"Condition of 'Our' Condition"
"We made too many wrong mistakes." ~Yogi Berra ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
project-syndicate.org
Trump’s Army?
Timothy Snyder
Jun 27, 2025
Whereas historical fascists had an enemy without and an enemy within, Trump only has an enemy within. That is why, immediately after joining Israel’s attacks on Iran, he declared victory – and a cease-fire: The world is too much for him; the army is just for dominating Americans.
TORONTO – It is a truism that authoritarian regimes stand or fall on the loyalty of the security forces, and US President Donald Trump has left little to chance since returning to the White House. His defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, immediately purged a half-dozen top generals, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and in early May ordered a 20% reduction in the number of four-star generals and a 10% cut in lower-ranking generals.
But it was a speech to troops a month later, at a base named after a Confederate general, that revealed most clearly Trump’s conception of national security and the role of the armed forces in ensuring it. He made no mention of the world today, addressed no common American interest that might necessitate national defense, and expressed no concern about threats from China or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And whereas US presidents typically speak of individual heroism as evidence of a country worthy of defending, Trump said nothing about cherished Constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and assembly, and not a word about democracy. America did not exist in Trump’s speech.
Instead, Trump used US military history to advance a cult to himself. Great battlefield achievements became deeds performed for the pleasure of a leader who then invokes them to justify his own permanent power. Military glory becomes a spectacle into which the leader can inject any meaning.
That is the fascist principle that Trump understands. All politics is struggle, and he who can define the enemy can stay in power. But whereas historical fascists had an enemy without and an enemy within, Trump only has an enemy within. That is why, immediately after joining Israel’s attacks on Iran, he hastily declared victory – and a cease-fire. The world is too much for him. The army is just for dominating Americans.
The enemy was identified in Trump’s comparison of Americans seizing undocumented migrants in 2025 with the courage previous generations demonstrated fighting in the Revolutionary War, the two world wars, Korea, or Vietnam. Charging a trench or jumping from a plane is of course very different from ganging up on a graduate student or bullying a middle-aged seamstress. But here we see Trump’s purpose: preparing American soldiers to view themselves as heroes when they participate in domestic operations against unarmed people, including US citizens.
In his speech, Trump portrayed himself as more than a president. He repeatedly mocked his predecessor (“You think this crowd would have showed up for Biden?”), summoning soldiers to defy the fundamental idea that their service is to the Constitution, not to a person. Such unprecedented personalization of the presidency suggests that Trump’s authority rests on something besides an election, something like individual charisma, or even divine right. Soldiers should follow Trump because he is Trump.
PS Events: London Climate Action Week 2025
PS Events: London Climate Action Week 2025
Did you miss our London Climate Action Week event?
Click here to watch the whole broadcast, featuring panel discussions on the role of business in filling the global climate-leadership gap.
Watch Now
Most Americans imagine that the US Army is here to defend us, not to attack us. But Trump used the occasion to goad soldiers into heckling their fellow Americans, to join him in taunting journalists, a critical check on tyranny who, like protesters, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Trump was teaching soldiers that society does not matter, and that law does not matter. Only he matters, and he “loves” soldiers so much, “We’re giving you an across-the-board raise.” This is the way a dictator speaks to a palace guard or a paramilitary.
We are witnessing an attempt at regime change, rife with perversities. It has a historical component: We are to celebrate the Confederate traitors like Robert E. Lee, who rebelled against the US in defense of slavery. It has a fascist component: We are to embrace the present moment as an exception, in which all things are permitted to the leader. And of course it has an institutional component: Soldiers are meant to be the avant-garde of democracy’s demise, whose job is to oppress the leader’s chosen enemies – inside the US.
Describing migration as an “invasion,” as Trump did in his speech, is meant to blur the distinction between his administration’s immigration policy and a foreign war. But it is also meant to transform the mission of the US Army. If soldiers and others are willing to believe that migration is an “invasion,” they will see those who disagree as enemies. And this is exactly what Trump sought to achieve when he portrayed elected officials in California as collaborators in “an occupation…by criminal invaders.”
The US military, like other American institutions, includes people of various backgrounds. It depends heavily on African-Americans and non-citizens. Trying to transform it into a cult of the Confederacy and a tool to persecute migrants would cause great friction and gravely damage its reputation, especially if US soldiers kill US civilians. (There is also the risk that provocateurs, including foreign ones, try to kill a US soldier.)
Trump would welcome and exploit such situations. He wants to turn everything around. He wants an army that is a personal paramilitary. He wants the shame of our national history to become our pride. He wants to transform a republic into a fascist regime in which his will is law.
But what do US soldiers want? Trump’s speech was a highly curated affair, with audience members selected on the basis of their political views and physical appearance. Four days later, however, the military parade Trump staged in Washington – honoring the Army’s 250th anniversary and his own birthday – was widely described as a “flop,” in which some 6,600 soldiers in combat fatigues walked, not marched, past a sparse crowd. As spectacles of military glory go, Pyongyang or Red Square it was not.
I wasn’t there. Like at least four million other people in the US that day, I was at one of the anti-Trump “No Kings” rallies held in some 2,100 cities and towns across the country. It was the largest single-day political protest in US history, dwarfing attendance at Trump’s parade and proving that a democracy exists only if a people exists, and a people exists only in individuals’ awareness of one another and of their need to act together. This awareness is Trump’s worst enemy.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
~ Mark Twain ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
counterpunch.org
Unmasking Fascism: Edward Said’s Pedagogy of Wakefulness in an Age of Educational Repression
Henry Giroux
June 27, 2025
“The chilling message is clear: higher education is no longer a sanctuary for free thought; it is a field of repression where the rule of authoritarianism dominates.”
“The ongoing assaults on democracy, both domestically and globally, are not isolated events but part of the groundwork laid by gangster capitalism for the rise of fascism in American society. Central to this process is the transformation of the university from a public good to a privatized institution, where students are seen as human capital, courses are dictated by consumer demand, and more recently the curricula is whitewashed and filled with far-right propaganda, often under the cover of implementing patriotic education, cleansed of antisemitism. Under the market-driven logic of neoliberalism, universities have become spaces that prioritize economic outputs over intellectual autonomy, turning critical thought and democratic engagement into commodities. This shift has undermined the university’s role as a crucible for challenging the status quo, replacing it with a system of training rather than fostering a culture of critical learning, dialogue, and informed judgment. (my emphasis:)
Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair
The War at Home—State Terrorism on Full Display
Across the globe, we are living in a moment of profound crisis where the very essence of education as a democratic institution is under attack. In the United States, the assault on higher education is part of a broader war waged by authoritarian forces aiming to dismantle the pillars of not only academic freedom, dissent, and human rights, but also the essential foundations of democracy itself. Universities are no longer seen as spaces of intellectual freedom and critical inquiry but as battlegrounds for ideological control. Campus protests are met with police brutality; students are abducted for their political views, and those who dare to speak out against the prevailing orthodoxy face expulsion, censorship, and criminalization. Trump’s administration has fueled this campaign, not only targeting academic freedom but also pushing policies that criminalize dissent, especially when it comes to movements like those advocating for Palestinian liberation. The erosion of civil liberties extends to international students protesting in solidarity with Gaza, with threats of deportation looming over them. The chilling message is clear: higher education is no longer a sanctuary for free thought; it is a field of repression where the rule of authoritarianism dominates.
State terrorism at home targets those who dare to engage in the dangerous practice of critical thinking and the courageous act of holding power accountable. It is a violent apparatus that imposes terror on all who are deemed “other”—immigrants, Black people, trans people, brown people, campus protesters, and anyone who refuses to conform to the narrow, racist vision articulated by Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff. He is notorious for his white nationalist views, has become a central figure in shaping the Trump administration’s policies. At a Trump rally in Madison Square Garden, he boldly declared that “America is for Americans and Americans only,” a mantra that echoed the Nazi slogan, “Germany for Germans only.” As Robert Tait reports in The Guardian, Tara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill, warns that his rise is a direct threat, as he now wields the power of the federal government to impose his fascist worldview.
