Sunday, September 14, 2025

Loose Tabs

I moved an already long draft file into the blog queue on Friday, after posting my Notes on Everyday Life piece, More Thoughts on Bernie Sanders and Capitalism. In doing so, I set an implicit deadline for posting this before Monday, when I normally expect to post a Music Week. I could spend an infinite amount of time wrapping this up, trying to make sense of it all, so the budget was hopeful self-discipline. But at 3AM Sunday night/Monday morning, I'm sick and tired of working on this, with no good answer, so I'm opting for the short one, which is to post what I have. If I look at it Monday, I may add a few more similar things, edits some of what I have, write extra notes, or maybe just shrug and move on. There is certainly no shortage of material here. Whether it does any good is another question I can't begin to contemplate, much less answer.

This is an occasional collection of newsworthy links and comments, much less systematic than what I attempted in my late Speaking of Which posts. The new name comes from my extensive use of browser tabs. When I get around to cleaning up, I often find tabs opened to old articles I might want to comment on and/or refer back to. So these posts are mostly housecleaning, but may also serve as a very limited but persistent record of what 20+ years ago I started calling "the end of the American empire" and nowadays feels more like "the end of civilization." I collect these bits in a draft file, and flush them out when periodically. My previous one appeared 28 days ago, on August 17.

I'm trying a new experiment here with select bits of text highlighted with a background color, for emphasis a bit more subtle than bold or ALL CAPS. (I saw this on Medium. I started with their greenish color [#bbdbba] and lightened it a bit [#dbfbda].) I'll try to use it sparingly.

Index to sections:

The first section here are major categories, where I didn't wait for a keynote article. These are not necessarily regular features.

Epsteinmania: I'm ready to retire this one, but Trump keeps squirming, so his most opportunistic opponents still hope to reel him in. Since last time: the appearance of Ghislaine Maxwell as Trump's character witness ("a perfect gentleman"); the leak of Trump's contribution to Epstein's "birthday book."

Israel: This is just a small sampling on what remains the single gravest issue in American politics -- even though, by looking at both parties in Congress, it barely seems to register. That's not just because the slaughter and devastation has grown to immense proportions, not because Israel has discredited itself to most people around the world, nor because in providing so much economic and military support the US is now widely viewed as complicit and discredited. It's because Israel is the example Trump is following to secure his own domination domestically. (I explain some of this in my latest Notes on Everyday Life post, but if you know what to look for, you can spot numerous examples throughout this and other Loose Tabs posts. Israel has become a veritable laboratory for fascism. America is not only following their model, but has been bankrolling them for decades. The neocon right understood this at least as far back as their 1996 paper A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. The religious right got an even earlier jump with their apocalypse mongering. Democrats, on the other hand, have cut their own throats by pledging eternal loyalty to a regime that is completely inimical to their own stated beliefs and values. It's no wonder why so many Americans find them undeserving of trust.)

Russia/Ukraine: Last time I posted was just after the Alaska summit, but before Zelensky and his European allies descended on Washington to derail whatever impression Putin had made and return Trump to his usual path of fickle incompetence. As I've since noted, "all sides seem to have lost sight of the ball and are just kicking air." What I mean is that we need to focus more on the people involved than on the land that both sides feel so entitled to. The war started in 2014 when three divisions of Ukraine rejected election results and attempted to split from Ukraine. Russia aided their division, especially in Crimea, but it still seems likely that most of the people there supported realignment with Russia then, and still do now. They should be given the right to decide on their own, free of military coercion, where they want to belong. Of course, the war, both before and after the 2022 invasion, has brought changes, mostly in turning large numbers of people into refugees, but it probably means that the people on both sides of the front line are on the side they want to be. If so, neither side should fear a referendum, as it would very likely legitimize lines that are basically stalemated. One should also be talking about refugees, their rights to return and/or compensation, minority rights in the postwar settlements, and the options of people who find themselves stranded to move wherever they want. Unfortunately, leaders like Putin and Trump have little concern for people. They're much more into symbolic bragging rights. But both sides have done nothing but lose since war broke out. They both need to stop. Refocusing on people is one way out.

Trump regime exploits: Practically every day I run across disturbing, often shocking stories of various misdeeds proposed and quite often implemented by the Trump Administration -- which in its bare embrace of executive authority we might start referring to as the Regime. Collecting them together declutters everything else, and emphasizes the pattern of intense and possibly insane politicization of everything. Pieces on the administration.

Donald Trump (himself): As for the Duce, we need a separate bin for stories on his personal quirks -- which often seem like mere diversions, although as with true madness, it can still be difficult sorting serious threats from fanciful ones.

  • Zachary Small:

  • Margaret Hartmann: Basically a gossip columnist who's made "tremendous content" out of Trump's follies. (She also covers the British royals, Michelle Obama, and some Epstein matters I filed [or ignored] elsewhere.) After the newer pieces, some older ones for your amusement.

  • Ed Kilgore [08-24] Trump sees whitewashed US past and dystopian present: Well, as Mort Sahl once said about Charlton Heston, if he were more preceptive, he'd be a happy man. But Trump doesn't want to be happy. His stock in trade is being angry, which gives him a mission in life, and a readymade excuse for everything. This starts off with the Trump tweet I cite below. It's impossible to rank all of the ways Trump offends me, but his insistence on recasting history to suit his prejudices is fundamental to all his other lies.

  • Arwa Mahdawi [08-27] Why does the MAGA elite love conspicuous cosmetic surgery? Picture of Kristi Noem.

  • Ashlie D Stevens [08-28] Don't buy the Cracker Barrel fallacy: "Online petitions and viral outrage give the illusion of influence — but real power lies elsewhere."

    • Katrina Vanden Heuvel [09-09] What was the Cracker Barrel skirmish really about? "Trump is repaying rural voters' loyalty by shafting them." Sure, but the thing to understand is that the right is really just a rage machine. Any sort of change can kick them into high gear.

  • Brian Karem [08-29] As America implodes, Trump can do anything he wants.

  • Laura Beers [09-02] The Orwellian echoes in Trump's push for 'Americanism' at the Smithsonian.

  • Elie Mystal [09-05] Donald Trump really is the biggest loser. For starters:

    The Trump administration repeatedly lost in court this week. A federal judge in California ruled that Trump violated the Posse Comitatus Act when he deployed federal troops to Los Angeles. A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that Trump violated the law when he attempted to cut off federal funding to Harvard. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal. And a panel of judges from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals — the most conservative and reactionary appellate court in the country — ruled that Trump's targeting of Venezuelans was an illegal use of the Alien Enemies Act.

    One reason for not celebrating is that the Supreme Court can still reverse most of these rulings. But they all reflect Trump actions, so (a) they've already had impact, and (b) frustrating them reinforced the idea that Trump needs even more support and power to overcome the forces against him and those he represents. This is a column which rounds up a lot of miscellany: notably this:

    In her new book, Amy Coney Barrett positions herself as a helpless cog in a legal machine that gives her no choice but to rule the way she does, even if she doesn't like it. As Joe Patrice explains over at Above the Law, her entire act is risible. But it's an act we've seen from every first-year, fascist-curious law student who wants to make a career as a Federalist Society judge.

    Mystal also references:

    • Elie Mystal [09-04] The military has officially entered the deportation business: "The administration's decision to deploy military lawyers as immigration judges is terrible and illegal, but when has that ever stopped Trump?"

    • Steve Vladeck [09-02] 176. Illinois v. Texas: "A quick look at President Trump's (apparent) plan to send uninvited and unfederalized Texas National Guard troops into Illinois — and how it could (and maybe should) quickly end up in the Supreme Court."

  • Amanda Marcotte [09-03] Trump's long weekend of humiliation: "The harder he tries to be a dictator, the more he's mocked by both Americans and foreign leaders." Same theme as Mystal's piece, but less obviously written by a lawyer:

    Alas, Trump is still alive, but there is a consolation prize for those who were holding vigil: He and the White House reacted with over-the-top defensiveness, removing all doubt that the infamous narcissist was feeling deeply embarrassed by the gleeful speculation of his demise.

    While it may be impossible to dissuade the faithful, it certainly isn't hard to get under il Duce's paper-thin skin. [Original draft had der Führer, but upon reflection I opted for the diminutive form. I also changed "thin" to "paper-thin" per Marcotte.]

  • Richard Luscombe [09-04] Trump's second presidency is 'most dangerous period' since second world war, Mitch McConnell says: "Former Senate leader likens administration's fixation with tariffs to isolationist policies of the US in the 1930s." As I'm not alone in pointing out, McConnell blew his chance to get rid of Trump during the second impeachment vote: had he and a handful of other Republicans voted to convict, Trump could have been disqualified under the 14th amendment from running again, which would have kept him off the ballot in 2024. At the time, it would have cost Republicans nothing, as Trump was already out of office.

