting someone named Tim Miller: “I was embarrassed. It’s really unbelievably stupid that we’re here, that this person is the president, and that that was real—that was not a spoof.”

Charen characterized the speech as “a waste of 18 minutes of prime time,” but admitted she’d nevertheless been relieved–at least Trump hadn’t used the time to declare war on Venezuela, which she’d feared.

There’s another reason for my sense of relief. Last night’s speech reveals Trump has no sense of how he might save his foundering presidency, or even much of an inclination to try to do so. Indeed, yesterday’s Republican meltdown in the House in the face of increased health insurance costs, a faltering economy, and the deadline for the release of the Epstein files tomorrow—all of these suggest a rough holiday season for the administration.

Which is good. A weaker Trump administration is better for America.

Charen then reminded readers that any former President would have used the occasion of a prime-time speech to reflect upon–or at least reference–the previous week’s tragedies. During that week, two U.S. soldiers had been killed in Syria, students were killed in yet another mass shooting at Brown, there had been an attack with multiple fatalities on Jews celebrating Hanukkah in Sydney, and the tragic, horrible murder of Rob and Michele Reiner. Trump ignored even a perfunctory reference to any of those events, although he had previously posted truly despicable “thoughts” on the Reiner tragedy to his vanity platform, Truth Social.

Charen then addressed a central quote from the speech–Trump’s assertion that “One year ago our country was dead. We were absolutely dead, but now we’re the hottest country anywhere in the world. And that’s said by every single leader that I’ve spoken to over the last five months.”

Trump has bragged before that he’s received such praise, naming those who have purportedly flattered him: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, “the king of Saudi Arabia,” “the emir of Qatar,” the prime minister of Hungary, and “every leader of NATO.” As Charen notes,

Trump is, of course, lying. Some foreign leaders, to flatter him and mitigate their risk of exorbitant tariffs, have probably told him he’s doing a great job. But it’s absurd to imagine that all the presidents and prime ministers of NATO countries have told him (as Trump has alleged more than once) that America was dead a year ago. To say such a thing wouldn’t just overtax their tolerance for self-abasing dishonesty, it would damage their post-Trump relations with the United States.

So why does Trump keep boasting that they said it? Because he’s a pathological narcissist. And because he thinks it will impress Americans.

If Trump really thinks rational Americans will be impressed by these transparent lies, he’s even stupider–and more demented–than previously thought.

Charen closed her essay by citing (and refuting) Trump’s insistence that he’s bringing prices down. Evidently, he expects Americans to believe his lie and ignore the contrary evidence they encounter daily. He seems to believe that Americans will believe him that they’re doing well, because (he says) Putin, Xi, and MBS have told him so.

The Bulwark, Lincoln Square and several other publications established by Never Trump former Republicans stir memories of the “before times,” when pundits, strategists and other assorted political junkies across the political spectrum argued about policy and what constituted good governance.

Given the ongoing takeover of legacy news sources like CBS by cronies benefitting financially from the antics of our demented would-be King, those Never Trumpers are providing a valuable service.

Comments

Explaining MAGA

I have frequently cited research showing that racial resentment is the single most predictive element of a vote for Trump, and his administration has rewarded those voters with its efforts to elevate White “Christian” men and erase efforts at fairness and inclusion. They don’t even bother to hide their intentions anymore–J.D. Vance was recently quoted saying “You don’t have to apologize for being White anymore.”

Attributing Trump’s election to racism is fair, but insufficient. Despite Trump’s recent assertion that he “created” MAGA, America’s racism and misogyny are hardly new. The much harder question is “what sort of individual harbors these beliefs?

A recent, lengthy essay from The Rational League explored that question.

As the author noted, observers tend to dismiss bigotry as stupidity, malice, or moral collapse, but such explanations are intellectually lazy. “They flatter the observer while obscuring the phenomenon they claim to diagnose.” Such explanations also fail to explain the internal consistency of the MAGA movement, its ability to persist in the face of contradiction, the way it transforms norm violations into virtues, or why Its exposure to contrary evidence actually can harden belief rather than weaken it.

The essay does a deep dive into the psychological literature, and concludes that some people filter information through a different lens–one based upon “threat perception, authority preference, group identity, and moral reclassification.” In other words, they filter reality differently. The author says that MAGA folks’ worldview  didn’t arise from madness, “but from a system that works, psychologically, emotionally, and politically, for those who inhabit it.”

What is that worldview, and where did it come from?

Long before a person encounters slogans, parties, or leaders, they acquire something more durable: a way of relating to uncertainty, authority, and threat.

Longitudinal research tracking individuals from infancy into adulthood shows that political orientation is shaped not only by what parents say, but by how they raise their children, and by how those children respond to the world around them. In Developmental Antecedents of Political Ideology, Fraley, Griffin, Belsky, and Roisman followed participants from birth to age eighteen and found that parents who endorsed more authoritarian child-rearing attitudes when their children were just one month old were significantly more likely to have children who later identified as conservative. Parents who endorsed more egalitarian and autonomy-supportive attitudes predicted the opposite outcome.

The scholarship suggests that children raised by parents who emphasized obedience, rule-following, and deference to authority are more likely to adopt political beliefs that emphasize those same principles. Furthermore, individual temperaments compound the effect. Children with higher levels of fearfulness in early childhood have been found to be more likely to identify as conservative in later years.

It isn’t just parenting style; as twin studies have demonstrated, there are also shared genetic influences. (Party identity isn’t inherited,  but “threat sensitivity, need for order, and discomfort with ambiguity” are heritable traits that often find partisan and/or ideological expression.)