Setmayer, who now leads the women-led political action committee Seneca Project, explains that his vision has been fully embraced as a core political strategy under Trump. “That view has now been transformed into the main political policy and aim of Donald Trump’s presidency,” she states. The demagoguery surrounding immigration has always been at the heart of Trump’s political ascent. With Miller’s goal to make America whiter and less diverse now backed by the unchecked power of the presidency, Setmayer warns that this combination is not just dangerous, it poses a grave threat to American values and the rule of law itself.
Under the Trump rule, state terrorism is not confined to domestic borders; it extends its reach through reckless, international aggression. Trump’s administration is waging war not just within the U.S., but abroad, with flagrant violations of international law. His unprovoked aggression against Iran, coupled with his unwavering support for Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza and its unthinkable war on children, exemplifies the regime’s disregard for global norms and human rights. Beyond the Middle East, Trump’s regime seeks to impose its will through threats, tariffs, and naked displays of power. His brutal crackdown on immigration, the transformation of I.C.E. into a Gestapo-like force, and the relentless narrowing of who is permitted entry into the U.S. expose his deeper authoritarian impulses. In this vision, the international community becomes little more than a pawn in his relentless pursuit of geopolitical dominance.
Trump’s disdain for allies and international cooperation reached alarming heights, exemplified by his call to attack Panama, annex Canada, and seize Greenland. These wild, imperialistic notions reflect a deeply rooted belief that America’s might should dominate the global stage, with little regard for diplomacy or the sovereignty of other nations. In Trump’s worldview, global relations are defined by the logic of conquest and dominance, where the violence of state terror is justified by the expansion of America’s influence and control. This is a regime that knows no limits, expanding its machinery of fear and violence, both at home and across the globe, in a sustained assault on humanity, justice, and the most basic principles of international law.
The Scourge of Neoliberalism
The ongoing assaults on democracy, both domestically and globally, are not isolated events but part of the groundwork laid by gangster capitalism for the rise of fascism in American society. Central to this process is the transformation of the university from a public good to a privatized institution, where students are seen as human capital, courses are dictated by consumer demand, and more recently the curricula is whitewashed and filled with far-right propaganda, often under the cover of implementing patriotic education, cleansed of antisemitism. Under the market-driven logic of neoliberalism, universities have become spaces that prioritize economic outputs over intellectual autonomy, turning critical thought and democratic engagement into commodities. This shift has undermined the university’s role as a crucible for challenging the status quo, replacing it with a system of training rather than fostering a culture of critical learning, dialogue, and informed judgment.
As neoliberal policies encourage privatization, restrict access, and force institutions into service to corporate interests, the university is no longer seen as a public trust. It has become a tool for ideological indoctrination, training citizens to uphold the status quo rather than challenge it. This transformation, in part, is a direct response to the democratization of the university that reached its peak in the 1960s, with intellectuals, campus protesters, and marginalized communities seeking to broaden the educational mission. The assault on higher education as a site of critique and democratization has intensified over the last four decades with the rise of the far-right, with broader implications that include intellectuals, minority students, and critical formative cultures essential to the foundation of a substantive democracy.
As the South African Nobel Prize winner in literature, JM Coetzee, points out in a different context, the reactionary hedge-fund billionaires “reconceive of themselves as managers of national economies” who want to turn universities into training schools equipping young people with the skills required by a modern economy.” Coetzee’s words are even more relevant today, given that this attack on higher education, which is both ideological and increasingly dependent on the militaristic arm of the state, reflects a broader attempt to eliminate the university’s critical function. Rather than serving the public good, the university is increasingly framed as a private investment, or an arm of state repression, where its governance mirrors the merging of the exploitative practices of corporate models, such as Walmart’s labor relations and the governing principles of fascism. In the spirit of this concern, Coetzee advocates for the defense of education as an institution dedicated to cultivating intellectual insight, civic responsibility, social justice, and critical thinking.
The questions we must ask at this crucial moment in American history are not about how the university can serve market interests or the authoritarian ideologies of the Trump regime, but how it can reclaim its role as a democratic public sphere. How might we redefine the university to safeguard the interests of young people amidst rising violence, war, anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, and environmental collapse?
As Zygmunt Bauman and Leonidas Donskisastutely point out, “How will we form the next generation of intellectuals and politicians if young people will never have an opportunity to experience what a non-vulgar, non-pragmatic, non-instrumentalized university is like?” In this spirit, we must recognize how larger economic, social, and cultural forces threaten the very idea of education, especially higher education, at a time when defending it as a space for critique, democracy, and justice has never been more urgent. Moreover any defense of the university as a public good demands an alliance of diverse groups willing to recognize that the fight for higher education cannot be separated from the wider struggle for a socialist democracy. The threats being waged against higher education are also a threat to the nation, a culture of informed citizens, and how we think about agency and its fundamental obligations to democracy itself.
At the same time, as neoliberalism faces a profound legitimacy crisis, failing to deliver on its promises of prosperity and social mobility, it increasingly resorts to fascist rhetoric. This rhetoric scapegoats Black communities, immigrants, and dissenting students, blaming them for the deepening crises plaguing America. In doing so, neoliberalism shifts blame while reinforcing a narrative that justifies authoritarian measures, further marginalizing those already oppressed. As this rhetoric spreads, the very institutions meant to foster critical engagement—like the university—are further corrupted, their original role of challenging the status quo replaced with one of reinforcing the existing power structures.
Edward Said’s Pedagogy of Wakefulness -Dreaming the Impossible
It is within this oppressive context that Edward Said’s work gains renewed relevance, offering the crucial pedagogical framework for resisting authoritarianism and reclaiming higher education as a site of resistance. In opposition to the debased view of educational engagement promoted by the neoliberal agenda and far-right politicians, Said championed what I label as the “pedagogy of wakefulness.” This pedagogy emphasizes the need for intellectuals to remain vigilant, awake to the realities of power, work with an array of social movement, and actively engaged in resisting systems of oppression. Said’s pedagogy demands that education be used as a vehicle for social change, not simply as a means of economic productivity or ideological conformity. Moreover, he argued that cultural workers and all manners of engaged intellectuals work in a variety of sites and on different platforms in order to address the public in a language that was rigorous, accessible, and comprehensive in its ability to connect a variety of issues.
In defining Said’s pedagogy of wakefulness, I am reminded of a deeply personal passage from his memoir, Out of Place, where he reflects on the final months of his mother’s life in a New York hospital. Struggling with the ravaging effects of cancer, his mother asked him, “Help me to sleep, Edward.” This poignant moment becomes a gateway for Said’s meditation on sleep and consciousness, which he links to his broader philosophy of intellectual engagement. Said’s meditation moves between the existential and the insurgent, between private pain and worldly commitment, between the seductions of a “solid self” and the reality of a contradictory, questioning, restless, and at times, uneasy sense of identity. The beauty and poignancy of his moving commentary is worth quoting at length:
‘Help me to sleep, Edward,’ she once said to me with a piteous trembling in her voice that I can still hear as I write. But then the disease spread into her brain—and for the last six weeks she slept all the time—my own inability to sleep may be her last legacy to me, a counter to her struggle for sleep. For me sleep is something to be gotten over as quickly as possible. I can only go to bed very late, but I am literally up at dawn. Like her I don’t possess the secret of long sleep, though unlike her I have reached the point where I do not want it. For me, sleep is death, as is any diminishment in awareness. ..Sleeplessness for me is a cherished state to be desired at almost any cost; there is nothing for me as invigorating as immediately shedding the shadowy half-consciousness of a night’s loss than the early morning, reacquainting myself with or resuming what I might have lost completely a few hours earlier….A form of freedom, I like to think, even if I am far from being totally convinced that it is. That skepticism too is one of the themes I particularly want to hold on to. With so many dissonances in my life I have learned actually to prefer being not quite right and out of place.
Said’s reflection here is more than a personal meditation; This passage becomes a powerful metaphor for Said’s pedagogy of wakefulness. It is a call to remain in constant motion—intellectually, politically, and socially. The metaphor of sleeplessness, for Said, embodies a refusal to succumb to the seductions of conformity or passive consumption. This state of “wakefulness” requires intellectual vigilance, a refusal to settle for easy answers or unchallenged ideologies. It speaks to the necessity of embracing discomfort, of being “not quite right and out of place,” as Said himself puts it. In this intellectual space of uncertainty, a new, critical sense of identity can emerge—one that is always questioning, always in motion.