  • Daniel Warner [09-05] Donald Trump's media domination. Pardon me while I scream: Why anyone has even the slightest interest in this flaming asshole is one of the few things about the world I find utterly incomprehensible. But Warner has a theory (or two):

    Like an avalanche, Trump news gathers speed and buries everything in its path only to pop up in another place. It's exhausting, and overwhelming. As for intentionality, the former Trump chief adviser Steve Bannon described the strategy in 2018, "The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." . . .

    This is how the former CNN executive sees Trump's relation to the media:

    "Donald Trump was chosen by Robert Thomson, chief executive of News Corp. Mr. Thomson understands the media business better than all the rest. Mr. Thomson found a true believer in the power of television with highly addicted viewers, typically those offended by smart people. This was — still is — the Fox audience. The money flowed in from cable TV subscriptions and advertisers selling cheap goods."

    The relationship between Trump and the media is perfectly symmetrical. He wants to be front page every day. The media believes he sells. The result is that the public gets its dose of Trump news daily. So whether or not Trump sets out to headline the daily news, he manages to be there. The media can't get enough of him.

    This points to:

    • Stef W Kight [2017-09-22] The insane news cycle of Trump's presidency in 1 chart. While the topic labels are cryptic, and the events 8 years old, I remember literally every one of them, even though most are trivial and stupid, and those that aren't trivial (e.g., Putin, North Korea, repealing Obamacare) were handled as stupidly as possible.

  • David Friedlander [09-06] Trump bump: "The president has jumped into the mayor race. But is he helping Cuomo or Mamdani?" He probably sees this as win-win: if Cuomo does win, he can claim credit; if not, he gets an enemy he can hate from a distance -- actually two: Mamdani and New York City -- and he knows how to play that with his base.

  • Andrew Lawrence [09-08] Trump's strongman image got boos at the US Open, and perhaps that was the point: "It was just the authoritarian image Donald Trump hoped to project at the US Open: the president himself, looming from Arthur Ashe Stadium's giant screens like Chairman Mao at Tiananmen Gate, as he stood at attention for the national anthem." Also this:

    • Bryan Armen Graham [09-07] The USTA's censorship of Trump dissent at the US Open is cowardly, hypocritical and un-American: "By asking broadcasters not to show any protest against Donald Trump at Sunday's final, the governing body has caved to fear while contradicting its own history of spectacle." Doesn't this article just feed into his cult? Trump thrives on being hated more than any president since FDR (or probably ever). And is anything more American than hypocrisy? (I could riff on cowardice as well, but probably would wind up defending it.)

  • Radley Balko [09-08] Roundup: One month of authoritarianism. "Here's what happened in just one month of the Trump administration's dizzying push toward autocracy." This is a very long bullet list. It's likely he has more in the archives, but as with Amy Siskind's The List: A Week-by-Week Reckoning of Trump's First Year (2018, 528 pp), it risks turning into numbing overkill. You really don't have to know everything bad that Trump has ever done to decide whether to vote him up or down. A fairly modest random sampling should suffice.

  • Moira Donegan [09-09] Trump apparently thinks domestic violence is not a crime.

  • John Ganz [09-09] Trump's petty-tyrant brand of fascism: "The GOP president is both a dire threat to democratic governance and a clownish mob boss."

  • Kojo Koram [09-09] From Washington to Westminster, the populist right needs to erase history to succeed. It's up to us to resist: Trump you know about. Farage is also pushing his own "patriotic curriculum."

  • Jeremy Varon [09-11] Trump is already at war:

    Trump's current penchant for military aggression has odd roots in his professed disdain for the "stupid wars" of recent decades. His "peace" persona is skin deep. Trump supported the Iraq War before it began, turning against it only when it bogged down.

    One gets little sense that he grew to question dodgy interventions based on judicious assessments of what conflicts are, for reasons of principle or national interest, worthy of military sacrifice. "Stupid wars" are for him simply ones that America can't decisively win. And winning is the ultimate measure of strength, or virtue, or sound policy.

    Trump's fondness for this view has long been clear. Recall his claim that Senator John McCain, for the sin of being captured, was "not a war hero." Or his disparaging the U.S. dead in a French World War Two cemetery as "losers" and "suckers" because "there was nothing in it for them." Even winners can be losers, when the victory is not a life-sparing blowout. True to form, Trump praises the "Department of War" moniker for sending "a message of victory."

    Military victory, most simply, means overwhelming one's foe, with minimal loss of American life. So Trump punches down, attacking those with little capacity or will to fight back. Hapless, alleged drug smugglers on the high seas are no match for U.S. missiles. Neither is the Venezuelan army, should President Maduro be baited into a response that triggers a full-bore U.S. assault. Nor can undocumented immigrants — vulnerable, frightened, often poor — physically resist ICE agents with big guns. Americans outraged at the assault on their communities and neighbors are stymied as well. The homeland, for Trump, is a soft target, with a near-guarantee of zero losses. Winning indeed.

    Actually, the Bushes aimed to "punch down" as well. The younger just underestimated the risks, as bullies are wont to do. The author has a book: Our Grief Is Not a Cry for War: The Movement to Stop the War on Terror.

Democrats:

  • Jamelle Bouie [2024-12-18]: Now is not the time for surrender: Reminded of this because he quoted a chunk of it on Bluesky:

    This is a grave mistake. Trump's hand is not as strong as it looks. He has a narrow, and potentially unstable, Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a small, but far from filibuster-proof, majority in the Senate. He'll start his term a lame duck, with less than 18 months to make progress before the start of the next election cycle. And his great ambition -- to impose a form of autarky on the United States -- is poised to spark a thermostatic reaction from a public that elevated him to deal with high prices and restore a kind of normalcy. But Democrats won't reap the full rewards of a backlash if they do nothing to prime the country for their message.

    Obviously, the big miss here was that Congressional Republicans have been totally aligned with and subservient to Trump, so their thin majorities have held, even to the extent of bypassing their own filibuster rules in the Senate. Moreover, corporate America, including big media companies, have jumped at the opportunity to debase themselves to please Trump. (And they've kept very quiet whatever reservations they may have felt to his tariffs and other economic policies.) Much of this is unsurprising, given the way the election spun in its last couple months -- although I admit I resisted recognizing it at the time. But the last line is spot on, and you can prove it by noting that while Trump's popularity has steadily dropped since January, the Democrats not only haven't picked up his losses, they've actually lost approval alongside him.

  • Matthew Sheffield [2024-12-09] Local political ecosystems are vital to protecting democracy nationally: "Author Erik Loomis discusses how labor unions and liberal religious organizations preserve institutional memories and explain progressive viewpoints." Interview with Loomis, who has written books like A History of America in Ten Strikes, Organizing America: Stories of Americans Who Fought for Justice, and Out of Sight: The Long and Disturbing Story of Corporations Outsourcing Catastrophe. First thing I was struck by here was the section "Democrats only talk to their voters for three months every two years." I would have followed that immediately with "but they talk to their donors all the time." The donors are their patrons, their constant companions, their friends, and ultimately their eyes and ears. And politician, like fishers, naturally value, and tend to obsess over, landing the big donor over the little voter. In the short term, that's seen as the key to success. Over the longer term, it's their ticket to the revolving door. The next section is "The decline of unions and liberal religion has significantly hurt the Democratic party." Everything else here is useful, ending with "Campaigns need coherent and simple narratives to win."

    I mean, that's the lesson Democrats need to take care of, right? You, having a candidate who could articulate a policy is not going to win. Nobody cares. Having a candidate that can articulate your hopes, your dreams, your fears, or your hatreds, that's a win. That's a much more winning approach, right?

    And they'd better learn that, right? Some, I don't know, like. The conditions in 2028 are likely to be different, right? So maybe a Josh Shapiro Gretchen Whitmer, some of these people on a fairly deep Democratic bench could win, but if they are going up against somebody, presumably not Donald Trump, but who can continue to channel the kind of Trumpian resentment.

    There's a very good chance that while we may think that these people are clowns, that they are in fact incredibly strong candidates because the everyday low information voter sees them as articulating their again, hopes, dreams, fears, and or hatreds. And if Democrats don't learn that. Then it's going to be very difficult for them to tap into what is a very clear desire for a populist politics in this country.