None of this implies inevitability. A child raised with strict norms does not automatically become authoritarian, just as a fearful temperament does not mandate political rigidity. What this research establishes is something subtler and more consequential: that some individuals enter adulthood with a heightened preference for order, stability, and authority as psychological goods. These preferences remain largely dormant until circumstances give them political meaning.

The scholarship shows that, in periods of social change–especially the growth of cultural pluralism– conservatives react with efforts to reduce uncertainty, restore order, and defend existing social structures. They have a preference for “certainty over ambiguity and security over openness.” As the author notes, “Order must be imposed, and dominance must be maintained.”

This is where collective narcissism comes in.

Collective narcissism is described as an emotional investment in an inflated image of one’s ingroup. Its function is psychological, not ideological, and It

transforms threat into insult. Disagreement becomes betrayal. Constraint becomes humiliation. Because the ingroup’s greatness is experienced as both exceptional and insufficiently recognized, any challenge, real or imagined, demands retaliation. The leader who promises restoration, recognition, and vengeance is no longer merely persuasive; they become necessary.

As the essay notes, the left is not immune to bias, groupthink, or moral error. MAGA, however, represents a particular configuration of psychological traits, “activated by threat, reinforced by grievance, and stabilized by identity, that is not mirrored on the left at comparable scale or intensity.”

The danger of the MAGA lens is not that it abandons reason, but that it applies reason in service of a closed moral system, one capable of justifying coercion as protection, exclusion as fairness, and domination as restoration once the conditions are met.

There is much more, and I strongly recommend reading the entire linked essay.

Comments

An Unfit Judicial Nominee

Apologies for inundating your inboxes yesterday. The post was sent by accident–it was scheduled for January 1st and will repeat then. Mea culpa. (When I’m in a hurry…)

Speaking of the courts, as I did yesterday, an Indiana lawyer named Justin Olsen has been nominated for a judgeship by Donald Trump. He is apparently as qualified as the members of Trump’s cabinet…which is to say, not.

The first clue was his rapturous introduction by Indiana’s White Christian nationalist Senator, Jim Banks. And while Bank’s endorsement should really have told us all we needed to know, a google search turned up a lot more.

Trump has nominated Olsen to fill a vacancy in Indiana’s Southern District federal court. A brief review of Olsen’s confirmation hearing certainly confirmed one thing–he is manifestly unfit to join that respected and respectable bench.

The Indiana Lawyer has reported on the “highlights” of that hearing.

Not only did Olsen refuse to say that Joe Biden had won the 2020 election, he refused to respond to questions about the insurrection of Jan. 6th, saying only that those events were a ‘matter of public controversy.” He even declined to offer an opinion on whether those events–videos of which were widely publicized– constituted an assault on the U.S. Capitol.

His responses to other questions–even friendly questions from Republican members of the committee–elicited beliefs that only Samuel Alito could love.

Olsen was asked about a sermon he had delivered as a Reformed Presbyterian elder, in which he  opined that people with disabilities should not marry, that having sex outside of marriage was a “form of sexual perversion,” and that wives should be subservient to their husbands. He responded that it was the doctrine of the church he was attending that fornication is a sin, and in response to a question about wives being subservient to their husbands, his response was that he believed “every word of the Bible.” (Presumably, if he is confirmed, that “biblical belief” would supercede any pesky, contrary constitutional precedents.)

Excuse me, but belief in “every word” of the bible requires ignoring that good book’s multiple contradictions.

Respected theologians have pointed to numerous passages in the bible that contradict each other. For example, Samuel 17:50 says David killed Goliath, but in Samuel 21:19, it says Elhanan kills Goliath the Gittite. Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself, but Acts 1:18 has Judas falling headlong, bursting open with his intestines spilling out. Malachi 3:6 says God doesn’t change his mind, but Genesis 6:6 says God regrets creating humanity, and Jonah 3:10 tells us that God changed His mind about destroying Nineveh. There are numerous other examples–typically ignored by the so-called “biblical literalists” who use their “piety” as an excuse to impose their favored beliefs on others and who cherry pick their bibles for the passages that can be used to support their biases.

His selective “biblical” beliefs have evidently animated Olsen’s previous legal work. As the Indiana Lawyer reported,

When Trump nominated Olson, he prominently touted that that Indiana attorney has been representing three former University of Pennsylvania women swimmers that sued Penn, Harvard University, the Ivy League and the Indianapolis-based NCAA for alleged Title IX  violations by allowing transgender swimmer Lia Thomas to compete on Penn’s women’s swim team in 2021-2022.

An article from Balls and Strikes on the confirmation hearing reported Olsen’s reply to a question about a 2022 sermon in which he said that “transgenderism, homosexuality, fornication, and all sorts of sexual perversions” were forms of hypocrisy that come from “shame on the inside.” In his response, Olson said that he didn’t “recall the precise wording” of his remarks, but conceded that the language sounded familiar.

As the linked report concluded,

Olsen said that he meant his words “for the edification of the people that I was preaching to,” and assured Kennedy and the rest of the committee that if confirmed, he would set aside his personal beliefs, apply the rule of law, and so on and so forth. I am sure that normal people in Indiana who do not want their federal judges to be alarmingly anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-disabled, anti-sex weirdos therefore have nothing to worry about.

No wonder Indiana’s Christian nationalist Senator Jim Banks was quoted as saying that he was “blown away by Olsen’s credentials” and asserting “that the nominee has a record of doing the right thing.”

When people like Jim Banks are deciding what “the right thing” is, Indiana’s litigants are in a lot of trouble.

Comments