For Said, intellectuals–those who are alive to thinking critically and acting bravely–must engage critically with the world, confronting its injustices and inequalities, and using their positions to challenge power. His pedagogy insists that education is not merely about transmitting knowledge but about awakening students to the complexities of the world. It demands that we lift complex ideas into public discourse, recognizing human suffering and injustice both inside and outside the academy, and using theory as a tool for critique and change.
This pedagogy is particularly urgent in the context of the current Trump regime, where the state has weaponized ignorance and repression, seeking to silence dissent and erase marginalized histories. Said’s pedagogy of wakefulness provides a framework for resisting this intellectual and cultural erasure; what Marina Warner in a different context called “the new brutalism in academia.” By embracing Said’s vision, educators can transform their classrooms into spaces of radical engagement—spaces where students are encouraged not only to critique but to act, to connect their private struggles to the larger social issues that shape their world. This is particularly relevant in the fight for Palestinian liberation, where Said’s work has long offered a framework for resisting colonial violence and challenging the narratives that justify oppression.
In a time of rising civic cowardice in the mainstream media, elite education institutions, and cravenly law firms, hiding behind appeals to balance and objectivity makes it difficult for educators, journalists, public servants, and media pundits to recognize that being committed to something does not cancel out what C. Wright Mills once called hard thinking. More specifically, Mills argued “that social analysis could be probing, tough-minded, critical, relevant and scholarly, that ideas need not be handled as undertakers handle bodies, with care but without passion, that commitment need not be dogmatic, and that radicalism need not be a substitute for hard thinking.” Building on Said’s pedagogy of wakefulness “hard thinking” points to a pedagogy that needs to be rigorous, self-reflective, and committed not to the dead zone of instrumental rationality or the abyss of indoctrination, but what Gayatri Spivak calls “the practice of freedom,” to a critical sensibility capable of advancing the parameters of knowledge, addressing crucial social issues, and connecting private troubles and public issues.
The Role of Culture in Pedagogy: A Call for Resistance
In my own work, I have long argued that culture plays a crucial role in shaping the civic consciousness necessary for resistance. Culture is not merely a passive reflection of society; it is a dynamic force that shapes our understanding of the world and our place within it. In an era where neoliberalism and fascism are increasingly intertwined, culture becomes a vital space for alternative narratives to take root. It is crucial to acknowledge that culture has become a tool for authoritarian regimes to control public consciousness, suppress dissent, and maintain the status quo. However, it remains one of the few spaces where resistance can also flourish.
Said’s pedagogy of wakefulness offers a critical lens through which to view the role of culture in education. It calls on educators to resist the commodification and militarization of culture and instead cultivate a pedagogy that is engaged, critical, and rooted in the politics of resistance. This is not simply an intellectual exercise in critical thinking or a new found attentiveness about the rise of fascist politics, but a call to arms—an invitation to create a culture of resistance within the university and other cultural apparatuses, that equips students and the broader public with the tools to challenge the growing tide of authoritarianism.
This cultural resistance must be grounded in the belief that education is a public good, a space where the radical potential for social change can be realized, anti-capitalist values can be challenged, and the groundwork can be laid for mass resistance to an America marked by what the late Mike Davis, cited in Capitalist Realism, called “an era in which there is a super saturation of corruption, cruelty, and violence…. fails any longer to outrage or even interest.” Universities must reject the neoliberal redefinition of education as a commodity and instead embrace the idea that education is a moral and political practice, one that is central to the health of democracy. As Said argued, intellectuals and educators have a responsibility to bear witness to human suffering, to challenge power, and to use their positions to promote justice. In doing so, they can help reclaim education as a space for imagination, resistance, and liberation.
Conclusion
The current assault on higher education is not just an attack on academic institutions but on the very idea of humanity, thinking, and democracy itself. As universities become increasingly corporatized and ideologically colonized, we must resist the neoliberal and fascist forces that seek to transform education into a tool of indoctrination. Edward Said’s pedagogy of wakefulness provides a vital framework for this resistance, offering a vision of education that is both critical and politically engaged. By embracing this pedagogy, educators can help transform the university from a site of ideological compliance into a space where students are empowered to resist, imagine, and fight for a more just and democratic world. The struggle to reclaim education as a democratic force will determine not only the future of the university but the future of democracy itself.
Henry A. Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and is the Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include: The Terror of the Unforeseen (Los Angeles Review of books, 2019), On Critical Pedagogy, 2nd edition (Bloomsbury, 2020); Race, Politics, and Pandemic Pedagogy: Education in a Time of Crisis (Bloomsbury 2021); Pedagogy of Resistance: Against Manufactured Ignorance (Bloomsbury 2022) and Insurrections: Education in the Age of Counter-Revolutionary Politics (Bloomsbury, 2023), and coauthored with Anthony DiMaggio, Fascism on Trial: Education and the Possibility of Democracy (Bloomsbury, 2025). Giroux is also a member of Truthout’s board of directors.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~ Mark Twain ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
~TajMo ~
"Room On The Porch"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." ~ Reinhold Niebuhr
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
How Mainstream Media's Disimagination Machines Normalize Trump's Authoritarianism
The ruling elite use major media apparatuses as disimagination machines for tools of indoctrination.
Henry A. Giroux
May 22, 2024
Welcome to the Hedge-Fund Driven Neoliberal University
Propaganda has become the political weapon of the 21st century, corrupting every form of education and every institution associated with the production of ideas, values and knowledge. This has undermined both the capacity for critical thinking and the concept of truth itself. The past does not simply live in the present; it is now being used to cancel out reason and justice as harbingers of a more democratic future. Furthermore, imagining a better world is no longer related to learning from the past. On the contrary, historical knowledge is now being erased as far right legislators ban ideas and subjects that reveal the legacy of slavery, Indigenous genocide, and repression. What Ralph Ellison once called “the shadows of our historical knowledge” are now being purged from public and higher education. No longer a crucial archive and “treasure trove of resources” that “gives shape and contour to present imaginings,” history and remembrance are being suppressed by the new McCarthyite assassins of memory, who engage in censorship, misinformation and political repression. What far right politicians and right-wing media make clear and want to suppress, as historian Tiya Miles observes, is that “U.S. history would not make sense without the study of slavery. Period.”
The powerful influence of manufactured ignorance isn’t confined to the morally and politically vacuous right. The liberal mainstream media rarely summon up the truth or journalistic integrity by attacking gangster capitalism or inviting truly informed commentators who have addressed the roots of U.S. fascism, criticized Israel’s war on Palestinians, addressed the plague of global neoliberalism, or analyzed the war on higher education. Nor do they uplift voices of those critical of the onslaught against reproductive rights, the attacks on oppositional journalists, the threat of nuclear war, the war on the ecological system, the far right war on democracy, the rise of the carceral state, and racial capitalism and systemic racism.
Functioning as a right-wing war machine, far right cultural platforms battle critical ideas, language, social relations and values of radical democracy.
The punishing state now wraps itself in mindless entertainment and cruel invective parading as political theater. Americans are bombarded with the babble of liberals who are too cowardly to name Trump as a fascist or as a racist, treating him as either a normal candidate or a bullying clown rather than as a symptom of a deeper malaise of fascism, echoing a pernicious and frightening past.
The culture of Google, Instagram, Facebook and X is the enemy of historical consciousness. It is a place where history as a repository of resistance and record of violence dies, along with the power to learn from the past. Historical consciousness, civic courage, and historic movements of resistance are diluted, if not erased, in a culture awash in misinformation and the cult of the self—a culture of willed and commodified ignorance. In such an environment, informed thinking vanishes amid a relentless image-based tsunami of advertisements, reality TV, game shows, and a regressive tide of commodification, atomization and privatization. The spectacle swallows any viable notion of critical agency, turning out zombies consumed with the emotional release and satisfaction that comes with the embrace of bigotry. MAGA hats are the new symbols of a death culture.
READ MORE:
https://www.laprogressive.com/law-and-justice/disimagination-machines
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %%%%
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." ~ Albert Einstein ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
theguardian.com
Wall Street shivers over ‘hot commie summer’ after Mamdani’s success
Edward Helmore
Sat 28 Jun 2025
When Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old self-described socialist, won New York’s mayoral Democratic nomination last week over a seasoned but scandal-scarred veteran, the city’s financial elite had a meltdown.