    And populism could go either way, right? Populism can be incredibly reactionary as in Trumpian populism, or it can be channeled for a progressive, for progressive aims as it was in the 1930s. Democrats have to figure out how to manage that. And if they don't, then people that we might think are idiots and clowns, like anybody who's been appointed into the Trump administration, like one of them is probably going to be the candidate in 2028, whether it's a Vance, or another candidate, or Laura Trump, I mean, or Dana White, the head of UFC, like maybe a perfect Republican candidate.

  • Harold Meyerson [08-28] The idiocy (both moral and strategic) of the Democratic National Committee: "At its meeting this week, the DNC opposed a ban on US provision of offensive weapons to Israel." The article stops there, but unfortunately the idiocy doesn't. This title can be recycled regularly.

  • Katrina Vanden Heuvel [09-03] What the Democrats can learn from Gavin Newsom's Trump mockery. I don't see Newsom as a viable presidential candidate, and I suspect his trolling will only reinforce that view, but I don't mind him having a little fun at Trump's expense, and given his target, it's hard to imagine that he could escalate into excess -- that may be a fundamental flaw in his strategy. But his example reminds us that Democrats are looking for someone who can and will fight back, and he understands that much, and is auditioning for the role.

  • Anthony Barnett [09-03] Stephen Miller calls Democrats a "domestic extremist organization": "Congressional Democrats should demand that he retract his grotesque claims or resign." No, they shouldn't. They should reply in kind, or just shrug him off, as in why should anyone care what a fascist troll thinks? He's so clearly obnoxious that you could use him as the public face of the Trump regime. Demanding an apology just grants him power he doesn't deserve.

  • Chris Lehmann [09-03] What makes Democrats so afraid of Zohran Mamdani? More on Mamdani:

  • Jeet Heer [09-05] Old, wealthy Democrats are sabotaging their won party: "The problem of gerontocracy includes the donor class."

  • Ross Barkan:

    • [09-05]: Imagining an imperial Democratic president: Sure, dream on. I expect the courts to spin on a dime, pretty much like they did when Trump took charge. The only things that might limit them are overwhelming popular support, and fresh legislation that explicitly allows a Democratic president to do what Trump can only do with executive orders. And if the courts still obstruct, you can impeach some miscreants, and create new court positions which can be filled with more reasonable jurists. But Biden and Obama wound up making extensive use of executive orders, especially after Congress was lost, and both took heat from Democrats for not going farther. Trump has demolished many of the inhibitions they felt, and many Democrats will push their next president to do much more, especially how important it has become to revise his rules and replace many of his personnel.

    • [08-31]: Democrats will have to shift on Israel. But when? That, of course, is a theme of his recent book on the 2024 election. More generally, Democrats have to decide whether they're for or against war, for or against racism, for or against universal rights, or they want to spend their remaining days trying to convince voters that Israel deserves to be exempted from the standards of justice and decency they expect everyone else to adhere to. The main reason Democrats lose elections isn't that people disagree with the ideals they like to tout. It's that they don't find Democrats to be credible advocates because, well, they're conflicted and incompetent.

    • [2021-03-28]: The three factions of the American left: "Understanding what it means when we talk about 'the left' in America." This is an old (2021) piece that popped up in some discussion somewhere. Seemed like it might be useful, although I'm having trouble following it. I think he's saying the three factions are: (1) The Socialist Left (specifically, the DSA, but he sees Sanders are the leader); (2) The Liberal Left (here Warren is a leader; but under them he also mentions "The Alphabet Left," of which WFP is the only example given; and (3) The Moderate Left, which needs some more explanation:

      The moderate voter is not more fiscally conservative, in a classic sense, than even the socialist voter, but the moderate retreats from certain left signifiers. Unlike the socialist, the moderate is proudly pro-capitalist. Unlike the liberal, the moderate does not treat patriotism or religion as an embarrassing or ironic vestige of a lost world. Many moderates earnestly embrace nationalism and American iconography. They go to church on Sundays and, if they live in small towns, might organize their lives around religious institutions. Secularism is the default in both the socialist and liberal left; moderates are far more likely to turn to religion to give meaning to their lives.

      There is good news for those who want Americans to embrace incredibly progressive or even socialistic economic policy: moderates are in full support, as long as it's packaged appropriately.

      He then goes on to say that "unlike 20 or 30 years ago, there is no moderate faction of the Democratic Party complaining about deficit spending or the growth of welfare. RIP the Atari Democrat. RIP neoliberalism." The "Atari Democrat" article is dated 2016. I've heard the term, but needed a refresher, so we're basically talking about Clinton + Silicon Valley. "Neoliberal" I know all too well, both as Charles Peters and Milton Friedman. I wouldn't dismiss the existence of either of them within the Democratic Party. What progress may have been made under Biden is that some of them may now agree that some things should be done to actually help labor and the poor, instead of just assuming that everyone who loses their job to globalization and financialization will land on some kind of ritzy "symbolic manipulator" job (per Robert Reich). But lots of Democrats like that are still around, still chasing money, even if they've loosened up a bit.

  • Isaac Chotiner [09-08] Texas's gerrymander may not be the worst threat to Democrats in 2026: An interview with Nate Cohn, "the New York Times' chief political analyst, on a consequential Supreme Court case and why Republicans are registering so many new voters."

  • Eric Levitz [09-10] Democrats can't save democracy by shutting down the government: "The party should only force a shutdown for its own political gain."

  • Gabrielle Gurley [09-12] Virginia special election shaves GOP House margin: "Democrat James Walkinshaw triumphs in a ginormous victory." This was one of the seats elderly Democrats won in 2024 then lost through death, so this isn't really a pickup. Another one, in Arizona, is up for a vote on Sept. 23.

  • Andrew Prokop [09-12] Democrats are on the verge of a dangerous mistake: "There's one big guardrail left on Trump's ambitions." He means the Senate filibuster. Republicans have used long used it to keep Democrats from passing much-needed reforms, or at least to dilute them to ineffectiveness. But if Democrats use the filibuster to block some Republican outrage? Republicans could just change the rules to get rid of the filibuster — as, indeed, they've already done to keep Democrats from blocking their extremist judicial nominations. Unexplained is what good a rule is if you can't use it, but they're free to use it against you? Not much, as far as I can see.

The following articles are more/less in order published, although some authors have collected pieces, and some entries have related articles underneath.

Current Affairs:

Ezra Klein [01-17] Democrats are losing the war for attention. Badly. Actually, just an interview with Chris Hayes, relating to his book, The Siren's Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource, with a title cleverly chosen to grab your attention. Why was Trump able to win with lies while Democrats struggle to make anyone aware of their accomplishments? Attention is one obvious metric which is skewed ridiculously in favor of Republicans and especially Trump. I've read Hayes' book, and he makes a lot of interesting points. But he also engages in hyperbole, because he knows the surest way to get attention is to stick your neck out, become conspicuous, and flaunt it as far as you can get away with it. And he wants attention as much as his subjects do. It is, as he admits, his business. So it's not surprising that he overrates it, especially its fungibility -- which in his business may translate directly into advertising revenues, but for most people the profit motive is less obvious. Still, it's useful as a prism, not least because it renders part of the scheme opaque.

  • Derek Thompson [02-28] The end of reading: Only an excerpt of a transcript from a podcast, probably got here from a link in the Klein/Hayes interview. One stat: "50 years ago, about 40 percent of high school seniors said they had read at least six books for fun in the past year compared to about 12 percent who hadn't read any. And now those percentages have flipped."

George Salis [06-30] Borne back ceasefully: a rare interview with Tom Carson: He was one of the rock critics Christgau cultivated in the late 1970s. I first heard about him when he wrote a review of Brian Eno's Another Green World that was good enough it almost bumped my assigned piece. I met him once in New York, uneventfully, and read him as regularly as I could, though not as often as my wife read his Esquire reviews (usually on the newsstand). He was one of two critics Christgau tapped to fill in while he was off doing the CG-70s book -- the other one I remember better, probably because he didn't do as good a job. So I had something of a bond with him, with mixed feelings, but he wrote a brilliant piece on 1945, especially the observation that winning WWII was the worst thing that happened to America. Shortly after that, he published a novel called Gilligan's Wake, and I felt like he could have written it just for me. (I knew the TV show intimately, and most of the literary and historical references -- not that I ever made any headway through Joyce, but that seemed unnecessary. The only choice he made that I strongly differed with was saying nice things about Bob Dole.) I still frequently refer back to a couple of key concepts from the novel: the notion of America's perpetual innocence illustrated by Mary-Ann's self-healing virginity; the argument that America exists only for a certain group of people: the true Americans. I became reacquainted with him when he edited my essay in the Christgau Festschrift Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough: A Rock & Roll Critic Is Something to Be.

Robert Kuttner [07-30] Tom Lehrer and Mort Mintz, RIP: "Both challenged American smugness, one with satire and the other with great journalism."

Daniel Felsenthal [08-01] A book called Fascism or Genocide that's reluctant to discuss either: A review of Ross Barkan's "engrossing, literary analysis of the 2024 election disappoints with its blinkered vision of US politics." The book is Fascism or Genocide: How a Decade of Political Disorder Broke American Politics. The title comes from a Palestinian activist's view of the Trump or Harris choice, although the review tells us Barkan was reluctant to go deeper into either topic (but especially Gaza). This sounds like a version of the book I've been contemplating on the 2024 election, perhaps one where the focus is on the cognitive dissonance that allowed voters for both candidates to ignore much of what each stood for (which in the case of Harris included democracy, at least as we knew it, and some semblance of justice under law and economic opportunity for many, if not really all). Instead, people voted on phantom fixations and whims, which tilted to the macabre, bequeathing us a suddenly real dystopia.

Nick Turse: National security fellow for The Intercept, has been covering the Trump military everywhere, with a unique specialty in Africa. I've touched on many of these stories above, and could have distributed them accordingly, but for now, let's keep them together to see the pattern:

David Dayen:

Sarah Jones [08-20] The manifest destiny of J.D. Vance. I can't say as the analogy occurred to me, but not since McKinley has there been an American president so ebullient about expanding American territory, from Greenland down into Mexico (or perhaps Venezuela is next?). One snag may be that land comes with people already on it, but Israel has some ideas about that (updating Hitler's use of America's own Manifest Destiny idea).

It's not hard to understand why Manifest Destiny might appeal to the Trump administration, and particularly its Department of Homeland Security, whose agents carry out another act of conquest, a purge they justify in the name of Western civilization. The administration has occupied the streets of Washington, D.C., because it wants to punish the people who live there, because it wants to remove immigrants who it does not like, and because it sees itself as a conquering force. The streets properly belong to it, and not to locals. Manifest Destiny was about blood and soil, too. "A Heritage to be proud of, a Homeland worth Defending," as DHS wrote in its post of Gast's work. Trump even used the term in his inaugural address this year.

Harold Meyerson [08-25] A federal appellate court finds the NLRB to be unconstitutional: "And just like that, it frees Elon Musk -- and any fellow employers -- to violate whatever rights their workers thought they enjoyed." This reverses 88 years of rulings upholding the act's constitutionality. It's like they're daring us to revolution.

The New Republic: David W. Blight edited a special issue on Trump Against History, asking "how is Trump changing our sense of who we are?" Probably a lot more to talk about here than I had time for. Titles:

  • Johann Neem: Trump is the enemy of the American Revolution: "He has produced a crisis much like the one the colonists faced two and a half centuries ago. Now it's our responsibility to uphold the Founders' legacy."

  • Molly Worthen: What besieged universities can learn from the Christian resurgence: "Educators can fight back against Trump's attacks by re-embracing 'old-fashioned' disciplines and ideas."

  • William Sturkey: Trump's white nationalist vision for the future of history: "The administration is using the tools of the state to influence — even poison — how America's racial history will be taught in our public forums and schools."

  • Edward L Ayers: Trump's reckless assault on remembrance: "The attempts of his administration to control the ways Americans engage with our nation's history threaten to weaken patriotism, not strengthen it."

  • Michael Kazin: The two faces of American greatness: "It is the task of historians to grapple with Trump's favorite concept — and to redefine it."

  • Jen Manion: Learning history is a righteous form of resistance: "It's a way to combat Trump's attempts at remaking the past to justify erasing protections for the most vulnerable."

  • James Grossman: "Indoctrination"? We call it "education." "It's not 'divisive' to teach about division. It's divisive to bury it."

  • Geraldo Cadava: The diversity bell that Trump can't un-ring: "The biggest problem with the history Trump wants to impose on us is that it never, in fact, existed."

  • Amna Khalid: Authoritarianism is made — and it can be unmade: ""Autocrats do not merely fade away; they have to be countered and stopped."

  • David W Blight: What if history died by sanctioned ignorance? "We must mobilize now to defend our profession, not only with research and teaching but in the realm of politics and public persuasion." Includes a useful summary of the Nazi ascent in 1930s Germany (I edited this to use a numbered list):

    In Richard J. Evans's trilogy on the Third Reich, he shows indelibly how the Nazis achieved power because of eight key factors:

    1. the depth of economic depression and the ways it radicalized the electorate;
    2. widespread hatred for parliamentary democracy that had taken root for at least a decade all over Europe;
    3. the destruction of dissent and academic freedom in universities;
    4. the Nazis' ritualistic "dynamism," charisma, and propaganda machinery;
    5. the creation of a cloak of legality around so many of their tactics, stage by stage of the descent into fear, terror, and autocracy
    6. the public manipulating and recrafting of history and forging Nazi mythology to fit their present purposes
    7. they knew whom and what they viscerally hated — communists and Jews — and made them the objects of insatiable grievance;
    8. vicious street violence, with brownshirts in cities and student thugs on college campuses, mass arrests, detainment camps, and the Gestapo in nearly every town.

    All of these methods, mixed with the hideous dream of an Aryan racial utopia and a nationalism rooted in deep resentment of the Versailles Treaty at the end of World War I, provided the Nazis the tools of tyranny.

    In 2025, our own autocratic governing party has already employed many, though not all, of these techniques. Thanks to a free press and many courts sustaining the rule of law, Trumpism has not yet mastered every authoritarian method. But it has launched a startlingly rapid and effective beginning to an inchoate American brand of fascism.

  • Leslie M Harris: The high price of barring international students: "Global collaboration is necessary for success, if not survival, in our hyper-connected world."

Trevor Jackson [08-25] The myth of clean energy: "Is all the hope placed in renewables an illusion?" Review of Jean-Baptiste Fressoz: More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy. Part of the argument here is that new energy technologies don't directly replace old ones, and often require more use of the old ones, at least in the short term (e.g., a lot of oil and gas, and still some coal, goes into making the turbines that generate electricity from wind). That isn't news, and certainly doesn't discredit the shift from fossil to renewable energy sources. Fressoz is co-author of an earlier book, The Shock of the Anthropocene: The Earth, History, and Us, which I've ordered.

Henry Giroux [08-29] Domestic terrorism and spectacularized violence in Trump's warfare state: I don't often read, much less cite, his pieces, because the language and hyperbole don't strike me as all that useful (e.g., Resisting the deadly language of American fascism; Against the erasure machine; Trump's reign of cruelty; Trump's theater of cruelty; Childicide in the age of fascist theocracies; Neoliberal fascism, cruel violence, and the politics of disposability; The nazification of American society and the source of violence). But we've entered a stage where reality is rising to meet its most fevered denunciation, so maybe we need to invoke the specter of nazi/fascism not to scare the naive but to grasp the full enormity of what is happening.

The spectacle operates both as distraction and as pedagogy. By dramatizing state violence as entertainment, whether through militarized parades, campaign rallies, or sensationalist media coverage, the Trump regime trains the public to see authoritarian repression as normal, even desirable. The spectacle is a form of civic illiteracy: it numbs historical memory, erodes critical thought, and recodes brutality as patriotism.

The spectacle is more than distraction; it is a smokescreen for systemic violence. Behind the theatrics lie black-site detention centers, the militarization of U.S. cities, and surveillance technologies that monitor everyday life. The media's complicity, obsessed with immediacy and balance, enables this process by masking the deeper truth: the rise of an authoritarian warfare state at home. . . .

Here the spectacle does not conceal fascism but embodies it. Each act dramatizes the message that Trump alone decides who is safe, who is punished, who is disposable. Reich's insight into the fascist "perversion of pleasure" is central: the staging of cruelty is not only meant to terrify; it is meant to gratify. Citizens are invited to experience the humiliation of the weak as a form of release, to find satisfaction in the punishment of the vulnerable. Theodor Adorno's warnings about the authoritarian personality come into sharp relief here: the blending of obedience and enjoyment, submission and aggression, produces subjects who come to desire domination as if it were freedom.

What emerges is an authoritarian economy of desire in which cruelty is transformed into theater. Images of militarized parades, mug shots of political enemies, or caged immigrants circulate across media platforms like advertisements for repression, producing both fear and illicit pleasure. The spectacle trains citizens to consume cruelty as entertainment, to eroticize domination, and to accept vengeance as the highest civic virtue. Watching becomes complicity; complicity becomes a source of satisfaction; satisfaction becomes a form of loyalty.

Besides, this piece led me to others, like:

Jeffrey St Clair:

  • [09-01]: Defender of the backwoods: the good life of Andy Mahler.