This was the start of “hot commie summer” in the city, New York hedgevfund billionaire Daniel Loeb posted to X. John Catsimatidis, billionaire CEO of grocery chain Gristedes and friend of Donald Trump, warned on Fox Business: “If the city of New York is going socialist, I will definitely close, or sell, or move.”
CNBC financial news channel anchor Joe Kernen compared New York to Batman’s crime-riddled Gotham. “ They’re taking Wall Streeters and making them walk out onto the ice in the East River, And, and then they fall through. I mean there is a class warfare that’s going on.”
With five months until the mayoral election proper, the 1% are revolting, led by loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit “hundreds of millions of dollars” into an opposing campaign. “The risk/reward of running for mayor over the next 132 days is extremely compelling as the cost in time and energy is small and the upside is enormous.”
Ackman said he was “gravely concerned” because he believed the leftwing candidate’s policies would trigger an exodus of the wealth that would destroy the tax base and undermine New York’s public services. The city under Mamdani, he posted on Wednesday, “is about to become much more dangerous and economically unviable.”
In 2021, the top 1% of New York City taxpayers paid 48% of taxes – up from 40% in 2019, according to a report from the city’s finance department. But at the same time, New York has become an increasingly unaffordable city for those outside the 1% – especially for people of color.
In a post a day later, Ackman said: “The ability for New York City to offer services for the poor and needy, let alone the average New Yorker, is entirely dependent on New York City being a business-friendly environment and a place where wealthy residents are willing to spend 183 days and assume the associated tax burden. Unfortunately, both have already started making arrangements for the exits.”
“Terror is the feeling,” Kathryn Wylde, the chief executive of the Partnership for New York City, which represents top business leaders, told CNBC on Tuesday.
Gerard Filitti, senior legal counsel at the Lawfare Project, a pro-Israel thinktank, non-profit and litigation fund, and a New Yorker with strong ties to the finance industry, said Mamdani’s nomination “marked a dangerous turning point for the city”.
“There’s big concern that businesses and the economy will be hurt. There’s already a move by business leaders and entrepreneurs to consider a move outside of the city, taking jobs and tax dollars with them, at time when the front-running candidate promises to make even more change that could destroy the economy,” Filitti said.
The anger was not necessarily purely economic. Wall Street’s decision makers have been shaken after seeing their preferred candidate, Andrew Cuomo, pushed aside despite the millions they poured into his campaign.
Fix the City, Cuomo’s political action committee (Pac), raised a record $25m to help see off Mamdani. Former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg alone gave $8.3m to the Pac.
“These are billionaires who are giving hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars to Andrew Cuomo precisely because they know we are going to tax them to make life a little bit more affordable here, in the most expensive city in the United States,” Mamdani told the New York Times before the election. “They know they can count on Cuomo because Cuomo has a track record of rewarding the political donors.”
A Mamdani supporter wears a sticker that says ‘I didn’t rank Cuomo.’ Photograph: Heather Khalifa/AP
New York’s moneyed class argues it’s not about them but the future of the city. “When you look at what New York City is and has been historically – a bastion of trading and the center of world capitalism, the engine of economic growth and prosperity, the stock market, an the inspiration for other world economies to develop their markets and economies in line with New York – and now what were seeing is an economy and quality of life that is slowly deteriorating,” said Filitti.
“Now we have a front-running Democrat candidate who is promising even more radical change and that change is a threat to the structure of New York and the way people identify with New York City,” Filitti added.
It’s an argument the rich have made many times before. Many of the 1% threatened to leave after former mayor Bill de Blasio called for raising their taxes to pay for the losses the city experienced after the Covid pandemic. Wall Street poured millions into mayor Eric Adam’s 2021 campaign for office to see off more progressive candidates. They won those fights; this time, they lost.
A former Wall Street CEO told Politico: “These titans of Wall Street and titans of finance are used to getting their way. They didn’t get their way. They got the opposite of their way. They got a guy who couldn’t be more disliked by them – and vice versa.”
Wall Street’s vision for the city is probably far from that shared by many other residents of a sprawling metropolis that traditionally has played host to vibrant immigrant communities from all over the world, many of them poor. It is of course, host to the Statue of Liberty on whose base is written the famous lines: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Manhattan was also the birthplace of the Occupy Wall Street protests in the US back in 2011, which occupied the downtown Zucotti Square – blocks from Wall Street – and eventually saw protests spread across the rest of the country and the world.
Democratic progressives were quick to celebrate Mamdani’s victory. “Your dedication to an affordable, welcoming, and safe New York City where working families can have a shot has inspired people across the city. Billionaires and lobbyists poured millions against you and our public finance system. And you won,” wrote representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another progressive who won out against a more establishment candidate.
Another longtime critic of Wall Street and the billionaire class also saw a change in politics as usual. “The American people are beginning to stand up and fight back. We have seen that in the many Fighting Oligarchy events that we’ve done around the country that have drawn huge turnouts. We have seen that in the millions of people who came out for the No Kings rallies that took place this month in almost every state. And yesterday, we saw that in the Democratic primary in New York City,” senator Bernie Sanders wrote in The Guardian.
Millions will now be spent attacking Mamdani. But he has seen off one well-funded attempt to derail his campaign. Whether or not his campaign has the momentum to last until November, remains to be seen. But Wall Streeters have been put on notice that New York, and the changing nature of the Democratic party, may no longer be as amenable to their interests, or their vision for New York.
$
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
~ Confucius ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Laurence Tribe: 'It’s Not Over. The Resistance Is About to Ignite'
November 11,2024
Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe. (photo: Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Gazette)
Unlike the sudden slide into authoritarianism seen in other countries, the United States benefits from a decentralized government that can serve as a strong counterweight to Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. It’s within this space — the system of checks and balances — that the resistance will emerge, argues Harvard’s Professor Laurence Tribe, one of the foremost constitutional law experts in the country. The Constitution is not just a “remarkable piece of prose,” says Tribe, and he underscores the prominent role that state legislatures will play in resisting Trump. Civil society, like journalists and educators, will also play a crucial role in creating a cultural- political resistance to any attempts to erase democratic norms. “It’s not over,” says Tribe. “We are about to see all of the institutions activated in a way that we haven’t had to see before.” The law is “an area where reality bites,” says Tribe.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
"A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn no other way." ~ Mark Twain ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
economist.com
Zohran Mamdani, Trump’s “worst nightmare”, may really be a gift to him
The Economist
Jun 27th 2025
FOUR DAYS before New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist assemblyman who represents part of Queens, walked the length of Manhattan, 13 miles (21km) from Inwood Hill Park to the Staten Island Ferry terminal. “New Yorkers deserve a mayor that they can see, they can hear, they can even yell at,” he said. It was reminiscent of Ed Koch, a charismatic mayor in the 1970s and 1980s. Koch would often ask his constituents: “How’m I doin’?” He was greeted by cheers or jeers, depending on the year and the neighbourhood. By that standard, Mr Mamdani, who beat the Democratic establishment to win the primary on June 24th, already looks mayoral.
Just a few months ago few people outside the district he represents in the state legislature had heard of him. He polled less than 1% when he entered the race in October. Yet he defeated Andrew Cuomo, New York’s former governor, who was once one of the biggest names in American politics. Mr Mamdani’s unexpected victory delighted progressives and, for different reasons, Republicans.
It is in part a rejection of Mr Cuomo, who resigned because of allegations of sexual harassment and of undercounting the number of New Yorkers who died in care homes during the covid-19 pandemic (he denies wrongdoing). But it also represents something bigger: it is a rejection of Democratic centrism and politics as usual. Democratic-primary voters tend to be more left-wing than the party’s average voter. They were not impressed by the endorsement that Mr Cuomo received from Bill Clinton, a former president, and turned off by one from Bill Ackman, a billionaire hedge-fund manager.