  • [09-05]: Roaming Charges: Multiple megalomaniacs. Starts with the US attack on a boat near Venezuela. When I asked google for "us sinks boat near venezuela," AI replied:

    There are no recent or documented incidents of the United States sinking a boat near Venezuela, although there have been historical concerns about Venezuelan narcotics trafficking and tensions between the two nations regarding foreign involvement.

    However, further down the same page, we find:

    The Wikipedia entry notes:

    James Stavridis, a former US Navy admiral, characterized the strike and other US military activity around the same time as gunboat diplomacy intended to demonstrate the vulnerability of Venezuelan oil rigs and materiel. He wrote that drug interdiction was likely not the sole reason for the increased US military activity. On September 5th Trump ordered the deployment of 10 F-35 fighters, to conduct combat air patrols in the region and support the Southern Caribbean fleet, amid growing tensions. Following the flyover of the USS Jason Dunham, Trump gave permission to shoot down Venezuelan planes if they presented a danger to U.S. ships.

    In an exchange on X in which writer Brian Krassenstein said "killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime", Vice President JD Vance responded "I don't give a shit what you call it."

    Much more here, of course. Notable quote from Benjamin Balthasar: "It's funny how the Right likens everything to slavery, except slavery, much the way everything is antisemitism, except actual antisemitism."

  • [09-12] Roaming Charges: The broken jaws of our lost kingdom: Starts with a personal story about being shot at while protesting the Iraq war in 2003, then notes: "The murder of Charlie Kirk is awful, disgusting and about as American as it gets." He also notes that Trump said nothing about the recent assassination of Democrats in Minnesota, or the "173 shots at the CDC HQ in Atlanta last month," although he added that Trump's quiet "was probably welcome, given what he might have said." He then lists some of the right-wing incitements to further violence I noted below. He digs up more, of course, including a 2023 Kirk quote: "I think it's worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year, so that we can have the 2nd Amendment. That is a prudent deal. It is rational." It's not often you see a right-winger put their body where their mouth has gone. St Clair also notes, "After these kinds of traumatic episodes, Fox News invariably tries to coax Trump into saying something humane, but time after time, he shows that he just can't do it."

    On other fronts, note:

    • The 400 richest people in the US are now worth a record $6.6 trillion. Their wealth grew by $1.2 trillion in the past year.

    St Clair also cited a tweet from Sen. Elissa Slotkin:

    We are in an AI Race with China right now. The last ti me we were in such a race - with Russia on nuclear technology - we won because we set up the Manhattan Project. We need that level of ambition again, for the modern age.

    I've often sympathized with Slotkin when she was critiqued from the left, but this is wrong on more levels than seemed possible in just three sentences. She assumes: that AI and nukes are comparable; that both are worth pursuing; that there is a race with a definite goal; that the "race winner" gets some kind of advantage; that the "race loser" is a failure; that "ambition" is measured by such a race. She also gets basic history wrong: the Manhattan Project was set up out of the misplaced fear that Germany was developing such weapons; Russia's nuclear program was a response to the US using nuclear weapons, and threatening Russia in what became known as the Cold War only after both sides had but respected and refrained from using nuclear weapons (although most vocal threats came from US warriors, from 1940s calls for preëmptive attack before Russia could respond in kind up through Nixon's "madman" theory). Also note that Slotkin is falling back on one of our dumbest tropes, the notion that declaring war proves we are serious -- although in examples like the "war on poverty" and "war on drugs," that seriousness quickly dissipated after the PR campaign, not so much for lack of serious effort as because war didn't work on abstract targets.

Harold Meyerson [09-01] Trump celebrates Labor Day as the most anti-union president ever: "His unbound union busting is one front of his war on democracy." More on labor:

Doug Muir [09-09] Five technological achievements! (That we won't see any time soon.) Crooked Timber's "resident moderate techno-optimist" presents "five things we're not going to see between now and 2050."

  1. Nobody is going to Mars.
  2. Speaking of space woo, we are not going to see asteroid mining.
  3. Coming down to Earth, we are not going to have commercial fusion power.
  4. There will be no superconductor revolution.
  5. There will be no useful new physics. No anti-gravity, telepathy, faster-than-light communication or travel, time-travel, teleportation booths, force fields, manipulation of the strong or weak nuclear forces, or reactionless drives. We're not going to get energy from the vacuum, or perpetual motion, or glowing blue cubes.
  6. Airships.

Matthew Duss [09-09] Encased in amber: "Biden's wars and the unmaking of liberal foreign policy." The subtitle suggests a ringing and much deserved indictment, but the article itself is just a review of Bob Woodward's latest insider blabfest, succinctly titled War. While Woodward has no opinions of whatever he writes about -- or perhaps I should say, conveys from his insider sources -- Duss is fairly admiring of Biden's "restraint" regarding Ukraine. While as I'm sure I've made clear by now, I mostly blame Putin, we still haven't seen a clear history on what Biden did or did not do between taking power and Putin's invasion. After all, it took Putin 8 years between the 2014 coup and secession and the 2022 invasion, so what spooked him? Where the record is clearer is how little Biden did after the invasion, and especially after the war stalemated, to negotiate a peace. That's been bad for Ukraine, bad for Russia, and bad for the world, including the US. But if Ukraine suggests that Biden and his crew didn't feel like peace was worth their effort, Gaza not only proved it, it showed that they had no regard for human rights, they had no clue how to talk about war, and they had no willpower to back up what few humanitarian sentiments they could muster. As Duss notes, not only did Biden's wars cost them the election, they still have no comprehension of their failures.

Jill Lepore [09-10] How Originalism killed the Constitution: "A radical legal philosophy has undermined the process of constitutional evolution." Another Atlantic article I can't read (and you probably can't either), on a subject various people have written entire books on (just from my roundup files: Erwin Chemerinsky, Madiba K Dennie, Jonathan Gienapp, Eric J Segall, Cass R Sunstein, Ilan Wurman), but none as long as Lepore's own new We the People: A History of the U.S. Constitution, which this is most likely tied to. The short definition is that "originalism" is whatever Antonin Scalia thinks at any given moment. While the article and book are no doubt interesting, you might start with a review:

David Dayen [09-10] Political violence and the reality distortion field: "Sadly, we've always had violence in America; what's different today is the aftermath, and the battle to define political opposition amid violence." The occasion for this article was the fatal shooting of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed today. Dayen starts by decrying and condemning all political violence, and offers very little information about Kirk -- probably for the best, given that it's hard to say anything about Kirk that couldn't be misconstrued, especially by trigger-happy right-wingers, as suggesting that he had it coming. Dayen does place the shooting among the "47 episodes of mass violence on school campuses this year" (by the time of writing, Kirk's wasn't even the most recent). But his bigger point was how the right sought to exploit this shooting not just for political advantage but to direct violence against the left:

My view of this is not very controversial or provocative. It has been shared by every Democratic political leader who has made a statement about this, at least the hundreds that I've seen. But what I say in this moment, or what any of those leaders say, doesn't really matter when there's an open struggle, in these moments of confusion, to redefine reality.

"The Democrat party is a domestic terrorist organization," said Sean Davis, a conservative activist who was merely echoing the words of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller just a couple of weeks ago. "Every post on Bluesky is celebrating the assassination," said writer Tim Urban. "The Left is the party of murder," said incipient trillionaire Elon Musk on his personal microblogging site, X.

I'm not interested in collecting opinions about Charlie Kirk, but for an example for the first quoted paragraph, consider this from Barack Obama:

We don't yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie's family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.

As a non-believer, "praying" always triggers my bullshit detector, but then I start wondering what Obama's selection algorithm is for who he prays for -- I doubt that he has time to qualify thousands of Gazans (or Africans, or hundreds of ordinary American citizens) for personal attention (like knowing spouse names and counting children). And if he's so selective, why single Kirk out, except perhaps that he's semi-famous? Surely he's not a fan? I also don't care for the motivation clause, which suggests that condemning some murders turns on motivations. But then, as someone who's ordered and rationalized murders, that may be the way his brain works.

Along these same lines, Eric Levitz tweeted:

We do not yet have any confirmation of the shooter's political ideology or motivation.

In recent years, political violence has emanated from both the left and the right.

The way to honor the memory of a "free speech" proponent is not to crack down on progressive speech.

The casual "both sides do it" tone is completely baseless, as is claiming Kirk as a free speech proponent. And scoring shooters by incidental ideological attachments is just a pointless game, unless you can show that the ideology promotes violence (which, come to think of it, right-wingers often do, including implicitly in their opposition to regulating guns). In his usual too-little, too-late mode, Levitz qualified his "both sides" assertion with statistics, a chart show 444 total deaths from "Domestic Extremist-Related Killings in the U.S. by Perpetrator Affiliation," where right-wingers were responsible for 75%, Islamists for 20%, and "left-wing extremism (including anarchists & Black nationalists)" 4%, with 1% unaccounted for.

As for the second quoted paragraph, the first example I ran across was a tweet from someone named Matt Forney:

Charlie Kirk being assassinated is the American Reichstag fire. It is time for a complete crackdown on the left. Every Democratic politician must be arrested and the party banned under RICO. Every libtard commentator must be shut down. Stochastic terrorism. They caused this.

I don't know who this guy is -- but his X handle is @realmattforney, so he must think he's somebody special, and the image showed 687K views by 3:09PM, so less than 3 hours after the shooting -- but you have to not just reel in disgust but actually marvel at some pundit whose first thought after a news event was "what would Hitler do?" Similar, minus only the explicit Nazi appeal, reaction from Laura Loomer (who I have heard of):

It's time for the Trump administration to shut down, defund, & prosecute every single Leftist organization.

If Charlie Kirk dies from his injuries, his life cannot be in vain.

We must shut these lunatic leftists down. Once and for all.

The Left is a national security threat.

Trump himself took up this same line of argument, here:

For years those on the radical left have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis. This kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we're seeing in our country and it must stop right now. My administration will find each and every one of those who contributed to this atrocity and to other political violence, including the organizations that fund it and support it, as well as those who go after our judges and law enforcement officials.

And while right-wingers are lambasting Bluesky for "cheering the assassin," the closest thing to an off-color comment I've seen there was from "Kim," who wrote:

Remember while they are chastising you for not mourning a dead Nazi, these are the same cunts who cheered Kyle Rittenhouse and gave him a television contract.

Calling Kirk a Nazi may be rude, and may even be technically inaccurate (not something I'm expert enough, or interested enough, to argue one way or the other), but its relationship to terrorism isn't real, not even in some hazy stochastic correlation. Trump just fixates on it because it hits close to home. But the use of violent hate speech is hundreds or maybe thousands of times more prevalent on the right than on the left. It's so common it rarely gets noticed. But the incredible whining on the rare occasion the tables get turned is pretty disgusting.

By the way, everyone dies in vain. That may not be right, but it's just the way the world works. That's just a rhetorical device that sounds sensible until you give it any thought. Someone should write up a full guidebook to how to make bogus right-wing arguments, not because the right needs one, but to simplify deciphering -- much like Gramsci argued that Machiavelli wrote The Prince not for actual princes, who grew up learning those tricks, but for the rest of us, to understand what they were doing.

More background on Kirk and/or reaction to his shooting:

  • A Mighty Girl [09-10] Three months, two political killings: the poison in our politics. The other assassination featured here was Emerita Melissa Hortman, a Democratic leader of the Minnesota House, although her husband, also killed, was mentioned only in passing (see 2025 shootings of Minnesota legislators.

  • James H Williams [10-10] New York Yankees hold moment of silence for Charlie Kirk.

  • Rev. Graylan Scott Haglar [09-11] The killing of Charles James Kirk: Violent speech leads to violence.

  • Susan B Glasser [09-11] Did Trump just declare war on the American left? "After Charlie Kirk's tragic killing, the President speaks not of ending political violence but of seeking political vengeance." Well, that's what he said. Granted, he's sometimes unclear on what he can and cannot do, and on when and if what he says will be taken seriously by his staff, his fans, and everyone else. But what he says does give you some insight into what he's thinking and what he wants to see happen, which is mostly evil.

  • Avishay Artsy/Noel King [09-11]: What Charlie Kirk meant to young conservatives: "The late Talking Points USA [sic] leader built a movement that will outlive him."

  • Ben Burgis/Meagan Day [09-11]: Charlie Kirk's murder is a tragedy and a disaster: This joins "most on the Left [who] have rightly condemned his murder," but focuses more on the threat of right-wing vengeance for martyrdom, which they worry may be facilitated by failing to show due remorse and contrition. No doubt the treat is real. But why should we set ourselves up for a moral test, and blame ourselves for offenses they've long wanted to do, that Kirk himself was at the center of. It's not like Kirk ever felt the slightest twinge of guilt over the genocide in Gaza, or all sorts of other offenses. He lived to amass power to inflict terror, and his followers have no interest in anything but exploiting his death to further those same goals. I don't know how to stop them, except by making clear how horrible what they want to do really is. But blaming anyone other than the one who killed him won't help. Nor does offering sympathy when all it will do is inflate his importance and be used to hurt others.

  • Eric Levitz [09-11]: The right's vicious, ironic response to Charlie Kirk's death: "They're calling him a martyr for free speech as they demand a violent crackdown on progressive dissent." Even here, and even though he clearly knows better, he can't help but kick at some phantom leftists to burnish his both-sidesism.

  • Joan Walsh [09-11]: Let's not forget who Charlie Kirk really was: "The right-wing influencer did not deserve to die, and we shouldn't forget the many despicable things he said and did."

  • Ian Ward [09-12]: Why Charlie Kirk had no counterpart on the left: "Over the past decade, Kirk built an entirely new infrastructure for the GOP." This seems quite plausible, not that I've ever had any interest in understanding how this sort of politics works.

  • Chris Hedges [09-12]: The martyrdom of Charlie Kirk: He calls the killing "a harbinger of full-scale social disintegration."

    His murder has given the movement he represented — grounded in Christian nationalism — a martyr. Martyrs are the lifeblood of violent movements. Any flinching over the use of violence, any talk of compassion or understanding, any effort to mediate or discuss, is a betrayal of the martyr and the cause the martyr died defending.

    Martyrs sacralize violence. They are used to turn the moral order upside down. Depravity becomes morality. Atrocities become heroism. Crime becomes justice. Hate becomes virtue. Greed and nepotism become civic virtues. Murder becomes good. War is the final aesthetic. This is what is coming.

    "We have to have steely resolve," said conservative political strategist Steve Bannon on his show "War Room," adding, "Charlie Kirk is a casualty of war. We are at war in this country. We are." . . .

    The cannibalization of society, a futile attempt to recreate a mythical America, will accelerate the disintegration. The intoxication of violence — many of those reacting to Kirk's killing seemed giddy about a looming bloodbath — will feed on itself like a firestorm.

    The martyr is vital to the crusade, in this case ridding America of those Trump calls the "radical left."

    It seems significant that Bannon called his program "War Room" long before the killing, to show us that he had already resolved to wage war, long before Kirk gave him excuse and rationalization. It's worth noting that while Democrats seek to marginalize the left, reducing us to a harmless minority, right-wingers insist on obliterating us. This suggests that they fear something more fundamental, like exposure. They want a public that follows them uncritically, unaware that there is any other alternative.

  • Alain Stephens [09-12] Charlie Kirk's assassination is part of a trend: spiking gun violence in red states: "It's not Washington or Chicago but Republican-run, reliably right-wing states that lead the nation in gun violence rates."

  • Elizabeth Spiers [09-12] Charlie Kirk's legacy deserves no mourning: "The white Christian nationalist provocateur wasn't a promoter of civil discourse. He preached hate, bigotry, and division."

  • Elie Mystal [09-12]: How to canonize a white supremacist: "On the brutal murder of Charlie Kirk, the certain blowback, and this country's raging gun problem." One piece Mystal spend some time critiquing is Ezra Klein [09-11]: Charlie Kirk was practicing politics the right way.

  • Zach Beauchamp

    • [09-12]: Let's be honest about Charlie Kirk's life — and death: "We can hold two thoughts in our head at the same time." Sure, but oddly enough the right can't do honest: to them it's only how can this help us and/or hurt them (which in their zero-sum worldview amount to the same)? People who can hold two thoughts can be conflicted. They can feel ambivalent. They can act confused. Carried too far, felt too intensely, they can be schizophrenic: floundering, acting in contradictory ways, even lapsing into catatonia. The right have it so much easier. They're wrong, but at least they're sure of themselves. They can act, boldly, decisively, Too bad they're sociopaths.

      Ok, I'm just riffing on the line. The article sticks to its subject. Beauchamp says, "I want you to think about two sentences," but when I do I'm not sure the distinction they make is significant, or even that he's deciphering them right. Inflection, which isn't clear written down, would reveal more than order. He cites a lot of pieces (some cited elsewhere in this section, some I'm not bothering with), then attempts to draw a set of "red lines" around what one can and cannot say, proscribing every other possible reaction — especially ones that are quite natural for those who have been personally injured by Kirk's bigotry. I'm not saying Beauchamp's wrong, and I agree that conscientious leftists should avoid unnecessary offense, but before Kirk and his cohort can lecture us on how to speak, they need to show some discretion themselves.