Mr Mamdani is an immigrant, which may have helped in a city where 40% of the residents are foreign-born. He was born in Kampala, Uganda. After early years in post-apartheid South Africa his family settled in America when he was seven. He became an American citizen in 2018. He grew up in the shadow of Columbia University, where his father, Mahmood Mamdani, a Ugandan-born expert on colonialism, taught. Mr Mamdani told the New York Times that he had a privileged upbringing. But he also understands what it means to be stateless: his father was expelled from Uganda for several years because of his Indian ethnicity. His mother, Mira Nair, is an Indian Oscar-nominated film-maker known for stories about identity and diaspora. Both of Mr Mamdani’s parents have been outspoken critics of Israel’s war in Gaza.
Mr Mamdani has also criticised Israel’s policies. As a student at Bowdoin College, a small liberal-arts school, he co-founded a pro-Palestine group. More recently, he failed to condemn the phrase “globalise the intifada”, which many Jewish people consider to be a call for violence against them. He said on a podcast that the phrase is not a call for violence, but an expression of the desire for Palestinian “equality and human rights”. Baloney, say many Jewish New Yorkers.
Before he entered politics, Mr Mamdani dipped his toe into hip-hop, as a rapper by the name of “Mr Cardamom”. He was not successful. He was also a foreclosure-prevention counsellor, helping people from minority backgrounds in Queens stay in their homes. He entered politics in 2020, when he became the first South Asian elected to the New York State assembly; since then only three of his bills have become law. He recently married an artist.
Unabashedly left-wing, Mr Mamdani belongs to the Democratic Socialists of America, an activist group that believes “working people” should run things “to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few”. His campaign theme was affordability. Mr Mamdani wants to make buses free, to freeze rent, to open city-run supermarkets in “food deserts” and to hit the rich with higher taxes. This scares the living daylights out of many well-heeled New Yorkers.
Left-wing he may be, but likeably so. “I actually don’t think Mr. Mamdani’s success is primarily about his ideology. It’s about his talent as a new media-savvy politician,” says Jesse Arm of the Manhattan Institute, a think-tank. “He’s run a really smart messaging campaign.” His social-media posts were positive and down-to-earth. Whereas Mr Cuomo’s campaign events were rare and orchestrated. Some 46,000 people campaigned for Mr Mamdani. He attracted young voters and moderate ones. He rewrote the city’s political map, winning many of the districts that Donald Trump won in the 2024 presidential election. Areas that seem unpromising for a candidate of his ilk, like Hillside in Queens and Tottenville on Staten Island, voted for him.
Mr Mamdani calls himself “Donald Trump’s worst nightmare—as a progressive, Muslim immigrant.” He’s the sort of refreshing politician that Democrats have been looking for as an answer to the Visigothic vim of the MAGA movement. But Republicans may be as delighted by his victory as progressives are. Elise Stefanik, who represents part of upstate New York in Congress, told CNN that Mr Mamdani is “the single most effective foil for Republicans nationally”. After the primary Mr Trump posted on social media that Mr Mamdani is “a 100% Communist Lunatic”.
His Republican rival in the mayoral election in November will be Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels, who patrolled the subways in red berets starting in the crime-ridden 1970s, and an unsuccessful mayoral candidate in 2021. Perhaps a bigger obstacle to Mr Mamdani’s mayoralty is Eric Adams, the incumbent. The Department of Justice indicted him for corruption (then dropped the case on Mr Trump’s orders) and he lost the Democratic Party’s nomination. He plans to run as an independent. Mr Cuomo is staying in the race, too, at least for now, as an independent.
If Mr Mamdani is elected, he would be the first Muslim mayor in New York City’s history. He would also be the youngest, and the first immigrant in decades. More important, he will be the first political star of the left to emerge during Mr Trump’s second presidency. What is not yet clear is whether Democrats of his kind will lead the party out of the wilderness or deeper into it. ■
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." ~ Mark Twain ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
jacobin.com
What Mamdani’s Win Can (and Can’t) Teach Us
Jared Abbott
06.28.2025
Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor was a massive, earth-shaking upset. When he announced his campaign last October, insiders scoffed: “Could this pro-Palestinian socialist really be NYC’s next mayor?” ran the headline at City & State. For Politico’s New York Playbook, he was little more than “a longshot,” whose presence in the race might damage established progressives like Brad Lander or Jessica Ramos. Less than a month ago, betting markets gave him a 6 percent chance of defeating the heavy favorite Andrew Cuomo.
Mamdani won anyway — not by eking it out in the seventh round of ranked-choice voting, but topping Cuomo among first-choice ballots and claiming outright victory on election night. His triumph sends a clear message: a bold populist campaign and a laser-like focus on economic issues can break through to voters, even when insiders, billionaires, and the party establishment line up in opposition. Mamdani’s stunning victory offers some vivid lessons for left-wing politics, both in New York City and beyond.
For progressives, the race was a strong vindication of the economic-populist strategy we have long advocated in our work at the Center for Working-Class Politics (CWCP). As CWCP research associates Matt Karp and Dustin Guastella wrote in a 2021 Guardian article, to win, Democrats must “embrace bread and butter economic issues.” And unlike many other progressive candidates over the last five years, that’s exactly what Mamdani did. His campaign was highly disciplined, with a tight focus on housing, transportation, wages, and the everyday cost of living. That message reached not just core progressive constituencies, but many working-class New Yorkers, who have traditionally shied away from progressive challengers or sat out Democratic primaries altogether.
Crucially, Mamdani took a pragmatic approach on issues that have tripped up many other left challengers. He distanced himself from “defund the police” rhetoric without disowning public safety reform, and avoided activist jargon that can turn off more moderate or apolitical voters. The result was a campaign that resonated in places where earlier progressives had faltered. Mamdani outperformed previous left-liberal candidates in many working-class neighborhoods, and his platform’s emphasis on cost-of-living issues likely helped bring low-frequency voters off the sidelines. Indeed, turnout surpassed one million — a higher total than any of the past six mayoral primaries.
Mamdani’s economics-focused, ideologically pragmatic approach is especially important because low-frequency Democratic voters tend to be both less ideologically progressive and more economically precarious than consistent voters. Mamdani’s apparent success in mobilizing many of these voters suggests that an economics-first message can help progressives expand the electorate beyond the usual suspects.
There are lessons here for Democrats more broadly as well. First, being anti-Trump is not enough. As Bernie Sanders wrote, Mamdani’s win shows that “we have to bring forth a positive vision and an analysis of why things are the way they are.” This is consistent with CWCP’s own polling in the critical swing state of Pennsylvania, which showed that 2024 voters were much more likely to be persuaded by positive economic populist appeals than negative attacks on Trump as a threat to democracy (however real those threats may be).
Second, charisma and communication matter. Unlike many Democrats, including, famously, Kamala Harris, Mamdani is highly effective at retail politics and adept at reaching voters where they are—whether on the street through his impressive canvassing operation, online through creative, relatable, and often funny short videos, or through long-form podcasts. He was able, unlike most Democrats, to craft an image that felt both relatable and authentic at a grassroots level.
And finally, Mamdani’s win is a clear indication — if another were needed — that the Democratic establishment is badly out of touch. Its near-unanimous opposition to Mamdani echoed its circle-the-wagons resistance to Sanders in 2020 and reinforced the image of a party elite disconnected from its own base. Long-time New York Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler called Mamdani’s win a “seismic election for the Democratic Party that I can only compare to Barack Obama’s in 2008.” Mamdani’s victory should (though sadly will likely not) serve as a wake-up call to Democrats: the energy, ideas, and electoral potential that many Democrats claim to be searching for are already here, but mainstream Democrats just haven’t embraced them.
At the same time, it is important to be clear about what Mamdani’s victory does and does not suggest about progressive politics more broadly, particularly outside Democratic strongholds like New York City. First, Mamdani’s victory in no way suggests that progressives everywhere can campaign as far left as possible on divisive social issues and still break through to working-class voters. On the contrary, Mamdani’s own strategy reflects an awareness of these limits: he took care to distance himself from earlier positions, like “defund the police,” that might have diverted attention away from his core economic message.
It is impressive that Mamdani prevailed despite a barrage of attacks against him, but this hardly means that he would have been similarly effective in a purple or red district. Indeed, Mamdani overcame pushback against some of his more controversial stances in large part because the electorate he faced was quite progressive, and therefore comparatively forgiving. The Democratic primary electorate in New York City contains an unusually high share of college-educated voters, as much as 55 percent. These voters, who are substantially more progressive on social and cultural issues than noncollege graduates, make up only about 35% of general election voters in key swing states. It’s hard to imagine Mamdani overcoming the same attacks in that kind of electoral setting.