    • [09-11]: Our country is not prepared for this: "On the horrible murder of Charlie Kirk — and the threat to democracy it created."

  • Christian Paz [09-12]: How Charlie Kirk remade Gen Z: "Three reasons his message resonated so strongly with young conservatives." The third is the most interesting: "He tapped into a nascent oppositional culture on campuses, and among youth." I don't really get how or why, or even how much, but this doesn't seem right, and certainly not necessarily so.

  • Jamelle Bouie [09-13]: Charlie Kirk didn't shy away from who he was. We shouldn't either.

    It is sometimes considered gauche, in the world of American political commentary, to give words the weight of their meaning. As this thinking goes, there might be real belief, somewhere, in the provocations of our pundits, but much of it is just performance, and it doesn't seem fair to condemn someone for the skill of putting on a good show.

    But Kirk was not just putting on a show. He was a dedicated proponent of a specific political program. He was a champion for an authoritarian politics that backed the repression of opponents and made light of violence against them. And you can see Kirk's influence everywhere in the Trump administration, from its efforts to strip legal recognition from transgender Americans to its anti-diversity purge of the federal government.

    Also notable by Bouie:

    • [09-10]: They don't want to live in Lincoln's America: A "response, of sorts, to Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri, whose speech for 'national conservatives' was a direct rebuke of the creedal nationalism of the Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg." I'm not surprised that right-wingers should hate iconic credos of American liberalism like "all men are created equal" and "government of, by, and for the people" -- I save my own ire for the avowed liberals who are so quick to sell their fellow citizens out. But it's rare, and perhaps a sign of the times, to see "conservatives" like Schmitt come out so explicitly against the original aspirations of American patriotism.

    • [08-27] We are not 'property of Donald Trump'. "The White House does not belong to Donald Trump. It is the property of the United States -- of the American people." "The Smithsonian Institution does belong to Donald Trump, either." Yet Trump feels entitled to remake both in his own image, with no consult or consideration of anyone else.

  • John Ganz [09-13] Reflections on violence: "Two reasons for Kirk's murder." The 2nd amendment, and the 1st. I don't particularly agree with either explanation, or with the first section below: I think it's possible to objectively distinguish hate speech, and that it should also be protected as free speech, although one should also be free to reply, even in kind. The real variable is power (as the 2nd section below notes), and that is not symmetrical either in fact or in theory: it is almost invariably the right that feels entitled to suppress the speech of others, or to require that their own favored speech be propagated, because their notion of order requires power to establish and maintain, and cannot withstand scrutiny. (I'm not denying that there are people who identify with the left who are tempted to take up the tools of the right, especially when they have been victimized, and that such people become more and more dangerous as they gain power, but it is not their leftness that drives them to abuse power — it is power itself.)

    It's long been my contention that almost no one really believes in free speech in principle; people believe free speech is what we do, hate speech is what they do. It's actually a difficult principle to hold to without contradiction. . . .

    Norms of civility are also impossible to enforce without abrogating someone's freedom of expression. For instance, some believe that at this time one should refrain from criticizing Kirk and his ilk. That's an exercise of power. Calls to decorum exist to circumscribe what can be said. . . .

    I think Charlie Kirk made the country a worse place. I believe his murder makes the country even worse. But I also won't engage in the dirty rhetorical trick that slyly suggests that a speaker created the unruly conditions for his own murder, as that late lamented beau idéal of civility, William F. Buckley, once did about Martin Luther King Jr. I opposed both the substance and form of Kirk's politics and still do. That's my opinion, and I feel it's a reasonable opinion shared by many — by millions in fact — although there are now efforts to drown it out as being unacceptable and disrespectful to the dead. I consider such talk tantamount to intimidation and blackmail, and I resent it. It's the same kind of droning idiocy and enforced conformity that led us from 9/11 to the destruction of civil liberties and to disaster in Iraq.

  • Media Matters [09-10] Fox News host on mentally ill people who commit crimes: "Just kill them": Brian Kilmeade. Given the people Trump has pardoned, and the ones he wants to prosecute, it's hard to give him or any other Republican any credit for anything they say about "law and order."

  • Intelligencer Staff [09-12] Charlie Kirk's assassination and the manhunt for his killer: What happened: "A running account of the shooting and its aftermath." This is the first piece on the shooter I've seen, and as one of the subtitles puts it, "Misinformation about the suspect is all over the place." As I tried to point out before, I don't really care what his motivations and/or identities are. But one tweet by Zachary D Carter seems fairly plausible:

    I see no point in searching for left/right valence in Tyler Robinson. He fits the school shooter archetype: young, disaffected, ideologically amorphous, extremely online and raised in gun culture. The theater of such violence is just expanding to include political assassination.

  • Joseph L Flatley [09-11]: Death of a troll "Charlie Kirk, 1993-2025." Like the author, one of the first things I thought of on hearing of Kirk's assassination was the 1967 assassination of George Lincoln Rockwell. Maybe Kirk wasn't as flagrant a Nazi as Rockwell, but Rockwell never had a shred of respectability or influence, and his killing had no discernible consequences or import. It merely removed a shit stain of an individual from the public eye. Kirk differs not in being a better person but in having rich and powerful promoters, who still seek to use his death for their own gain. One thing I had forgotten was that Rockwell was killed by one of his own disgruntled followers. Makes sense. Who else would consider him worthy of a bullet? By the way, good pull quote here: "Charlie Kirk died as he lived — making very little sense."

Tweets: I've usually used this section for highlighting clever responses and/or interesting ideas, but maybe I should just use it to bookmark some of our leading horribles.

  • Donald J Trump:

    • The Museums throughout Washington, but all over the Country are, essentially, the last remaining segment of "WOKE." The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been — Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made. This Country cannot be WOKE, because WOKE is BROKE. We have the "HOTTEST" Country in the World, and we want people to talk about it, including in our Museums.

    • Here's another one, which seems to be Trump reminiscing about his days as a Democrat:

      The confused and badly failing Democrat Party did nothing about Jeffrey Epstein while he was alive except befriedn him, socialize with him, travel to his island, and take his money! They knew everything there was to know about Epstein, but now, years after his death, they, out of nowhere, are seeming to show such love and heartfelt concern for his victims. Does anyone really believe' that? Where were they during his very public trials, and for all of those years before his death? The answer is, "nowhere to be found." The now dying (after the DOJ gave thousands of pages of documents in full compliance with a very comprehensive and exacting Subpoena from Congress!) Epstein case was only brought back to life by the Radical Left Democrats because they are doing so poorly, with the lowest poll numbers in the history of the Party (16%), while the Republicans are doing so well, among the highest approval numbers the Party has ever had! The Dems don't care about the victims, as proven by the fact that they never did before. This is merely another Democrat HOAX, just like Russia, Russia, Russia, and all of the others, in order to deflect and distract from the great success of a Republican President, and the record setting failure of the previous administration, and the Democrat Party. The Department of Justice has done its job, they have given everything requested of them, it's time to end the Democrat Epstein Hoax, and give the Republicans credit for the great, even legendary, job that they are doing. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

  • I've seen several this several times, without a source:

    Behold. The festering carcass of American rot shoved into an ill-fitting suit: the sleaze of a conman, the cowardice of a draft dodger, the gluttony of a parasite, the racism of a Klansman, the sexism of a back-alley creep, the ignorance of a bar-stool drunk, and the greed of a hedge-fund ghoul—all spray-painted orange and paraded like a prize hog at a county fair. Not a president. Not even a man. Just the diseased distillation of everything this country swears it isn't but has always been—arrogance dressed up as exceptionalism, stupidity passed off as common sense, cruelty sold as toughness, greed exalted as ambition, and corruption worshiped like gospel. It is America's shadow made flesh, a rotting pumpkin idol proving that when a nation kneels before money, power, and spite, it doesn't just lose its soul—it shits out this bloated obscenity and calls it a leader.

    I would have left out the "draft dodger" bit, which I consider a mark of real courage (although not really in Trump's case).

  • cassius marcellus clay [08-23]: [PS: sorry, lost the link]

    in 10 yrs dem voters asks have gone from "please improve something" to "please stop trump/fix what is being broken" to "you dont even need to accomplish anything just pretend to have the same contempt for the GOP that you do for your voters" and the answer has been "no, send us $3" every time

  • Doris Ravenfeather Gent [08-17]: Meme with picture of Putin and caption: "we did not get Trump elected because we like Trump. We hate America, and he is weak and stu pid, and that is good for us." Gent comments:

    No doubt this is Putin's thought process . . . it may not be an actual quote, but definitely believable . . . Because Trump is weak and Stupid and very manipulative! . . . Annnd, Agent Krasnov is and has been an asset for Putin all along.