While college-educated voters may be sufficient to win a New York City Democratic primary, that is not at all the reality in key swing states and districts where the numbers simply don’t add up. The coalition that carried Mamdani — renters, service workers, and progressive professionals — is a real and growing one. But it’s not large enough to win national elections or even many statewide contests. To build the national coalitions we need to stop Trumpism and deliver meaningful gains to working people, progressives still have to grapple with how to win back the many working-class voters of all backgrounds they have lost over the past decades. There is no shortcut to this struggle.
None of this is to take away from Mamdani’s win. While the campaign may not be a one-size-fits-all model for every battleground district, it marks a watershed moment for the Left — arguably the most significant electoral breakthrough of this generation of progressive politics. It’s a powerful testament to how far a clear, grounded, and economically focused campaign can go, even against a well-funded and deeply entrenched opposition.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"We're lost but we're making good time."
~Yogi ~
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Zohran Mamdani’s Historic Win: 16 Takeaways
Eric Blanc
06.25.2025
After decades of defeats for working people and the Left, it almost felt like a dream to witness Zohran Mamdani make history last night. Sometimes the good guys win. As David Hogg wrote last night, “BREAKING: Not everything has to suck.”
Absorbing the key lessons of this campaign is essential for the fights ahead, not just in New York City but across the United States.
Read more:
https://jacobin.com/2025/06/zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayor-cuomo
*******************************
“Let us make a special effort to stop communicating with each other, so we can have some conversation.” ~ Mark Twain
**************************************
unftr.com
#5NN:)) This is How We Win
The 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left
April 26, 2025
Image Description: UNFTR’s 5 Non-Negotiables alongside the Statue of Liberty.
Summary: This is how we win. This is the closing argument of the project to build the foundation of the people’s platform and take over the Democratic Party: The 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left. Three to earn the trust of the American people to win back the country, and two to salvage our democracy and our planet. The Trump administration is the culmination of a 70 year neoliberal plan to divide the population and place the wealth of the nation and levers of power into the hands of the few. The dystopian doctrine that drives this agenda is rooted in fear born from economic precarity. As such, the opposite holds true as well. Everything positive is attainable when a population lives in economic security and has satisfied the most basic human needs. We need a politics centered on achieving this goal before we can broaden our horizon. To accomplish this we have to use the tools at our disposal, which means we have to take over the most functional political apparatus available: The Democratic Party. Our contribution to this plan is simply to provide structure and clarity. This is how we win. (my emphasis :)
Taking on the Democratic Establishment
We know what Donald Trump is capable of. By extension we now know what the Republican Party is capable of. The Republican Party lit the runway and cleared Donald Trump for takeoff. It’s time we leave them behind. No more bridges. No olive branches. No compromises or amends.
That is the most radical thing I have to say. The most provocative thing I have to say, however, is this:
The Democratic establishment is the single greatest threat on the horizon.
MSNBC talking heads, Pod Save bros, establishment relics like James Carville, Bill Maher boomer types and Third Way Democrats are uniting around dangerous themes to sideline progressives. Earlier this year, the Third Way think tank even hosted a “Comeback Retreat” designed to diagnose what’s wrong with the Democratic Party. You can read the summary for yourself, but let me offer a few key findings. Their words. My response.
“Move away from identity politics.”
Kamala Harris didn’t campaign on identity politics, nor did Joe Biden. Republicans did.
“Reduce Far-Left Influence and Infrastructure.”
They already killed primaries, not sure what else they’re looking to accomplish.
“Embrace Moderation, Individualism and Masculinity.”
That would be the libertarian platform. Also, that’s crude, sexist and stupid.
“Shift Messaging Away from ‘Handouts’.”
They list student loan forgiveness and universal basic income as handouts, by the way. And they encourage more use of words like “opportunity” and “empowerment.” These are Republican talking points that the Clinton/Gore New Democrats adopted with disastrous results.
“Integrate with the Business Community.”
You’ll love these suggestions as to how to do this. This one has subheadings like, “Stop demonizing wealth and corporations,” and “engage with business podcasts like ‘Earn Your Leisure’ that reach the aspiring class.” Aspiring class is their euphemism for a working class that wants to succeed, not receive handouts.
“Be Pro-Aspiration and Pro-Capitalism in a Smart Way.”
This includes, “Have a prosperity gospel aimed at the working class.”
You get the picture. Understand that this is essentially the unified platform that has existed on a seamless continuum from Reagan to Biden. Trump is the puss-filled symptom of this diseased thinking, the manifestation of social and economic policies that have attacked the underpinnings of liberal democracy. He is the inevitable culmination of the festering anger of the poor and working class. The only logical response to a system that has foreclosed on economic mobility. The alpha and omega of discontent.
To be clear and awake in this moment is to understand that this is the rubicon, the Maginot Line, the two paths diverging, whatever you want to call it. Either we follow this down the well-worn path toward a fascist dictatorship—already in plain sight with the eradication of due process, the disappearance of student visa holders, the elimination of poverty relief programs, attack on public education, and assault on free speech—or we provide another vision that delivers us.
What will not work for this nation, its institutions or inhabitants, is more of the same mediocre, polite defense of the neoliberal era system that resulted in economic precarity, environmental disaster, mass incarceration, and extreme political and social stratification.
This choice is not new. It is renewed. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Ordinance of Secession in 1861. The Wall Street Putsch of 1934. The American multiverse is brimming with what might have been if not for the Better Angels of liberalism. This much I know. The Third Way democrats are not them. How can you defend the status quo when we’re living with the fruits of it?
The 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left is an attempt to lay a foundation for something new with concrete and steel of what is tried and true.
I’ve talked a lot about the false confidence of the Democratic establishment that has tasted victory in the modern era due exclusively to a recession-driven crisis response among voters.
A little known governor from Arkansas who came to power in the post Gulf War Recession and spent eight years doing the bidding of the Gingrich GOP under the cloak of magical New Democrat thinking. The result was nothing less than catastrophic for the middle class and Black Americans who were subsumed by the yolk of the criminal injustice system.
Barack Obama promised to deliver the nation from the depths of the Great Recession, which itself was the direct result of the deregulatory frenzy of the Clinton administration and worsened by the gross incompetence of another Bush regime. The lackluster poverty alleviation of the Obama years led to widening inequality and discontent among the working class.
Lastly, there should be little doubt in the minds of any realist that Trump would have been re-elected to a consecutive term had he not been responsible for the utter mismanagement of a global pandemic and shock Recession. Once again, the Democratic establishment believed its own press that their political genius gave us the presidency. The veil of this logic fell in short order when Donald Trump once again took the oath of office.
The DNC leaders are bad at their job.
A single payer health system. Opposition to NAFTA. Campaign Finance Reform. Eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy. Increasing taxes on corporations. A living wage. These were core platforms of candidates from Jerry Brown and Dennis Kucinich to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. All legitimate candidates who were mocked and sidelined by the centrist Democrats who offered not a single bold policy on the left and governed through giveaways to the right.
There is one key difference between the Democratic Party and the GOP that runs through the entirety of the neoliberal era. The Republicans have a true ideology and when they are in power they work diligently to bring it to life. For the Democrats, power is the goal.
This is how and why the country has shifted to the right. Imagine the past 70 years as one long game of tug of war. For stretches of time the Republicans dig in their heels and tug the rope with all their might. They fuck things up for the working class, strip the middle class of its wealth and drive us into a recession. And then they rest and gather their steam for another coordinated pull.
The Democrats meanwhile hold the line while the Republicans rest before the rope tears the flesh from their hands when Republicans pull again. Each time the GOP makes a little more progress.
What’s maddening is that this was the playbook of left activists before the neoliberal era. America has always been a conservative enclave, steeped in racism and prone to fits of xenophobia. And for decades, if not centuries, suffragettes, union members, Civil Rights leaders, feminists, anti-war demonstrators and LGBTQ+ activists held the anchor position on the rope and did the heavy pulling for the rest of us.
Along the way they scored countless small victories that culminated in programs like Medicare and Medicaid; 40 hour work weeks, anti child labor laws, reproductive rights, disability rights, the right to organize, protected speech, universal franchise, and the freedom to love and marry whomever you choose. These are the ties that bind a society together, delivered by those who were beaten by batons and bloodied by water canons, fired from their jobs and excommunicated from their places of worship, ostracized by their friends and families, and hunted and imprisoned by their government.
Job one is to admit defeat; own up to the reality that we have abrogated the responsibility handed to us by these warriors to preserve what they often died defending. In this admission we can more readily identify that the time to hold the line has passed. It’s time to dig in our heels and pull the rope.
Not only can we build on the backs of the brave souls who came before us but can borrow tactics from those who have defeated us. Just as the Koch Brothers studied the revolutionary tactics of Lenin to use against the Left in this country, we can borrow from them.
Take Project 2025, for example. Project 2025 is as brazen as it is comprehensive. And the only reason we have access to it is because of their hubris.
The ideologues behind Project 2025 revealed their hand under the assumption that they were about to achieve total victory. Otherwise, this document never would have seen the light of day. They knew victory was imminent and were therefore confident that they could write the final chapter of the white supremacist manifesto that started in earnest in 1954 with the passage of Brown v. Board of Education. This is when the rope of neoliberalism was first pulled. The think tanks, dark money groups and Christian fundamentalist organizations all worked in concert over a 70-year period to deliver us here.
The documentation exists throughout like an evil schematic despite their attempts to hide it. Take over oil fields of other countries. Pillage their labor and natural resources. Voter disenfranchisement here at home. Take over schools and churches. Shut down dissent. Hoard wealth. Incarcerate Black people. End Posse Comitatus. Chill speech. Keep poor people poor. Put billionaires in charge. Eliminate regulations. Protect corporations. End DEI practices. Vilify immigrants. Keep boardrooms white and male. Make Congress Christian. But do it all without saying it. That’s where the discipline comes in. How do they pull it off?
The Southern Strategy never disappeared, they just refined it'.
America First. God and Country. The American Dream.
There are only two ways to advance a social, political and economic agenda. Through fear and precarity or optimism and security. The white nationalist playbook running the GOP relies on the former. A progressive vision for the future rests firmly on the latter.
For the GOP, staying on message helps blind the masses to your true intent and makes even the worst policies sound rational. When a population is in constant economic precarity they are susceptible to messages of fear. Because they exist in that fear. They live in it. The fight or flight response that triggers dopamine. The desire to break out of your circumstances is made easier when there’s someone to blame.
America First
First they shipped your jobs overseas, then they opened the border and let immigrants take them at home. We need to put America First by cutting taxes on the job creators.
God and Country
Our kids don’t go to church. They live in the basement and are addicted to porn. Drag Queens are turning them gay. Everyone is speaking Spanish today, but it’ll be Chinese tomorrow. The Muslim at the corner store, Jews that run Hollywood and commies from China are taking everything away from us. Time to put God and Country before everything else and get rid of the immigrants and infidels.
The American Dream
Families are falling apart. You’re working two jobs and still paycheck to paycheck, taking home less and paying out more. It’s because Black kids get free Ivy League education, Trans people get promoted, and illegal immigrants are stealing all the welfare benefits. Time to get rid of woke DEI nonsense and make the American Dream a reality for real Americans.
Simple platitudes dipped in fear that scapegoat others.
On the left, we have our goals as well. Reproductive rights. Free speech. LGBTQ+ rights. Indigenous rights. Pathways to citizenship. Stopping the funding of genocide with our tax dollars. Eliminating the cap on Social Security deductions. Expanded social safety nets. Free and fast public transportation. Nationalizing the energy grid. Imposing extreme regulations on factory farms. Breakup of monopolies. The right to organize. An end to homelessness. Addiction and recovery support. Ending mass incarceration. Student loan forgiveness. Free public college. A wealth tax. Closing the carried interest tax loophole. Voting access. A meaningful work guarantee. Affordable housing options. Universal healthcare coverage. Progressive taxation. Net zero carbon emissions. Closing foreign military bases. Police reform. Greater consumer protections. Clean water. Breathable air. Free and fair elections. And getting money out of politics.
Did I miss any?
No matter where you fall along these lines, something obvious should emerge when you examine the Democratic Party platform. With the exception of soft language about climate change resilience, admonitions that billionaires pay their fair share, and we need to make things more affordable, the Democratic Party never once uttered anything as specific as what we just reviewed in this century. Not one.
In fact, here’s what I remember from the Harris campaign most recently: She owned a Glock. Wanted to create a first time home buyer tax credit that no one understood. Democracy was on the ballot. We need to secure the border but Republicans won’t let them. Trump’s a monster. We need more joy. Things are fine and getting better.
People like Carville, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and all the centrist dems and pundits talk about the need to be practical and rational. Don’t spook the moderates with your socialist nonsense. They’ll tell you that we need to suppress left visions in order to appeal to a broader constituency. They concede only that there is a messaging problem, not a policy issue. If we could just convince people that we’re better at governing than Republicans and that they’re better off than they think. Can you think of anything more patronizing?
The self diagnosis of the Party isn’t that they aren’t good enough, it’s that you just don’t get it.
Then they retreat into familiar talking points, the worst of which is saying we need to stop with the purity tests. What is politics if not a purity test? That’s exactly what this is. One person’s purity test is another’s platform. To win in this game you have to stand for something and be pure in your intentions. The Republicans have one. They’ve administered an actual purity test to their candidates for forty years. It’s called the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” promoted by Americans for Tax Reform, an organization founded by Grover Norquist in 1985. Republican candidates are asked to sign a pledge to oppose any and all efforts to increase marginal tax rates for individuals and corporations and oppose efforts to eliminate tax deductions. Again. Simple.
Republicans know that the balance of their agenda flows directly from this one central concept. If they can hoard all the money they can buy and sell politicians, like so many nickels and dimes. Democrats often accuse Republicans of moving the goalpost and changing the rules of engagement. They’re only half right. Republicans constantly change the rules by keeping the goalpost firmly in place. In fact, it’s precisely the firmness of the pledge—the goalpost—that allows them to change the rules.
What’s astounding is that the pledge is made to constituents, not to the Republican Party. A promise to the many to protect the few. This cultlike fealty to the tax pledge has enabled the wealthiest few of the country to amass fortunes, which in turn has given them the ability to purchase our democracy and change the rules of the game.
Thankfully, people are waking up once again to the reality of this situation thanks to the blatantly authoritarian turn of this administration. Bernie and AOC are traversing the country on their Stop Oligarchy tour and packing arenas in red states. Even Republicans are roasting Republicans at GOP town halls.
What has my full attention right now, however, is a young vice chair of the DNC named David Hogg who is rattling the establishment’s cage by pledging to primary Democrats in safe blue districts who aren’t committed to progressivism. Well done. This is the inside person we need with a strategy to win the moment. Similar to the Justice Democrats movement that produced candidates such as AOC, Summer Lee, Pramila Jayapal, Greg Casar, Ayanna Pressley and Rashida Tlaib.
Hogg’s PAC is called Leaders We Deserve and has committed to raising $20 million for the 2026 primaries. If you’re going to support a political action committee, this is the one. Of course, this runs afoul of our 4th Non-Negotiable to get money out of politics, but that’s why number four is a post-cycle initiative that I conservatively believe will take 20 years to accomplish. As we pointed out in that particular episode, 20 years to unwind something that took a 180 to achieve isn’t bad. Gotta start somewhere.
The 5 Non-Negotiables
On that note, this is as good a time as any to conclude with the 5 Non-Negotiables and make my closing argument for this approach.
Everything until now has been a prologue to contextualize a worldview. To stand behind the concept of the 5 Non-Negotiables there are only two foundational suppositions that one has to be willing to accept:
Third Parties cannot win federal elections in the United States.
Economic security is the primary determinant of political success. One way or another.
On the first point. I do not believe that third-party efforts are for naught. My contention, stated clearly in a separate piece, is that the two major parties have deliberately and completely shut down this route in the United States. It’s a reflection of reality, not desire.
On the second point, the progenitors of the neoliberal movement recognized that they could only rob the fortunes of the masses and destroy democracy if the vast majority of us lived in economic precarity. Economic insecurity breeds fear. Fear breeds antagonism and individualism. It sets us against one another and corners us like rats. Likewise, collectivism is attainable when human needs are met easily and consistently. This is the only sociological concept that must be agreed upon.