    I seriously doubt this, on many counts (not Trump being weak and stupid; while that clearly hurts America, how, or whether, that helps Russia is a different; but first you have to figure out what Putin wants, rather than just assuming he started with hating America, and deriving everything from that, projecting your own global ambitions onto a country with limited means for attaining them). I am saddened to say that the meme was forwarded by a local leftist friend, who isn't normally affiliated with the warmongering Democratic cabal, which just goes to show how poorly the world is understood by even our friends, and how much work it's going to take

  • Nate Silver: not a direct link to something that evidently appeared on X (where it looks like an attempt to flatter the algorithm). Normally "more" is followed by "than" (not "that"), but that incoherency is easily lost in trying to imagine what the fuck "Blueskyism" might possibly mean, especially if you assume that it must fit somewhere in the remaining tangle of nebulous concepts.

    Electorally speaking it's more important for Democrats to avoid Blueskyism that leftism. Not that Bluesky is important but it embodies all the characteristics that make progressivism unappealing to normal people. If you could subtract those the left would win more often.

    Kim draws more conclusions from this than I would, including, "he's a miserable being choosing a miserable life when choosing the be less miserable requires so little action from him." I'm more of the view that he's a spreader of misery than a victim.

  • Dave Roberts [09-01]: Tweet and additional comments, something that could have been said more succinctly and calmly in 2 or 3 paragraphs, but for the record, let's unravel it here:

    To me, the lesson of the pandemic is a very familiar one, although as far as I can tell, no one is talking about it or learning it (which is also familiar). It's about the contrast between America's two political parties.

    When Covid popped up, the parties' reactions were extremely on brand.

    Dems, America's A students, scrambled to do the responsible thing. Strained, sweated to do the responsible thing, to be seen doing the responsible thing, to get the gold star from the (imaginary) teacher.

    Now, of course there were lots of decisions made by Dems in the heat of crisis, with insufficient information, facing no-win trade-offs, that one could go back and second guess. (Indeed, that is US pundits' favorite indoor sport!) Perhaps you would have made the trade-offs differently.

    But the entire Dem professional establishment was desperately trying to do the right thing & be responsible.

    Contrast: immediately upon the arrival of the virus, the right started spreading insane conspiracy theories, attacking public health officials, & refusing to act in solidarity.

    At every single second, they worked their hardest to destroy trust, to foment doubt & anger & resentment, to prevent solidarity.

    And those lies mattered. The vaccine skepticism deliberately spread by the right led to 100s of 1000s of preventable deaths. Again: they caused mass death.

    And then afterward -- this is the part that makes me feel crazy -- all the retrospective analysis & discussion shit on Democrats. They've been on the defense ever since, criticized from all quarters for this or that decision. Much of that criticism is fact-free bullshit, but . . .

    . . . even if you buy it all, surely the party that worked desperately to save lives & end the pandemic deserves more credit, a higher grade, than the party that worked desperately to spread lies & get people killed! Surely they're not the ones that should be apologizing!

    But it's always like this. Democrats try to do the right thing. They fall short, like humans do. Everyone teams up to shit on them.

    Republicans don't even bother pretending. They lie, they smear, they destroy lives, they get people killed, & they face NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

    Somehow our diseased information environment has produced the net outcome that the pandemic is considered a political problem for Dems, not the party that lied about it & got people killed at every juncture. The party that tried, but not perfectly, to save lives, is being forced to apologize.

    I've written a million threads on this theme, it's pointless, I know. But it's insane. Dems have to try, to be responsible, to please everyone. Republicans just have to jump around like fucking gibbons, throwing shit at the wall, and if they occasionally, accidentally hit something . . .

    . . . it's their targets who must apologize. They're never held responsible for the lies. Never held responsible for getting so many people killed. Never held responsible for anything. It's just the people who care, who try, that we hold responsible, that we shit on & demonize. Never the gibbons.

    Think about it. "Dems were too zealous in trying to prevent the spread of the virus" is, in US politics, a greater disadvantage, a bigger problem, than "Republican lies got hundreds of thousands of Americans killed for no reason."

    Just a pathetic fucking country. Pathetic.

    Adding one thing: this whole dynamic is neatly replicated around the issue of climate change. Dems take shit constantly: they're acting too fast, too slow, doing the wrong things, focusing on the wrong tech, bad Dems!

    GOP gibbons just throw shit & lies & block all policy & that's fine I guess.

    Dems care, and try, and for that are punished.

    GOP lies, hurts people, doesn't give a shit, and is rewarded.

    Various comments, including this from Ben Weinberg:

    The way this pathetic state of affairs is such a mass scale self-inflicted regression feels unique to our history. While people went thru far worse for the good of the country, this is the most unsympathetic populace we've ever had.

    My belief is that big tech decided technofascism was preferable to regulation and tried to align algorithms to that in late 2021-22. The idea of a shift absent that just doesn't hold up.

    I don't put a huge amount of stock in the notion that Democrats care where Republicans don't. Another way of looking at this is to go back to Karl Rove's argument that Democrats are bound to study reality, while Republicans are free and bold enough to act and, thereby, create their own better reality. Democrats responded to this by embracing the "reality-based community," but it also locked them into an orbit of conventional thinking where it became impossible to do anything that wasn't underwritten by their corporate sponsors. In effect, they substituted their own phony reality, which constrained them as apologists for the status quo. Democrats sometimes remind me of the "shoot and cry" Israelis, who could never see a way to avoid a war they were bound to regret. And while they could point to their crying as proof that they're living, caring humans, they're effectively no different from the shameless right-wingers they hope to guilt-trip. It's a losing proposition, because if you're going to shoot anyway, it makes sense to go with the side that's really into shooting.

  • Bari Weiss [09-12]: Matthew Yglesias responded to this, adding that "the core of free speech and a liberal society is precisely that I don't need to agree with the hagiographic accounts of Kirk's life and work to find his murder unacceptable and chilling."

    Someone in the newsroom said that this shattering event feels like the aftermath of another Charlie: Charlie Hebdo. It was a decade ago that Islamists burst into the offices of the satirical Paris newspaper and murdered 12 people who worked there.

    One similarity was that the killings were condemned by people all across the left-right political spectrum, as opposed to the killings that are only condemned by the left. Another similarity is that in both these cases, the right jumped on their victimhood as an excuse to foment violence against their supposed enemies. One might contrast this with, say, the bombing of Gaza, where several US Senators skipped the "hopes and prayers" and jumped straight into cheers and jeers, like "finish the job!"

  • Keith Edwards [09-12]: asks "Why did Laura Loomer delete this [tweet from 7/13/25]?"

    I don't ever want to hear @charliekirk11 claim he is pro-Trump ever again. After this weekend, I'd say he has revealed himself as political opportunist and I have had a front row seat to witness the mental gymnastics these last 10 years.

    Lately, Charlie has decided to behave like a charlatan, claiming to be pro-Trump one day while he stabs Trump in the back the next.

    Here's another (or possibly just longer) Loomer tweet attacking Kirk. Evidently Kirk's treason against Trump was in criticizing Trump's Israel-directed bombing of Iran.

  • erictastic:

    He was killed on camera. No one's family deserves to have to witness that. It's unthinkably cruel that people would then go on the internet and use their platform to say about an innocent man that "I don't care that he's dead." "He's not a hero." "He's a scumbag." "He shouldn't be celebrated."

    I'm talking about George Floyd. You thought I was talking about Charlie Kirk? No, those are actual quotes BY Charlie Kirk about George Floyd. Outrageous that anyone would say that of the dead, right?

    Further down my Facebook feed, I ran across this, which quoted California D governor Gavin Newsom:

    I knew Charlie, and I admired his passion and commitment to debate. His senseless murder is a reminder of how important it is for all of us, across the political spectrum, to foster genuine discourse on issues that deeply affect us all without resorting to political violence.

    The best way to honor Charlie's memory is to continue his work: engage with each other, across ideology, through spirited discourse. In a democracy, ideas are tested through words and good-faith debate — never through violence.

    I shouldn't complain about safe pablum coming from politicians, who know better than most that anything else will get them crucified. I also don't mind the occasional ironic twist that presents a foe as an unwitting ally, as long as it is remotely credible and/or amusing. But this is more than a bit excessive, and it makes you wonder who Newsom knows, and why.

Current count: 321 links, 19901 words (25023 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.