Thus my call is to refrain from third party efforts in order to take over the Democratic apparatus from within, much the same as the neoliberals did with the GOP. Concrete and widespread messaging of our demands—three to meet the foundations of the hierarchy of human needs in the short-term and two to preserve our Democracy and planet in the long-term–will give clarity of purpose to the initiative. These 5 Non-Negotiables can then serve as the pillars of the people’s platform.
Housing First: The Right to Shelter
Housing First represents a fundamental shift in addressing homelessness—providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness before addressing other issues like unemployment or substance abuse. This model, pioneered by Dr. Sam Tsemberis in 1992, has proven remarkably successful wherever properly implemented. Studies consistently show 85-90% of participants remain housed after their first year, with 75-80% maintaining housing after five years, far outperforming traditional approaches.
The economic benefits are equally compelling: communities implementing Housing First see average savings of $10,000-$20,000 per person annually through reduced emergency services, lower incarceration rates, and decreased crisis intervention. Health outcomes improve dramatically, with emergency room visits dropping by approximately 40% and significant improvements in mental health stability and chronic condition management.
The true drivers of America’s homelessness crisis are structural: severe affordable housing shortages, stagnant wages, inadequate social safety nets, and the growing treatment of housing as an investment vehicle rather than a basic need. Housing First isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution—it’s Housing First, not housing only—but it represents a proven, cost-effective foundation for addressing the complex challenges of homelessness.
A Civilian Labor Corps: A Meaningful Work Guarantee
As AI and automation threaten to transform the job market at unprecedented speed, the United States faces a potentially catastrophic disruption to employment. Unlike previous technological revolutions that played out over generations, AI could automate approximately 50% of work hours within just 5–10 years. Goldman Sachs projects up to 30 million jobs disappearing in the next decade in the U.S. alone with knowledge and service sectors being particularly vulnerable.
A government-sponsored Civilian Labor Corps would combine elements of the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps with contemporary needs, providing living-wage employment with benefits to anyone willing and able to work. Projects could include climate resilience projects, elder and child care, affordable housing construction, ecological restoration, and more—essential work with high community value but low profit incentives that the private market won’t adequately address and is therefore non-competitive to private industry.
A job is not just a paycheck—it’s a source of dignity, purpose, and social integration, serving as a preventative measure against political extremism and social instability.
Medicare for All: Healthcare as a Human Right
The United States spends approximately 20% of its GDP on healthcare—double what other developed nations spend per capita—yet has shorter life expectancy, higher infant mortality, and leaves tens of millions uninsured or underinsured. The private insurance industry alone has revenue in excess of $1.5 trillion, while administrative costs consume approximately 13% of private insurance spending compared to just 2% for Medicare.
Medicare for All would establish a national health insurance program providing comprehensive coverage to all U.S. residents, including all medically necessary services without premiums, deductibles, or copayments. The program would prohibit private insurance from selling coverage that duplicates Medicare benefits while allowing supplemental coverage for non-included services.
Multiple economic studies project annual savings of $500–600 billion through reduced administrative costs, negotiated pharmaceutical prices, and streamlined billing. A crucial component of implementation would be the Civilian Labor Corps to absorb workers displaced from the insurance industry as AI increasingly threatens these jobs anyway. Medicare for All represents not just a policy change but a fundamental shift in how we view healthcare—as a human right rather than a market commodity.
Getting Money Out of Politics: Election integrity
The movement to remove money from politics represents a long-term constitutional battle that may take decades to achieve. The current campaign finance system developed over many years, from the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision establishing that political spending is protected speech, through the 1978 First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, extending this protection to corporations and culminating in the 2010 Citizens United decision that effectively eliminated restrictions on corporate political spending.
The only viable solution is a constitutional amendment that would: (1) limit speech protections to natural persons, negating Citizens United; (2) prohibit all non-individual spending on candidates or election issues; (3) allow Congress to determine federal campaign spending limits; (4) restore individual donation caps; (5) limit self-funded candidates; and (6) require full transparency for all political donations. Pursuing this amendment requires first implementing the other non-negotiables to build popular support, then presenting Republicans with a choice: either accept the amendment or face aggressive progressive taxation returning the top marginal tax rates to 1950s levels. This approach acknowledges that meaningful campaign finance reform can only come through constitutional change, as legislative attempts will be struck down by the Supreme Court based on established precedent.
Climate Action: Social Security for the Planet
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence dating back to Eunice Foote’s 1856 discovery of carbon dioxide’s heat-trapping effect, political action on climate change has been inconsistent and wholly inadequate. Even the most ardent skeptic of climate science should be taught that in 1990 our military predicted extreme weather, drought, flooding, sea level rise, and increased conflict over scarce resources due to what they observed. Private industry, including fossil fuel companies like Exxon, has been aware of these risks since at least the 1970s but actively misinformed the public to protect their interests.
Mobilizing for a net zero emission future with simultaneous, large-scale initiatives requires a wartime level preparedness. We know what needs to be done, but must also contend with the reality that the next few decades we are going to live with the results of what we failed to accomplish in the past few decades. To bridge the gap, we propose a Climate Trust to fund present and future initiatives with the same funding mechanism and sacrosanct fiduciary responsibility as Social Security. And it would tie the two together.
In addition to lifting the cap on Social Security deductions to fully fund the Social Security Trust, the approximately 6% tax on earnings above $400,000 would go toward the Climate Trust, generating approximately $240 billion annually. Disbursements would be required to be made annually and overseen by an independent commission. With a robust capital account, policy makers will be emboldened to pursue radical reforms today to achieve a net-zero carbon emissions future and provide for climate refugees who will be victims of our past misdeeds.
Closing Statement
Crafting the message is only one small part of the transformational politics we need to turn back the tide of fascism, restore our democracy and preserve the planet. But there’s power in singing from the same hymnal because it elevates our voices collectively. I’ve said from day one of this enterprise that we cannot know where we are if we don’t understand from whence we came. Understanding where we’re going is another matter.
When you’re lost and unsure of where you’re headed, it’s human nature to follow the map that’s given to you. People yearn for direction. For clarity. One side is screaming at you constantly, “this is the way, this is the way,” at the top of their lungs; the other side is just saying, “I don’t know which way to go but don’t go with them.” At some point, if you’re desperate enough, you’re going to follow the loudest voice.
The more clear and direct it is, the better. The Republicans offered their direction in Project 2025. Guess what? It’s 2025 and we’re following it to the letter. If we sit back and wait for them to fail, as many Democrats in the establishment suggest, then we’re ceding victory to them. And here’s the thing…They’re not going to fail. How can they if their goal is to tear it all down, i.e. fail? The only way to navigate out of this mess is to chart a clear and direct path forward.
And so, my friends, I offer the 5 Non-Negotiables of the Left: the pillars of the People’s Platform.
Here endeth the lesson.
Max is a basic, middle-aged white guy who developed his cultural tastes in the 80s (Miami Vice, NY Mets), became politically aware in the 90s (as a Republican), started actually thinking and writing in the 2000s (shifting left), became completely jaded in the 2010s (moving further left) and eventually decided to launch UNFTR in the 2020s (completely left).
*******************************************************
“History Doesn't Repeat Itself, but It Often Rhymes”
~ Mark Twain ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Pessimism of the Intellect, but Optimism of the Will"
“Educate yourselves because we will need all your intelligence.
Be excited because we will need all your enthusiasm.
Organize because we will need all your strength."
~ Antonio Gramsci ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
"Spanish Moon"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
:))....What I'm Reading...:))
1. Joel Magnuson, "The Dharma and Socially Engaged Buddhist Economics", 2022.
2. Daniel Steinmetz-Jenkins, "DID IT HAPPEN HERE: PERSPECTIVES ON FASCISM IN AMERICA", 2024.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
:))..."Back To The Future"...:))
~ Progressive Political Economy ~
~ A Pedestrian's Guide ~
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rbutler/shortcourse10.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"It Ain't Over Till It's Over."
~Yogi ~
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks for reading $ Financial Butler $
~ Subscribe it’s :))..‘FREE’..:)) ~